Taking pictures in the UK by tourists is VERBOTEN!

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism...

In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matka said: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries."...

Edited April 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

understandable, they were british.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would hope that this is just an example of badly trained, over zealous police officers, rather than an official policy - given:

A spokeswoman for Metropolitan police said: "It is not the police's intention to prevent tourists from taking photographs and we are looking to the allegations made." The force said it had no knowledge of any ban on photographing public transport in the capital.

But....

In NYC there are signs in the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Penn Station saying that you cannot take photographs inside.

Oddly enough there doesn't seem to be a problem with taking them in Grand Central.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Private Pike

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Security consequences due to past/future attacks.

They even go after google to fuzz out "sensitive" installations photos from space.

We were pretty stick around all the bases/ships I was stationed at.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Military facilities you'd understand - but not civilian transit infrastructure. That's taking it a little too far.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Military facilities you'd understand - but not civilian transit infrastructure. That's taking it a little too far.

Yeah, that is a little weird. I remember touring NORAD and they didn't let us take photos (but as said, that's understandable), but anywhere else it was okay.

I think some people might need some of these watches in the near future.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Military facilities you'd understand - but not civilian transit infrastructure. That's taking it a little too far.

Yeah, that is a little weird. I remember touring NORAD and they didn't let us take photos (but as said, that's understandable), but anywhere else it was okay.

I think some people might need some of these watches in the near future.

Given the prevalence of digital devices its near impossible to enforce that sort of ban anyway - unless you have people literally standing over you watching your every move.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Well - they have devices that can "scramble" recording devices (digital/analog) - so I wouldn't put it past them to do that.

Most of the time, "tap tap" on the shoulder, "please don't take pictures and let's erase what you have..." - it's easier to erase digital, all though, pulling out film and exposing the whole roll was a pain for everyone involved.

Most places have signs anyway, so ...

Since most military installations are "hard" to attack, civilian places are more prone to attack, "softer" if you will, which means innocent pictures could be used to plan an attack.

but your right, we shouldn't have to worry about stuff like that, but it's a tough ol' world out there sadly.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Military facilities you'd understand - but not civilian transit infrastructure. That's taking it a little too far.

Some countries (if you study tourist guides) such as India do have restrictions against photographing transport infrastructure such as bridges, police stations, rail-stations,...

(admittedly though, even these most oft don't have restrictions on photos of mofussil-bus stations).

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

When my Norwegian friend was studying in the states she was videoing her trip to our mall with her kids and security came up to her and asked her to delete her footage and not record because they were afraid of terrorist attacks.

[maliciant 7]

I have my doubts about photo's of a public place being a security risk... oh no, terrorists might plan an attack!!! Or a terrorist might take a bus ride or walk through that place and plan an attack... I think it might be more of a fear of a 'false' camera than a fear that pictures of a public place may get into the hands of terrorists (cause well, face it, just about any electric gadget these days could be a LOT more than it appears).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have my doubts about photo's of a public place being a security risk... oh no, terrorists might plan an attack!!! Or a terrorist might take a bus ride or walk through that place and plan an attack... I think it might be more of a fear of a 'false' camera than a fear that pictures of a public place may get into the hands of terrorists (cause well, face it, just about any electric gadget these days could be a LOT more than it appears).

It's pretty silly - what on earth is the security risk posed by photographs in public places where people can just walk in and have a look around for themselves?

[Peikko 1,575]

Planning Pike, planning - although, I am sure it's all in plain view if you just googlemap it

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

The security officers at the mall explained to my Norwegian friend that they didn't want someone capturing the structure of the building such as supporting beams along the ceiling and walls. That's about it.

[Kevin and 10]

You can't photograph police in the UK either.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm