I wonder if this means it’s also now illegal to set down any bag if it contains a camera-equipped cel phone? As ever, vague wording opens the door to potentially strange abuses in the future — and as the video clip below points out, in some cases the rules require photographers to do the impossible, such as leave eight feet of open passage space on a six-foot-wide sidewalk.

This WJHL story asks the same question, reporting that Conover was arrested for snapping a cel phone picture of Johnson County Sheriff’s Deputy Starling McCloud — a deputy who reported that the phone was “a threat” and that he was “in fear of serious bodily injury or death” — and who thus arrested Conover for “unlawful photography” and alleged that Conover’s iPhone “pointed a laser” at him, though iPhones have no laser, flash, or other illuminating devices.

“Despite repeated requests there has been no legitimate reason given why police photographers should be photographically cataloguing journalists going about their lawful business,” wrote NUJ secretary Jeremy Dear.

In the past days, the Home Secretary’s response has surfaced, and has again been reported in the BJP. In a move widely seen as chilling to media throughout the country, Secretary Jacqui Smith has essentially given carte blanche to local police.

While prefacing her comments with “the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places … Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place,” the letter then goes on to state that local police should be allowed to interpret te legality of their own actions for unspecified “reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved….”

“It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.”

I guess this policy will save a lot of effort — no need for those pesky courts if we can just let the Chief Constable decide on the spot.

Today, the NUJ has issued a new statement regarding governement and media freedoms after a judicial revew that protected much of the confidential information of member Shiv Omar, who had previously been ordered to turn over to police materials he had obtained for a still-unpublished book.

Jeremy Dear: “”We’re pleased the judges have gone some way in supporting journalists … They have clearly indicated that the police cannot go on vague fishing expeditions in the hope that something will turn up.”

Handcuffs, officers acting “like unleashed dogs,” a visit to the back of a squad car, and deleted pictures ensued for Owens, but with a twist: Owens recovered the pix using aftermarket software. We’re not sure what he used, but it might have been something like CardRaider. The photos themselves can be sen in the video from News On 6.

Owens is asking for an apology from Oklahoma police: “I want them on TV. I want them to step up and say ‘Hey, our officers acted like they were the criminals.’”

A little more employee training needed, perhaps?

(By coincidence, PhotoPermit turned four years old this weekend — thanks to all for your ongoing support!)

Also picked up by the BBC.

According to the P-I blog, the new policy says that officers can take action against bystanders if:

1. * The safety of the officer or suspect is jeopardized.
2. * People interfere or violate the law.
3. * People threaten others by words or action, or they attempt to incite others to violate the law.

Related forum thread (thanks Roger!)

O’Connor’s game, currently titled Our Courts and due next year, is an educational role-playing title where gamers assume the character of figures in the US court system - judge, attorney, etc. — the goal for students will be to “teach them how to think through and analyze problems, take action and voice opinions to their elected representatives.”

What does this have to do with PhotoPermit? It’s expected that the game will deal with educating students about their First Amendment rights, using real-world example cases like Tinker v. Des Moines and Morse vs Frederick (aka “Bong Hits For Jesus”).

O’Connor said that she is “encouraged” to see young people becoming involved in political campaigns through the net. “E-mailing, blogging, networking on Facebook — they can take leadership, make their voices heard through tools that belong to their generation. We need to give them ownership to allow them to interact with the material.”

…The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.

And reminds us to remind the haters: prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR.

The guards radioed their superiors, and soon someone else came out from campus. This did not take long… When he arrived, he told me I could not take pictures there, and that if I did not stop, he would call someone. By this point I was wondering what action, beyond calling someone ELSE, these people would take if confronted by someone truly intent on harm, and not merely confronted by someone whose only offense was to legally wield a camera. So, again, I encouraged him to make the call. He did, someone else came out, and the someone else told me that I had to stop taking pictures, and that if I didn’t he would call somebody. Once again, I said I was in the right, that they could not prohibit me taking pictures in a public space, and I asked him to please call somebody else in…

The “somebody else” ended up bringing out a video camera of their own — apparently feeling that it’s not absurd to record someone while telling them that photography is not permitted. Or maybe a taste for hypocrisy is a job requirement.

Mac has clearly done his homework here, and his post contains some useful info on Quebec legal precedents too. Why? As Mac writes:

McGill tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public space; I have an obligation, I believe, to stand in opposition to what I would characterize as an authoritarian mentality. I also have an obligation to publicize McGill’s behavior as widely as possible. This, unfortunately, is how too many institutions and their security apparatuses behave, and they will continue to do so as long as they feel they can get away with it. That is, they will continue for as long as we fail to offer opposition. And we cannot offer opposition if such behavior remains unpublicized.

Related forum thread.