>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect
>>>
>>>Police kingdom, eh?
>>
>>Outside of the fact that his purpose was clearly to 'test the system and get a story,' he did behave in a manner that forced the situation and I think the officers behaved correctly. He refused to give his identity and show his pictures. Had he done both and they still searched him, then I would be inclined to yell "police kingdom."
>
>But isn't that all ridiculous, in a country which has more security and other cameras per capita than any other country, where you can't take a stroll without walking into a viewport of some lens, where any building has the right to take snapshots of anyone that comes in range, you can be arrested for snapping back?
>
>I mean, it's not a matter of whether the cops followed the procedure to the tee or have taken extra liberties, it's that the law is plain wrong and serves no other purpose than to intimidate regular citizens. Big brother is truly watching you, and whatever you do, you first have to think whether it may be misconstrued as an act of [aiding] terrorism. And it's actually the Brits themselves who used to do this - when planning to bomb Germany, they gathered thousands of tourist pictures taken all over Europe, and analyzed them to death - ah, there's a big bus on that bridge, so it's not as flimsy as it looks, it can support tanks. So I guess they are assuming someone else may play the same today.
>
>But nowadays any cell phone can take sufficiently detailed images, and anyone sitting on the back seat can pretend to be talking and actually be drive-by snapping at will - that can't be stopped, and most of the time can't be spotted at all. So the purpose of this law can't be to protect important buildings - specially not to protect them by obscurity. It can't be done. The purpose is to get people used to police state, to cops having more and more laws at hand that they can use to make anyone look (or become) guilty.
>
>We used to have such laws back then. You had to be very careful when approaching the railroad with a camera... usually any railroad worker would just watch you and warn you that someone else may find you suspicious, so you better don't stay too long. But there were warning signs that picturetaking was forbidden. And it wasn't really strictly enforced; no members of my photography club were ever arrested or even approached by a cop; the worst case was being shooed away by some guard. And now that the practice is all but forgotten there, it resurfaces elsewhere, in a much more serious form.

The police in the UK seem to be using the new anti terror legislation as a way of scooping up all sorts of things. Mind its not so new, mysister was doing an art degree probably 30 years ago. She liked the reflections in the windows of a government building in Norwich and was taking pictures. A guard appeared from the building and demanded to know what she was doing and to have the film.