Loss of Privacy

Jules Mattson was detained by UK police for doing nothing other than taking a photograph. When he repeatedly asked what law he was being detained under, the police’s story kept changing, from being a nuisance to a threat under the terrorism act.

According an audio recording of the incident, the police officer argued, at first, that it was illegal to take photographs of children, before adding that it was illegal to take images of army members, and, finally, of police officers. When asked under what legislation powers he was being stopped, the police officer said that Mattsson presented a threat under anti-terrorism laws. The photographer was pushed down on stairs and detained until the end of the parade and after the intervention of three other photographers.

Apparently, these police still haven’t gotten the memo that members of the public can take photographs in public places. It’s especially distasteful, given the fact that the Met just had to pay damages to two photographers for a similar incident.

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

For the past few years, incidents of innocent citizens being arrested for taking photos of the police has been increasing. The police, apparently fear this more than being shot at or stabbed and believe that they can’t do their job if someone is watching them. Now, they want the right not to be photographed while in the course of doing their jobs.

Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: “For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man.”

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

It is highly hypocritical that the police have no problem filming ordinary citizens at their whim, however, they do not want the reverse to be done to them. Normal citizens are told every day that they should have no expectation of privacy in public, so why should to police be exempt from this policy as well?

The police are civil servants. If we do not watch them, who will? They get to carry a badge and a gun and get to tell people what they can and can’t do, the people get to film you. It’s that simple. If you do not like it, do not become a police officer. We are too far past the point of automatic trust. Until the police stop lying and become trustworthy, we should never take their word for what occurred.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

If this is the case, how are cctv in stores exempt from this police? If you go in and rob a store, you have not given consent to be video taped. Is any video of you captured then inadmissible in court? I would be surprised if it wasn’t.

Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,” the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

This should be happening in every state. If you are placed in a position of authority over people, there should be checks on your behavior and actions to ensure everyone is treated equally. It’s a start, but more people need to involved to change this nationwide.

You can start by writing to your senators and congressmen and ask them to draft a bill and pass it into law that would create a federal law allowing the recording of police officers.

If you haven’t, here’s a letter from a user on reddit to get the ball rolling. Remember, personalize it in some way and it’s always best to send a handwritten letter instead of a form letter. If you must email it, you can contact your representatives in Congress here.

Dear [your Representative] :

I am a person who believes the primary role of government is to protect its citizens. That role shines beautifully throughout the Bill of Rights, a document that rightfully limits the federal government’s ability to encroach on the people. Since then many laws have acted to abridge freedom rather than preserve it. I am asking that you to proactively take a much needed step to, like the Bill of Rights before, define, for the benefit of the citizenry, an inalienable right that should not be ignored: the freedom to photograph and record on-duty law enforcement.

Nearly every police department, if not all of them, employs the use of recording devices during traffic stops by the way of dash-cam videos, in interrogation rooms, inmate telephone calls from corrections facilities, and so on. Since the camera never lies, these recordings are often used to build a case against offenders. Every action is scrutinized, allowing prosecutors to maximize the number of charges against an offender. However, when it comes to the rights of the citizens to protect themselves with an unblinking, ever-truthful record of an interaction with the police, or if a person chooses to peacefully and un-obstructively document the actions of the police, his liberty is trampled on by an officer who acts out of a desire, more often than not, to protect his own image and position rather than protecting and serving the people. Unfortunately, the occasional bullying that citizen photographers receive from law enforcement is supported by the District Attorneys who choose to prosecute such erroneous and fabricated charges as obstruction, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. A recent occurrence can be seen on a report from Baltimore’s WMAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30

I am asking you to help create parity when it comes to the rights of both law enforcement and the citizens to record one another. Citizens should be free from interference and bullying from both officers who may decide to step outside of their defined role, and from prosecutors who choose to maliciously punish individuals who want to protect themselves with a recording. Please take the lead in upholding our nation’s tradition of limiting government and protecting its citizens by authoring a bill unequivocally protecting the rights of the people to photograph law enforcement.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[your name]

I actually email my representatives quite often. My Congressman and one Senator always call me back. Not surprisingly, Ben Nelson never calls back, but he’s an asshat who is on the opposite side from me so I don’t expect he will ever return a call. I live in a small town and I don’t think many people call, write or email. After a few months of doing this, I’ve come home with messages on my answering machine (yes, I still have a landline) to call them back.

Once, Senator Johann’s called and spoke to me for over an hour about net neutrality. Both Senator Johanns and Rep. Smith have always answered my letters, though Rep. Smith sometimes sends form letters back. I’m a registered independent in a very republican state, but I make sure my voice is heard.

It does work, though responses may vary. If enough people take the time to just write once a month, they will sit up and listen.

Only you can make your representatives pay attention and look at changing the law. If you don’t participate, you can’t blame anyone but yourself when a law comes back on you. Get writing.

I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! is inviting all photographers and those who support photographers to Trafalgar Square this Saturday for a mass photo gathering to defend public photography.

Following a series of high profile detentions under s44 of the terrorism act including 7 armed police detaining an award winning architectural photographer in the City of London, the arrest of a press photographer covering campaigning santas at City Airport and the stop and search of a BBC photographer at St Pauls Cathedral and many others. PHNAT feels now is the time for a mass turnout of Photographers, professional and amateur to defend our rights and stop the abuse of the terror laws.

There’s no excuse for harassing photographers. If you’re in London or can easily get there, please go and support photographers.