This is a hot button issue for me; basically I take the attitude that I can photograph anything and anyone in a public place and I often do. You want to disagree, disagree any way you want, I'm ready.

US law is on my side; I'm engaged in a lawful activity in a public place. I will file Harassment charges against anyone who infringes upon my rights. I've done it.

In the US be guided by:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I am a little more circumspect elsewhere.

Here in the US, it might be perfectly <i>legal</i> to take pictures in public, but the reality of it is -- at least here in NYC -- if you're a suspicious looking fellow taking pictures of gov't or landmark buildings, there's a good chance you will be stopped and questioned. In fact, it happens all the time. It happened just a few weeks ago with guys on a boat near the GW bridge and it happened when police found some Iranian intelligence agents photographing subway tracks (I think it was the #7 but I don't recall).

We all know what the law says, but this is the way things have to be because of the world we live in.

oh, my goodness, should I turn myself in? Last fall when I was in London, I took pictures in Trafalgar Square of the Chinese protesters, and of course, several other people. In front of Buckingham Palace, I was taking a picture and right as I click away, some kids got in the way, and I have their picture. And lastly in Hyde Park, I took a picture of a grandfather and his grandchild feeding the ducks, very sweet picture.

Now, I wonder if I should turn myself in...

On the serious side, while I was in the train station going to Hampton Court, a man wanted to take a picture of his daughter in the train station, I heard a security guard telling him he couldn't take a picture, the man explained that he just wanted to take a picture of his daughter, the security officer told him that due to security, no pictures were allowed.

Makes total sense, though it is a sad sign of the times we live in.

CORRECTION...

&gt;&gt;And lastly in Hyde Park, I took a picture of a grandfather and his grandchild feeding the ducks, very sweet picture.&lt;&lt;

It was REGENT'S PARK, I wouldn't want the wrong police district to come after me.

Since there are children just about everywhere someone would want to take pictures in London, does that mean you have to chase the children away if you want to take a photo of Nelson's Column? I know there are children in my photos from Stonehenge, Bath, etc. Should I burn them?

Does Italy have the same law? Do I have to destroy my photos of Piazza San Marco and the Roman Forum with kids in them?

This just seems real bizarre to me.

Who was it who said that the real danger to civil liberties is not someone taking our freedoms away, but people willingly giving away their freedoms in the name of security? Something like that. It seems appropriate here.

I think there's a big difference between people that &quot;appears&quot; in your photos but are not focused, to say, you were not photograhing them and people that feels someone is photographing them. The last ones can to the police(many of them won't , though) and then some laws may apply, especially if there are children involved. I like to make photographs, but I don't like to focus on people, not even myself

Sorry, I meant &quot; the last ones can go to the police&quot;

lyb: if you had taken 100 photos of that grandfather/grandchild you very well might have ended up speaking to the police.

And Rufus: Apparently the OP was not taking photos of the Square. He ONLY mentions taking shots of people. These weren't people who were just incidentally in the photos - he was specifically taking around 100 photos of &quot;adults, children, men, women, gays and straights&quot;

Your pix of Stonehenge and Bath are not the same thing at all.

Now, none of us know what really happened - but assuming the OP put his own conduct in the best light and the police in the worst - even then, some of us can see what the problem might have been.

My hunch is he acted worse and the police acted better and the truth is there in the middle somewhere.

Perhaps geowa would want to join me in my daily commute in NYC, which from today into at least the near future will include twice daily random searches by the police of one's knapsack, bags, handbags, etc.

Do I think it invades my individual privacy?
Somewhat, yes.

Do I think it's needed?
Sadly, at this time, yes.

Why are so many excusing the behaviour of the police in this instance and using 9/11 and the recent London underground bombings as a justification? &quot;Geowa&quot; clearly relates that he was harrassed because he took photos of children, not because the police thought he was a jihadist taking pictures of rail depots, government sites, or military installations. They harrassed him because of vague concerns over child pornography and pedophilia. I will gladly submit to someone checking my bags or questioning me when I board a train, airplane, or bus. There's a legitimate connection between such security actions and preventing a terrorist act. Here, the police were acting more like &quot;thought&quot; police as it would take the manipulation of innocent photos of children in a public park to turn them into pornography. There's no nexus between those photos and a criminal act. Taking photos of children in a park is not the final step to committing some heinous crime against children. Somthing else would have to happen like selling the photos to some disreputable website or altering the images for perverted reasons. Any lawyers out there? Aren't I right on this point? Neither 9/11 nor 7/7 are justifications for violating basic constitutional rights.

What's really sad is that people today are such cowards that they will cheerfully throw away the civil liberties that their ancestors died for in exchange for an illusion of security against an imaginary threat.

Most democracies self-destruct in this way at some point. People forget how important their freedoms are and lose the will to defend them, and instead want &quot;security&quot; and warm fuzzies. Governments are more than willing to suppress the liberties and take ever greater control, and the pendulum swings until democracy again becomes dictatorship. There are many historical precedents, and without exception the people who throw away their freedoms deny that they are doing so and say things like &quot;sadly, it's necessary these days.&quot;

I'd prefer that the cowards just go home and hide under their beds, and leave those of us who still have spines to enjoy our remaining freedoms while we can.

Janis,

&gt;&gt;lyb: if you had taken 100 photos of that grandfather/grandchild you very well might have ended up speaking to the police.&lt;&lt;

Very true...a couple of pictures is all I took....and we certainly don't know the whole story.... and I must admit if I noticed someone taking pictures after pictures of myself or one of my children (if I had any) I would probably be concerned.... unfortunately, we live in a wacky world.

The OP did NOT say he was taking pictures of Trafalgar Square or crowd scenes in the square but that he was taking individual shots of people of all ages including children.
1. It is just plain RUDE to take pictures of anyone without their permission (and no I am not talking crowds but individual shots)
2. It is RUDE and CREEPY to take shots of children without their parents permission. Someone in Trafalgar Square obviously agrees with this - since they complained to the police. The police behaved appropiately. How would you feel if someone hung around YOUR child's playground taking pictures of YOUR children? I know I would be calling the police.

First it was 9/11 or 7/7 and now it's playground pedophiles! Where does the hysteria end? The poster was NOT in a playground hovering over small children. He was in a public square in a major tourist city where people of all ages were congregating. But he was harrassed for photographing children and he was detained and had his property confiscated because some hysterical person called the police. I don't have to be a barrister to know that the poster's civil rights, even in England, were violated.

It may be rude to take pictures of people in public (I don't think so, but some people apparently do), but rudeness is not illegal. When you go out in public, you sacrifice certain things, notably the right to privacy. If you don't want your picture taken, stay home.

there were some high profile instances where innocent photos of children were posted and exchanged on british paedophile websites. hysteria naturally ensued and anyone who pointed a camera at a child was a paedophile. channel 4s brass eye did a brilliant (and controversial) satire of this hysteria back in 2001.

where there is hysteria, there is police harrassment. this happens everywhere. it is also not illegal for asians to take detailed photos of a landmark but i wonder how many of them are harrassed by the police. is spy crying for them? hysteria is the problem here and hysterical reactions are always ugly.

I am a mother of 2 young girls aged 3 and 5, I take photos at the schoolplays etc, but if any parents had an issue with there child being in the photo then I would either give them the negative and photo, or if it was on my digital camera erase it or invite them to come round and watch me edit there child from it if I had a good shot of one of my own children in it. For reasons I do not wish to disclose I have signed a document at school for my children not to be included in school photographs taken by local newspapers, if there is a chance that the photo will get published as anyone can call the paper for a copy of that photo. On saying that last year the school misplaced the form and my child did appear in the paper fortunatley it wasn't a very clear picture, I went to see the school regarding this. As my child hadnt been at the school long and it was a mistake I didnt take further action as no harm was done in this instance. Children have enough of their childhood taken away from them as it is, you cant let them out of your site for five minutes with the fear of strangers grabbing them and running off with them, even older children are enticing younger ones away. What is the world coming to when a child cannot play and have fun without the above threats and more around, (even some sports and activities have been stopped at some schools incase a child falls over, they cant assist a child who is struggling to get dressed or comfort them if they hurt themselves as the schools are afraid that the parents will sue, are lawsuits really valid or is it just greed for money))
If i saw someone taking photos of my kids anywhere I would either approach the people myself or ask the police to assist me.
It seems very heavy handed of the police to have handled this situation the way they did, but obviously there was root for concern if they did take the action that they thought neccessary.
Even if it was one frantic overprotective parent, if you are deliberatly taking photos of people (not buldings etc where a person may have got in the shot) without permission then isnt that infringing on THEIR privacy and civil rights.

Taking the original post at face value, I have a problem with the way the police acted.

If it's a crime to take photos of kids, fine, that's the law. But wouldn't the prosecutors need the pictures as evidence? How can a police officer erase the photos, thus destroying possible evidence in a criminal trial? Is that how the law works there? I guess I'm only used to U.S. laws.

Italyforme, I fear that you dramatically overestimate the dangers that threaten your children. And I suspect you dramatically underestimate other dangers that are a much greater risk for them. What you see on television has almost no correlation with risks in real life. The media report on events that will frighten people, no matter how rare they are; they never report on events that do not create such hysteria, no matter how frequently they occur. Thus, your child is more likely to be stuck by a meteor than she is to be kidnapped, and the real risks she runs are more along the lines of being run over by a car, but the media would have you believe just the opposite--because kidnappings are scary, and keep people glued to their newspapers and TV sets.