Should have asked him why and if broke any laws the tell him to get bent! dont forget to take his picture!

Even if you did break a law, pretty sure a security guard can’t make you delete photos

​@@jamiegladwin Correct, it needs a court order. In which case it would probably be the Police doing the telling/asking/enforcing.

Tut tut adrian, how rude of you to notice this. You should know by now that big companies do their own thing!

@Adrian Patrick: Very good point.

Love it,, you genius!!

Indeed - if the office has recorded you on CCTV and you were in a public place then you could ask for them to declare their intended use of the images as part of the GDPR legislation.

Wouldn't they have to have his written permission to be filmed and have a waiver signed by him to film? There rules

It's not about them it's the managers getting them to go out. If they don't listen they can easily be replaced with a simple phone call.

@Tommy Dunne exactly risk your life get knocked on the head for what $8.20 and spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair slavering I don't think so like I'd rather sit at home and watch this on KZfaq

Not the most intelligent people. Wanted to be policmen but failed the IQ test. Now just jumped up little Hitlers with a massive chip on the shoulder.

None of them know the law - but they don't have to because they are just private citizens working for private companies in dead-end jobs. They have absolutely no power whatsoever. The Police in these situations don't have any power either.

How much of the law do you think a security person should know.They do at most a 1 week course and 2 days of that are H and S .. They are concerned mostly with the Security of the premises but you just know some manager is gonna send them out to ask you what you're at.

EXACTLY

Exactly mate

@frankos rooni photography in public alone can’t be classed as suspicious because it’s legal it’s actually written in the legislation.

@frankos rooni yes, it is that simple, terror threat is bullshit. You need something else other than taking photos for reasonable suspicion. But keep believing everything your told like the good little droid you are.

@James Burton you must hate CCTV everywhere watching your every move daily ?

ttblade Yes, great comment by you!

ttblade yes, the right to film shops/banks with security is paramount and very important.

Sketch Book all of our rights are important. And we don't have e a right to film shops and buildings we have a right to record in public which means by necessity we have the right to record buildings that are in public. That said rights are a foggy concept in the UK and frankly we need a Constitution which I would argue should not be unlike the US Constitution

The US constitution and laws are based on the UK constitution (we have one but unlike the American one it's not a single document with amendments) and English common law.

"Rights are hard won and easily lost" nicely put

And knife crime..

Yes but the street cameras don't put it on KZfaq

@@jackwatsonepic626 so what mate. You're in a public place you can be put on internet, news paper or you could find yourself on National or International TV and they don't have to blue your face but they may since it's just like a decency thing also infact CCTV have caught a lot of embarrassing stuff Ive seen a lot of fail type of videos where someone caught it on CCTV and uploaded it to KZfaq because it's funny or just a cool crash witnessed

Simplicity of common sence is lost by the police. They will make any excuse to shove control down you throat.

@@jackwatsonepic626 where do they put the data?

Intrested in what the inspector said.

That's 2 sentences.

No, that constable is not a lawyer, his knowledge of law is limited to police training most likely which is very basic.

There are no police. These uniformed officers are in fact private security to a service corporation who prefer to be addressed as government. All law practiced in the UK are in fact UNLAWFUL. The Bar practices Admiralty law, only applicable at sea. Common law supersede any law on the land.

@@Marty651711 clown 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡

soulbrother61 A step further it would be great if there was a recommended section of legalese for us to print out and carry ( to show when challenged ), or a direct Internet Web link to an official gov website or page showing the law as it stands, so that there can be NO DOUBT as to the legal position in any given photographic situation.

@@RawTopShot There is. Check out this PDF that you can print off: s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/photographersrights_UK.pdf

...funny how people *assume* police officers are expert at explaining or interpreting the law. There is more than ample evidence this is not the case.

Sean Wilson is this poster out of date? S44 has been repealed!! They can’t stop and search you without suspicion just because you’re in a sensitive place, surely. They need to have suspicion of a crime.

Incorrectly

When was in Tangiers quite a few years ago I took a photo of the hundreds of olives beautifully laid out on one of the indoor market stalls. The vendor didn’t object but he did want money....lol 💴💵💰💶💷💳

🤣🤣🤣 ironically people are wearing masks now 😷

My tutor told our class ;;tell emm too fuck of;; its worked many times great information

Nobody will delete anything. hahaha . Ask anyone who has applied for body cam records and been told it has been lost or accidentally (meaning deliberately ) deleted or they have extend compliance beyond 30 days ( so that it is automatically deleted or recorded in unreadable formats.

Problem solved by China. Welcome to 2020 & 2021 hopefully not beyond.

Those 'local' Somalis.🤣

Richard Du Plessis google street view...

@@eddiegremlin a shortcut.

Hahahahaha

Can't you just go and see blueprints at town hall?

Now that's comedy

Because it is not their cameras.

those carma's soon dont work if it dont agree with a coppers plan.

Most of the time CCTV is used for crime prevention or security purposes but isn't retained or uploaded to platforms like KZfaq. Unfortunately there are countless 'auditors' who claim to be involved in journalism whose sole purpose in filming is to provoke confrontation in order to e-beg on youtube. This guy's footage is informative and his interaction with any security is courteous. If 99% of the "auditors" out there could watch and learn how a professional like this guy conducts himself then they would have less friction with security. But of course if they acted like normal human beings they would have no material to upload as nobody is interested in audit footage - if there is no conflict with security they have no reason to upload.

more than 60 million CCTV cameras in the UK we are the most surveiled country in the entire world!

Absolutely don’t agree with these “auditors” sticking a camera in your face and looking for confrontation to get more views. But the security coming to us when we are taking a few photos of Christmas lights, streets and architecture is so strange. Don’t understand their logic at all.

While you are arresting yourself, book a table at a quality restaurant, and claim the invoice on your tax.

Now hand yourself in and take a mate to film it.then get another mate to follow on behind and film him filming it all.then put it on u tube.

Tell yourself you deserve everything you get!

#freetony

Ha ha ha...lol

There is no specific law against taking pics of kids.

Steven Yates bjjnkjk:-|:-\:-\🙂🏚️🏚️🏘️🏘️🏜️🏚️🏚️🏘️🏚️🏘️🏜️🏘️🦌🦌🐮🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🍓🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🏘️🏚️🕌🕍🥕🥔🏘️🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🥕🥔🥔🍓🥕🕍🏘️🥔🏜️🏘️🍓🥔🐅🦌🦌🐅🦌🥔🥔🥔🥔🏘️🍓🥔🥔🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🍕🍕🌭🦌🥕🍓🏘️🕌🕌🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🚂🚃🚃🚂🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏚️🏚️🥔🍓🥔🥔🏜️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏚️🏘️🥕🥔🍠🍠🍢🍠🍠🍠🍘🍠🍠🍠🍢🍠🍠🍢🍠🍢🍠🍠🍠🍠🍘🍠🍘🍕🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🌭🍕🏘️🥔🍕🏘️🏜️🍓🥔🥕🍕🌭🌭🌭🍖🌭🍕🏚️🏘️🥔🥔🍕🌭🍘🍠🍠🍠🍠🏜️🏘️🏚️🥔🏚️🏘️🏚️🏜️🏘️🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🏘️🥔🦌🥔🍓🥔🍕🍕🌭🍕🍓🥔🥔🥕🏘️🥔🏘️🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🍓🥔🥕🥔🍓🍕🍖🍕🍓🍕🍖🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍖🌭🍠🍠🍠🍠🍢🍼🏘️🥕🥔🏘️🥔🏜️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍕🍖🍕🌭🥔🍓🥔🥕🌭🌭🍕🍕🌭🍕🍖🍕🍓🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🥔🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🍕🏘️🏘️🏘️🏚️🏘️🏚️🏘️🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🥔🥔🍓🥕🥔🍓🏜️🏘️🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏘️🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🏚️🥢🥢🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🏘️🚂🥔🥔🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🥔🥕🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🌭🏜️🏘️🥕🥔🍕🏘️🥔🥕🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🍓🏜️🏚️🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🍕🍕🏚️🥔🍓🥔🥕🥕🍕🍖🍕🍠🍠🍠🍢🍯🍯🍯🍰🍯🍯🍼🍼🍯🍯🍯🍯🥔🥔🕌🚂🚐🚖🚖🚖🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🏘️🏘️🏜️🏚️🥕🥔🥔🍠🍠🥔🥔🍓🍖🍕🍠🍠🍘🍠🍢🍠🏘️🥔🥔🌭🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🍖🍕🍠🍠🕌🕌🕌🥔🥔🥔🍓🥔🥕🥕🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥢🏚️🥕🥔🥕🏘️🏘️🥕🥕🥔🏘️🥔🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥕🥔🕍🥔🏚️🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍓🥔🏘️🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🥕🥔🏜️🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🍓🥔🏘️🥕🥔🏜️🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🥔🥔🍕🍖🍕🍕🌭🌭🍕🍕🏘️🍓🥔🍕🍕🌭🍖🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔

@Rich Clark Photography You're right, nobody can say that you cannot photograph them in a public place, though to be polite I probably would abide by their request. With kids, it's okay to get shots, but if they're with a parent or guardian, then it's wise to ask. The point is it's not illegal to use a long lens to get pics. The other thing to watch out for are by-laws; a friend got chased off a beach for allegedly taking pictures of women in bathing suits; there was a local council by-law preventing photography. If there is no local law, then treat as a public place.

Unfortunately, Steven, such innocence (in children) remains in the Better- vanished past; societal influence, political correctness, & the advent of a multi-media interface (the World Wide Web) have brought such heinous crimes, such as paedophilia to the fore, & whilst that may seem to be a wholly positive aspect to the argument, tarring legitimate photographers with the (same) brush inculcates a dogmatic, & in some cases, unreasonable approach. As to the question of terrorism, I cannot see a terrorist being so overt - in drawing attention to themselves by employing a very obvious (D)SLR - common sense, which is remarkably absent in the majority - fear such 'intrusions'; the irony being, pretty much everyone who possesses a mobile phone, takes candid images all the time (& a more likely route for covert surveillance by a politico-military group). Such scenarios are wasted on the general populace, primarily because they cannot delineate between the two concepts - as always, stupidity, paranoia ( as you have asserted), & pseudo indignation fan the flames of what is (largely) an innocuous pastime. Fundamentally, this boils down to (them) not having control, which has become the mantra for idiosyncratic behaviour in the individuals concerned.... Stay cool ;D

I've experienced the looks of suspicion myself. While photographing my granddaughter's swim meets, the rules were (rarely posted) NO photos taken from behind the starting blocks. Now, admittedly, most good shots are parallel with the starting line & finish line, or behind the finish line. Though, innocently, I learned the hard way. The kids don't usually mind, but parents are VERY suspect these days. It's an unfortunate reality of the times I suppose. Better safe than sorry, right? I suppose the best thing is to introduce yourself to the parents, and make sure they know your intentions. Adults can be hostile when own their photo is taken, as well. I guess that's why I like clouds & landscapes - they don't complain about their picture being taken. ;-)

Because if anyone goes near them or verbally abuses them, the race card will be used to prosecute them. A white security guard doesn't have the same powers

Nigeria is full of corruption , so they are useful to further corruption in the UK .

Nigeria is not the only country with black nationals! This is a stupid question!

@@paulgimlik15969 That would be the "others" then !

Indeed. Asking a policeman about legal matters is in invitation for him to lie to you.

@TheJR1948 ITS NOT A CRIME TO TAKE PHOTOS OR MOVIES OF SENSITIVE SECURE BUILDINGS ..PERIOD. AND WHAT IS OBSCENE PHOTOGRAPHY....HE DID NOT EXPLAIN THIS. THE POLICE CAN ASK YOU ANYTHING BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY UNLESS ITS AGAINST THE LAW .

1 fucking hundred

Playing devil's advocate for a second if it was an important location such as a bank, or high foot traffic building then photographs could be used to plan some sort of attack. That said taking pictures from one place or several of the FRONT of a building is not really suspicious at least in my opinion just my 2 cents

@@AlphaTurtleAli You can just walk along with a go pro and get epic quality footage of any building, and you'd not even be noticed.

@@NFawc this is true, im not saying I agree with them stopping them as I said I was just playing devils advocate. I agree that if you where going to do what I mentioned you would do it in a way that well isn't brutally obvious

Neil bit racist pal no? 😂

Neil we know who your talking about.

A student already did that as part of her course....It was about how we are all survielled by CCTV 24hr a day ! She was accosted by police, questioned and given the 'in this day and age' speech !

Not worth it pal police in the UK are always too busy and don't care...

Same could be said about police in other places to I suppose. Sorry to hear that it happened anyway.

Thanks pal :)

Should have called police under common law loss harm and damage, your camera was taken "loss" it was "damaged" and prevented you completing your work needed to earn finical rewards, using those credits to by food, pay for new clothing, or gas and electricity. When town centre cctv takes video would he break into a council building and demand they stop recording his wife?

good point! What would happen if we all started having a go at the council about not wishing to be recorded / photographed

That's exactly what I got from this... Strange, right? Because it's the others that must be aware of their rights to ask you to stop doing something - not ignorantly ask you to stop doing something when you have every right to do so!

Personally I would ask him to take a few shots of me. Sick of bad security guards giving me a bad name just because i have the same job.

Take your phone out and phone the non emergency number and report the guard and the company, the guard normally at that point disappears very quickly

@james taylor lefties say "you're"

Soon people wil be afraid of Street Ice-Cream vendors who sport a beard. That is coming soon, to a location near you.

Beautiful

Baruch Cohen too much think. The thought police have been informed.

Baruch Cohen So, just about everyone with a modern smartphone 😁

@@RawTopShot That is an interesting point. I think when they see someone using a cellphone they dismiss it as innocent playing around. But if someone has an actual camera in their hands, they consider it nefarious.

That's only effective if you've signed it as part of your access to privileged or sensitive information.

Tonderayi Kanoz oh is that so? Turkish photographer Çağdaş Erdoğan was reportedly arrested in Istanbul.

I have noticed that here. There can be a hundred people taking pics with smartphones & tablets, but the bloke with a proper camera gets suspicious looks!

@Rich Clark Photography If you look at the rules for Glastonbury music festival "big cameras" are not allowed, and you could be stopped from entering the site if you have a dslr with you."Small cameras" and camera phones are okay. Presumably this is to stop people getting good shots of on-stage bands, etc.

@William Doubleu What makes you assume he wants to move to the UK?

@Rich Clark Photography I was recently criticised by an architect for taking photos of his creation. He may have a point but only because the photos were from inside the building. What you can see from outside is fair game - go for it!

if he was just doing his job then he should know the law and do it correctly

He wasn't forcing anything. He just expressed a wish that he wouldn't continue taking photographs of the building he's guarding. Much like I could ask someone to move out of the way. Forced would be if he touched, moved or grabbed at him or his kit. Truth is if he really wanted to stop the photos he could just take a big golf umbrella out and stand next to the camera. Equally as legal and his right to do so but like the copper said, Do you really want to take photos of a building whilst having to deal with an argument? I'd wager at that point there are no photos being taken and it's a case of a good ol' fashioned penis slapping/willy wanging of egos.

but its nothing to do with him

@@lmaoroflcopter If no law is broken then the guy should not be getting involved. His company policy only applies to his company and not in the public.

@@stephenfreestone7956 why shouldn't he? His policies are his policies you are not bound by them sure, providing you're on public land but just like you can freely comment on a KZfaq video, he can freely ask you to leave or stop taking photos. There is no should/shouldn't involved here. He's absolutely allowed to attempt to ruin your shots e.g. carry a variable brightness strobe, large umbrella, etc and you cannot prevent him from doing so. Just as he cannot prevent you from attempting to take those photos.

Briliant :)

"want's"? That makes no sense in the English language.

Peter Foster go away peter.

Give a man fire he'll be warm for a night, set him on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life!

Give a man a camera and apparently he becomes a terrorist

Just ignore them. That's all they deserve. .

Martin_Sole am guessing it would be covered by National Security

S1 Official Secrets Act 1911. If what you're taking a photo of is a prohibited space, then you're breaking the law.

Many years ago I worked in Barrow-in-Furness. From the bridge from the town to Barrow Island you could quite easily see submarines beng fitted out. Took lots of photos- no problem.

Whatever happened to having to sign the official secrets act for it to apply to you? Just goes to prove that most cops are not fully conversant in the law they have sworn to uphold. That is why there are so many falsehoods about filming in public. The Police propagate it to their benefit and 10 times out of 10 would tell you its not permitted, if they knew the person filming, knew no better.

@Jim Knight ...no...

I've seen that vid and as a private sector man I was both embarrassed, and disappointed. Also the golden wounded is another example of client unrealistic expectations of privacy and humans using a public footpath. I advise security be polite and take a photo in return. Upload to an archive make a small report date and time and keep for any future reference. Nothing beyond that. Don't grab cameras, don't make claims or threats you can't back up. The security operative in that vid she let our security sector down totally. I hope she has learned something and had more training. However these private companies and there thirst for power and to control their little worlds makes them unreasonable and difficult to negotiate with. My hip is that things will get better and more vids will make security and police change there attitude and behaviour. I would like to see more positive vids like this.😀

You should always be over-protective of your rights. But the most stupid thing about such situations is that the person trying to infringe your rights has no idea that their rights are exactly the same as yours, so as they rubbish yours they're also trying to destroy their own rights. And when they're gone, they're gone for ever. .

You can never be over protective of your rights. Rights are hard won and easily lost. If people fail to stand up for their rights we will all see those rights eroded and eventually lost altogether. That's the unfortunate truth.

Being 'overly protective' of your rights is the only way not to lose them in this day and age. Unless you like being walked all over, in which case go for it.

Andy it isn't loss of your rights you're defending here. It's only ego. A security guard requesting you to stop filming and your choice to obey said instruction does not constitute an erosion of any right. He had a right to ask. You have a right to accept or refuse. Making a choice for the sake of avoiding a pointless confrontation isn't erosion of your rights. Just as you can refuse and be belligerent and start quoting law at him, he too can stand next to you and your camera with a giant golf umbrella, blocking your shot. Difference is... He's being paid to stand there, you're the dumb idiot doing it on your free time, getting nothing but photos of the inside of an umbrella. And just because you make the choice to leave, doesn't mean you can't go back there to get your shots another day, or even just have a discussion with the guy. "No problem, I appreciate people can have irrational fears over photography, what time do you close? I'll come back then" is not being a sheeple, it's not rolling over on your rights, it isn't giving up your rights. It's being courteous.

They probably think its a miniature missile launcher built by Q

Al Paca I

I’d have asked them. Explain they look bad ass and you were wondering if you could take a photo. They might say “no” but they might also say “yes”

Al Paca yes, you can take the photos. They’re not going to shoot you. Best advice is if they come up and ask, tell them what you’re doing out of manners, as if a postman or post lady. Good like.

Al Paca. Na, you would probably have been safe enough as they drew their weapons and shot themselves in the foot.

They'd probably agree tbh. Police in the UK are generally pretty friendly. Armed officers will blade away from you if you get too close but they'll happily let you take a photograph, even smile for one.

Martin Berry. Not all security staff are "numptys" my friend. If ( as is usually the case) the employees boss asks them to question a photographer, then that request is both lawful and reasonable. The employee is then duty bound to do so, regardless of his knowledge of the law.

A Brain is required for this function.

@@billt1954 Generally, yes they are. They either failed the Police entrance exam (like they're even choosy) or they're ex Army and think their skillset of getting shot at translates over to civilian security duties. . More often than not, these Security Guards are hired because they're thick as pigshit and just do what they're told and very little else. . They think they're there to 'secure' the interests of their employers, but mostly, they're only there to reduce their employer's insurance premiums.

@@nodiggity9472 Well speaking as someone who has served in both the military and the security industry (which I suspect you haven’t) I stand by my statement. And frankly mate, if your kind of person who judges someone solely by the job they do then you are living proof of who’s as “thick as pigshit”

@@billt1954 I'm not judging people simply on the jobs they do, I'm judging them on the way they do them. And its not like I'm the only person who's unimpressed by the way private security personnel lie, bluster and bully members of the public into compliance. And that's just the supermarket / shopping centre / building site security. What's even more concerning is the tendering out what should be public sector jobs for prisons, courts and custody centres, to cowboy outfits like Group 4. If you worked in security and the military you can't pretend not to have noticed that security does seem to be the favoured civilian position for most non commissioned ex servicemen. And you must have noticed the lack of training, discipline, and capability that security staff who aren't ex services show? Right? Pretty much a fucking rabble of bulked up gym rats, who enjoy the air of authority being a civilian in a uniform gives them. Compare that to being a soldier in a security job, trained to be hypervigilant and disciplined, working within a team, each one of whom you could trust with your life. See where I'm coming from? You can't just stick someone in a uniform, and give them a job which involves a measure of authority over someone else. Or a duty of care towards someone else. Because people aren't always compliant. Or helpful. People are going to tell you to go and fuck yourself. Possibly on a daily basis. And it takes a certain kind of mindset to not seethe with barely suppressed rage under those conditions. Or even constant dirty looks from shoplifting Grannies all day. I said that the only talent soldiers come out with, was being bullet magnets, and that was flippant and unfair of me. But I did get the demographic right for Security Work. And I'm not saying that that is you, or that all security guards are stupid tossers with an overdeveloped sense of self importance. Just that a lot of them do rather come across like that to the general public. You KNOW the ones. They're mean. They're swole. And they're hungry. They're ambitious. They're filling in time until they can graduate to a Court Appointed Bailiff job. Because . . . . . what else is there? There are a lot of bullies attracted to security work. And they aren't really . . . suited for jobs where they have to deal with any kind of potentially volatile situation, involving members of the public. I apologise for implying you're just a bullet magnet, that was beneath me. But c'mon, tell the truth, there are many, many numpties employed as security guards. Some of them are walking rage bombs. Some of them are habitual drunkards, or they like a little bump on a quiet nightshift. Some of them are just unpleasant. And I'm sure that a great many of them are normal, conscientious, honest, decent and helpful people. But still . . . .

not liking still does not make it illegal and so can not stop you.

Technically correct.

andy bicks Depends if your on MOD property or not.

I agree Mark. He should have been educating the guards, in the correct law.

The question was asked and answered.

Yes

indeed, its a shame, but if a location is iconic enough then there is the chance its image is treated as part of its trademark. the Eiffel tower is a good one to know, but we can define that differently as it falls under the European photography related laws. always worth a watch if you happen to stop through Paris and its late. the UK version is like photographing Canary Wharf or the Gherkin. you can as part of a skyline, but if the focus is the building and architecture itself then you need permission for commercial photography, personal/hobby usage is still free game. it's also worth noting that in terms of commercial use, this refers to the image itself, so if you sell the image to a stock image site, you need permission via a specific form to do so, however you can make physical prints for a gallery and sell those as it falls under artistic use, the prints are the commercial goods not the image on them. this covers photographing people in public too, to use the image commercially you need a model release, but you don't if you are making and selling prints of the same image. its not likely to stop people from confronting you in public however and I've had people walk into frame and ruin the shot I was going for, only to then start complaining about me photographing them demanding it be deleted. as if its too much effort to go behind me if they don't want to be in the shot 🤷‍♂️

vwbeetleb0b not just terrorists. Crime is more than just terror offences. I'm a penetration tester who does security assessments including social engineering, taking photos on a recce of the building is pretty standard for me. Google Street view is great, but an camera setup with a polariser is better at getting through a reflective window to photograph the sensitive info on a whiteboard. It is also more relevant information as street view can be years old.

@muskyERA "one other thing"... there is only one comment showing here MuskyERA, and yes... I do it for a living.

The same as ANY other citizen's to do so!

Didn't you watch the video

Are you serious!! Watch the video mate.

An ordinary citizen can do what they like .... security won't think twice about you. But if you look professional, have a long lens or have a tripod then they will come out and have a go. So the advice to any terrorists is just to turnup with a smart phone and do your essential research with that.

Yep, this one is particularly annoying, as there's likely no or extremely few instances of anyone ever having produced a dSLR in public with that intent. I was approached a few years ago by a particularly rough young mother who had a kid by her side, another in a pram, and her somewhat subdued, or possibly embarrassed partner standing in the background as she loudly announced "We'll see *you* on Crimewatch tonight!!!", as I took photos of Swans taking off from a lake, which was in the completely opposite direction from where she or anyone else was standing. The two girls I was with gave her an earful though. That was enjoyable. :)

It's such a shame society has come to this.

Its sexism, men always get dirty looks from woman being near kids

***** Yawn. If in doubt mention Jimmy Savile.

This video isn't set in Hollywood, plus it's about taking photos in public. The story you've linked to is about is about privileged people allegedly raping children and teens in private. What's the connection?

yea.. it's not about your rights to take pictures ,its what you do with them

bigearedmouse17 Everyone has 'something' to hide. Your statement is based on a false premise.

@@andrew_koala2974 People may have something to hide but if they are not taking photographs of it, It has nothing to do with photography ?

​@@bigearedmouse17 Irrespective of 'Photography' or any other subject. When you hear someone say "I don't have anyhing to hide" is based on a false premise. As I stated previously. People who say that do not realize the implication of what they are saying They say it without giving it any logical thought. In other words, to simplify it in elementary English for you... People who say "I don't have anyhing to hide" don't know what they are talking about. They are only mimicing 'like parrots' what others say. Usually with 'Brain' switched off. My previous statement stands as factual truth. Without dispute.

@Fred Sausage That Sir, Is the Million Dollar Question. Like why did Da Vinci invent a parachute before aircraft were invented or why did Reuben only paint Fat Women ?

😆 100% right

Being politely asked by security isn't being hassled, watch again - nobody was abused or threatened. A polite question isn't tyranny.

Listen carefully, he said "shall we say, military...". It's clearly a euphemism.

Everyone is worried about terrorism in this day and age says Plod, well they weren’t worried about photography back in the day when the IRA frequently operated. I wonder why he didn’t know that?, too young?, ignorant?, answers on a postcard please. Oh and we had less CCTV public surveillance.

Think you're just being overly contrary here, don't undermine your legitimacy. He is clearly referring to: Section 1 of the Secrecy Act. If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State- (a)approaches, [F1inspects, passes over] or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or (b)makes any sketch, plan, model(this includes photographs), or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy...they shall be guilty of felony

@frankos rooni you better hope it the police and not armed guard come at you we dont have the same powers of the police and if you dont obay our direct request from us we can shoot you under the rules for a jsp 358 autherisation.so dont fuck with us we are not fannis in uniform with half an idear we propper trainned we learn more in 6 weeks than the police force gets in two years.as for the plastic goose stepping swines you can fuck with them with our blessing as much as you like .they only attack soldiers playing bag pipes in mass numbers on rememberence sunday's

@@Thesrin thats right he dont have to be giulty just in posession of anything that might be used by others people die in our job if we lax on this .

ha ha Malcolm really loves his job.