DSLRUsers.com

A letter in the Age newspaper this morning 30/12/05 !!!!

My fist question would be "What is the law that prohibits photography in this area please officer?"


Subversive shots of a Geelong sunset

A NEIGHBOUR and a friend, who has been in this country with his wife for more than 50 years, is an expert photographer and a judge at photographic competitions around Australia. On a beautiful night just before Christmas he was taking photos around Geelong, where he lives, taking in the sunset over Corio Bay. Some shots were of the Shell oil refinery against the backdrop of that sunset. That same night, at 9.30pm, two policemen arrived and questioned him about photos taken of the refinery. He was warned not to take similar photos again, and was told also to tell members of his camera club that photos of industrial complexes around Geelong were now prohibited.

No doubt some will say that the new anti-terrorism laws are working, and working well. My response is to desperately hope that the Coalition is not elected at the next election, and that the new government tears up the laws (my first option).

I guess that my friends and neighbours can thank their lucky stars their house wasn't surrounded by storm-troopers.
Graeme Angus, Bell Post Hill

The question I would ask, with due respect of course, would be in what way was the prohibition established. By statute, or otherwise.

And how did the police know to come to this guy's house? Do we assume that someone reported his activitiy and had his car rego number?

Very odd.

exactly!! I have no problem with police checking on what he was doing but telling him not to photograph a public space is way out of line.

Maybe some phone calls to Geelong police to check the law may be in order? I think I may give them a call Just to check what is going on

The problem with the new laws is just what your friend encountered. They can, and no doubt will, be used indiscriminately. The authorities no longer have to justify their actions, and there is no watchdog to make sure that the sweeping powers are not misused. I have grave reservations about giving any government such draconian power. We might as well be living under a dictatorship. Some one, much wiser than I, said something about not being able to limit democracy without destroying it.

I just rang Geelong police and they know nothing of any new laws!!!

They suggested I ring the refinery, when I told the office it was the police who had warned the guy, the officer he sounded very embarrassed and said he knew nothing about this???

Greg B wrote:
And how did the police know to come to this guy's house? Do we assume that someone reported his activitiy and had his car rego number?

Very odd.

It sounds like somebody did open up that anti-terrorism handout circulating through the mail some time ago.

or take note of that commercial on tv

The fridge magnet works!

It is probably a good thing that the fridge magnet works but..............why once the police established that your friend was not a terrorist casing a target but just a photog, would they not back off?

Oneputt wrote:It is probably a good thing that the fridge magnet works but..............why once the police established that your friend was not a terrorist casing a target but just a photog, would they not back off?

Not only they didn't back off, but they told him to warn other members of his camera club.

It's just such a shame that simple common sense (which I've found to be not that common these days!) doesn't seem to apply anymore... It seems more important to gain some form of power or ego boost to those that have a badge...

I'm all for genuine efforts of protection, but all too often it just seems that rather than adopt a simple and co-operative approach of simply "seeing what the guy with the camera is up to", a more big brother approach is used, it smacks of an ego boost thing... Then again, I wonder if we only hear of these negative/brain dead instances and that they're actually quite rare?

Does anyone really think a terrorist (that's the usual escape tag for these situations) would be using a "large SLR" on tripod etc? If the person was doing something that they're genuinely not permitted to do, then wouldn't you be less obvious?

If I was instructed that maybe it would be best to simply say OK, now can you please ID yourself (ie: badge number etc.) so I can check later to confirm whether you're correct or not?

The only way that governments can institute total control is by inducing an implied terror in the minds of the populace. Total control is just around the corner and our Johnny is leading the way.

History has shown that by using a populace against itself a government can take the most draconian measures in the name of survival of its supposed democracy. The Geheime Staatspolizei who formed Dept A (enemies against the State) is an excellent example along with the Russian equivalent, CHEKA or GPU.

How long will it be before one of our members disappears for a period of time

I think that's what I would do.. I'd simply say 'no worries officer. Can I just have your badge number so I can check it out when I get home. If they have nothing to hide and it's truly banned, i'm sure they'd gladly give you the badge number, but if they squirm their way out of it, it would confirm what you thought to be the case.

Of course, at the heat of the moment, I'd probably find I wouldn't think of the above, or have the nerve to question it. Maybe everyone needs to start bluffing these people.. Eg. Police, security guards etc, and asking for badge numbers to put the shoe on the other foot and put fear of getting them into trouble for those that are just on a power trip. If there truly is a law, then so be it, but if there isn't, that cop or security guard will think twice about trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Geoff

mudder wrote:It's just such a shame that simple common sense (which I've found to be not that common these days!) doesn't seem to apply anymore... It seems more important to gain some form of power or ego boost to those that have a badge...

I'm all for genuine efforts of protection, but all too often it just seems that rather than adopt a simple and co-operative approach of simply "seeing what the guy with the camera is up to", a more big brother approach is used, it smacks of an ego boost thing... Then again, I wonder if we only hear of these negative/brain dead instances and that they're actually quite rare?

Does anyone really think a terrorist (that's the usual escape tag for these situations) would be using a "large SLR" on tripod etc? If the person was doing something that they're genuinely not permitted to do, then wouldn't you be less obvious?

If I was instructed that maybe it would be best to simply say OK, now can you please ID yourself (ie: badge number etc.) so I can check later to confirm whether you're correct or not?

gleff wrote:I think that's what I would do.. I'd simply say 'no worries officer. Can I just have your badge number so I can check it out when I get home. If they have nothing to hide and it's truly banned, i'm sure they'd gladly give you the badge number, but if they squirm their way out of it, it would confirm what you thought to be the case.

You could always just take a photo of the person (whether they are a police officer or security guard doesn't matter). In public places in Australia nobody has a right NOT to be photographed.

http://photopermit.org/

Happy Holidays and good luck snappiing those pics!

Abet

abet - I don't think that they would be much help in Australia

While sitting in the Qantas club with the family a few days ago in Melb I wanted to take out my D70 with the 80~400VR and snap a few shots of planes as I was in an ideal position to do so. I though twice about it because of possible recourse. It was the first time I had given such a situation any thought.

This article and this thread has me now giving this a lot more thought. Will these laws and or how the public see photograpghy drive us to only using our camera's in our own homes and studio's? I dam hope not. How will these kind of reports effort the greater commercial aspect of the industry? However compared to the petroluem industry we are insignificant.

However I do sense it's getting harder and harder for photographers to be open and genuine when shooting outdoors. We have seen posts about Dad's and Mum's taking pics of their kids at school and or sporting events and being challenged.

Will we see an under ground black movement of urban landscape photographers. This is a big issue that will nodoubt need and get a lot of debate. A great discussion thanks.

Mark

Mark we are all under fire in some way shape or form taking pics in public.
I used to be concerned but now i take the approach, shoot and be critisised later. No Sign, No problem.
jethro

Jethro,

Thanks for your comment. I guess I do / have in most circumstances just reading the thread and looking at a few other web sites based on the same theme it does make you think twice. I just wonder where the craft will be in 20 years times.

Mark

I don't know about you guys and gals, but i will not be deterred by anyone when it comes to taking photos anywhere, except private property or where there are signs prohibiting photography (Legal signs of course.)

I was in Singapore about 18 months ago. One night, near boat quay, there was a largish fireworks display (I think it was for the mid-Autumnal festival). Loads of photogs, both the professional and hobbyist variety. Plenty of serious lenses, tripods and what not. Right next to the river is the Singaporean Parliament, a colonial style building. http://tinyurl.com/dl37n

After the fireworks ended and most of the crowd had left, I started taking some long exposure shots of the parliament (this was pre-D70 era, I had a Sony V1). Everything went swimmingly for about half an hour. A frenchman turned up and was taking shots next to me with a tiny little webcam type tripod. I felt sorry for the bugger lying prostrate and offered him my tripod, we started a conversation. In less than 5 minutes a couple of cops rolled up, and the inquisition began. They made us delete our memory cards (apparently one couldnt take pictures of state buildings). I can safely say at that time, there was no information anywhere that I had come across that stated this. I had been snapping many structures in the few months prior to the incident without any problems. (I was using the book, "Historic Buildings of Singapore" http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.cfm?SBNum=31310).

Neither of us had our passports, which then required a trip to the police station for a report to be made, but nothing seemed to be happening, we just sat around. I had asked them whether it would speed things up if I went back to my service apartment and collected my passport, but nooo, I might flee, so they couldnt do that, evn with a police escort. Two bloody hours later and I finally managed to speak to an inspector who was sympathetic to my plight. He had been educated in Melbourne and explained to me the problem - the lack of passport, my swarthy skin, my parents being born in a country where terrorism is active (Sri Lanka, but me being bred an Australian had no impact), hanging around with a non-english speaking person who I claimed to not know (the frenchman), the book on buildings and that I took so much time taking the shots meant that I was a suspected terrorist. I think the worst thing was that they couldnt understand a word the french guy was speaking, therefore the stories werent corroborating according to them. Get a damn translator!

It comes down to mindless idiots that perceives such activities as "dangerous" enough to justify informing the pigs (via the terrorist hotline, triple zero or otherwise), that gets the "offender" a visit from officers.

"If you witness anyone engaging in suspicious activities or planning a terrorist attack, keep it to yourself and don't tell anyone anything. Then, slash your wrists in warm water, tie a rope around your neck and go jump off a tall building. Stab yourself on the way down." This should be the advertising campaign subliminally delivered to the population to cleanse the gene pool.

gleff wrote:I think that's what I would do.. I'd simply say 'no worries officer. Can I just have your badge number so I can check it out when I get home. If they have nothing to hide and it's truly banned, i'm sure they'd gladly give you the badge number, but if they squirm their way out of it, it would confirm what you thought to be the case.

I have asked security guards for ID and they have refused It is worth ringing their head office and speaking to the manager and asking him the difficult questions the message soon goes down the line.

I for one will be writing to Vic police asking for details of the action.

Hi all,

great read of what has been experienced taking photos.
My little contribution:

a few months ago I was taking photos of the display of a jeweller store in the Canberra Centre.
One of the ladies from the store, she may have been the manager, came out and informed me that security had told her that I was taking photos.
I replied that one of her displays, which was depicting a funny character of a person in one of her displays, was the spitting image of a friend of mine.
I laughed, explained and she smiled - there are still good people around !

We said hello and good bye, no problems.

Regards,
CD

Are you going to post the photo?


Over the years I have been monstered, bullied, harassed & threatened. In Indonesia I even had a gun ( a 1911 colt .45 service issue pistol) put to my head!

I still take photos and love it, no one is going to stop me doing what I love!

I have been meaning to go and take some oil refinery photos for some time now I think I have a reason now !

My letter to Vic Police



The officer in charge
Geelong Police district
Geelong Police Station
110 Mercer St Geelong Vic 3220

This letter appeared in the in the Age newspaper 30/12/05

Subversive shots of a Geelong sunset
A NEIGHBOUR and a friend, who has been in this country with his wife for more than 50 years, is an expert photographer and a judge at photographic competitions around Australia. On a beautiful night just before Christmas he was taking photos around Geelong, where he lives, taking in the sunset over Corio Bay. Some shots were of the Shell oil refinery against the backdrop of that sunset. That same night, at 9.30pm, two policemen arrived and questioned him about photos taken of the refinery. He was warned not to take similar photos again, and was told also to tell members of his camera club that photos of industrial complexes around Geelong were now prohibited.

No doubt some will say that the new anti-terrorism laws are working, and working well. My response is to desperately hope that the Coalition is not elected at the next election, and that the new government tears up the laws (my first option).

I guess that my friends and neighbours can thank their lucky stars their house wasn't surrounded by storm-troopers.

Graeme Angus, Bell Post Hill





Can you please confirm this incident did occur and that taking photos of industrial complexes around Geelong is now prohibited?

I spend a lot of my time in Victoria photographing industrial sites like power stations and refineries and will often take photos of other sites as part of my assignments.

I was unaware of any changes to state or federal laws to prohibit photography from a public area other than defense department facilities.

I rang your station on Thursday 31/12/05 and spoke to an officer who said he was unaware of any such law or regulation regarding photography in the Geelong area. He suggested I contact you.

Yours sincerely



Doug Steley

Hi All,

Well I do hope I`m not about to get everyone offisde with my opinion on this matter, but I`m sure you guys will respect my views, as I do yours.

Firstly I do agree with everyones views about taking photos in public and there shouldnt be any problems or objections, especially when people like us have a passion for photography and no sinister motives.

But in todays climate with some factions of people who would plot/plan and carry out horrific acts on innocent people, we do need to be aware of what pople are doing around us. I can honestly say I would have thought someone would have rocks in their head ringing a hotline to say someone was taking photographs of some refinery 5 years ago, but nowerdays it can easily be seen as suspicious.

As for Graeme`s friend, there are a couple of issues here that need looking at. Firstly I am assuming Graeme was not privy to the conversation between his neighbour and the officers that attended.. I can say from first hand experience that some people can add insinuations and text into a story when telling their friends about what happened. The problem with second and third hand stories is that it tends to end up like a game of chinese whispers.

The second issue would be the conduct of the officers. If Graeme`s friend was treated as implied, these guys obviously need to lean a few more policing skills and perhaps better explain themselves when dealing with a member of the public. The best way to get someone off side would to give them a serve and then leave without fully clarrifying the situation to them. I believe that in this current climate, most people wouldnt have a problem with being spoken to if the whole situation was explained to them and they were spoken to in a decent manner. (Recently I was questioned at an airport by the Fed Police while taking photographs, and personally I was impressed that they did take the time to speak to me and ensure all was above board)

As for the suggestion of just snapping a photograph of them and this not being illegal; Well it probably isnt, but I would take it as just plain rude and showing the officer how immature you are. Again this I believe comes down to how you come accross to the person speaking to you and simply being open to hearing them out and then you asking for their details so this can be clarrified. As for a badge number, just take a look on the left side of the shirt pocket facing you, its all there name and number (police that is).

Finally, if some "sticky beak" rang the authorities to say something was suspicious about a persons conduct, and this information managed to halt some kind of horrendous act and save lives of our families... they would have my thanks!

Well I do hope I`ve not had anyone take offence to my opinions here as this wasnt the idea, just to try and show another side to this thread.

Have a great happy snappy 2006 !!

I was taking photos of a small waterfall into a waterhole at a tourist spot last week.
after taking a dozen or more pics at all different locations and angles i was confronted by a bloke who wanted to know why i was taking photos , where i intended to use them, and didn't seem really happy.
His daughter [about 10 ish] was one of the dozen or so people swimming there at the time.
i told him i was a photographer and would share the pics on websites etc and tried to show him the pics but he was not interested in seeing them.
made me feel guilty even though i really didn't notice his daughter.
when i checked the pics later i had two with his daughter in them.

Its made me wary about taking pics with people in them

Don't be wary, just tell them you are taking photos if they don't like it they can call the police. Offer to call the police for them if they get aggressive.

If you let them stop you then you are giving up a civil liberty that will be very difficult to get back.

Was there once a time when photography was seen as being a pretty hip passtime, and people would actually try to get in your photos? These days if I whip out my camera in public, I'm wondering whether the people around me think I'm a pervert, paedophile, or terrorist? I wonder if that gentleman sat down with an easel and some paints to capture the moment, would he still get the knock on the door later that night? Anyhow, who says terrorists don't use watercolours?

you fool! Middle eastern terrorists would use oil's not watercolours

Boom Boom