photos in and around a camp?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by sammym, Apr 27, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm not sure where to put this, so feel free to move or whatever.

    I was having a discusion with an acquaintance who claims that he had his camera taken and the photos deleted when he was taking snaps whilst visiting a mate, he also claims he was marched out and told to not return under threat of something worst that arrest.

    Now this smacks of bullshit to me. I always though that you are allowed to take photo's of whatever you like, as long as they arn't of naked kids getting changed, and or being used for terrorism type stuff. I was also under the impression that even if they do think your a wrong un, they have to get a court order to delete your pics.

    I think it's pretty clear that Albert Einstein wouldn't walk around Hereford with a dslr... However given that this was an unremarkable barrax I don't see what the drama is. Incidentally he reckons he was just having happy snaps of vehicles and blokes in uniform, and one got a bit upset about it. He doesn't know ranks but the next thing he knew he was being shouted at and was reduced to tears. Bless him.

    So my question is, what exactly are the rules on this?
  2. Rule No 1: use some common sense. Think about where you are and what you want to take pictures of. Just because you think the barracks are unremarkable doesn't mean that there isn't equipment around that other people might take an interest in and pictures are a good place to start.

    I have been in a similar situation, working at a Brit unit that was accessed through a US base. We were warned on entering the base that if we were seen taking photos on any part of the base, cameras would be confiscated and we would be escorted off camp with disciplinary action to follow.
  3. It was not me, and I have no interest in taking photos of land rovers or blokes rocking to and from the scoff house. I just wanted to know if there was some new rules, or if an nco was just going on a power trip.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. It's basic security.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I'm well aware of basic security. That wasn't my point. My point was all the training and lessons/powerpoints I ever sat though, basically said if in doubt, challenge and report. Not terrify and break the law. I was just checking if the law had changed or was different to what I though it was.

    To make it clear - i'm not saying whoever did this was in the wrong. As I don't know. However I just wanted to check if it was current procedure or not. It does seem a little heavy handed - given that we are literally talking about landrovers and line infantry in mtp here... It's not exactly a state secret.

    That said, I find it hard to believe that anyone would risk their career, or a huge bill if the person claimed they had damaged the camera, especially if dealing with a civilian.
  6. He was a guest and therefore him being escorted from the camp was correct.
  7. A lot of places are covered by the Official Secrets Act - prohibiting photography, allowing for random searches while you are on camp. By entering you are agreeing to this. And before you say it, you don't need to sign it for it to apply.

    Why the hell does he want photos of shitty Land Rovers & Soldiers anyway?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Don't guests still have to be accompanied by their "sponsor" or whoever signed them in? WTF was he or she thinking letting him loose with a camera in the first place? As far as deleting the pics it sounds fair enough to me on general principles. I still get twitchy when some mong takes my pic-as a civvy - I was nothing special either , just rather keen on Persec.
  9. There is an overarching regulation prohibiting photography of Defence installations. That's all of them! However it is not rigidly enforced and is relaxed on things such as open days and public events. Many barracks have a sign identifying that taking photographs is prohibited, and recent legislation will also cover "... of use to terrorists" which from the enforcer side is down to an individuals interpretation until challenged at law.

    Damage to equipment would likely be covered on the ' owners risk' clause unless you could prove deliberate or indifference to the risks of damage, not least that on MOD land there would be some element of crown immunity to hide behind so NCO isn't really risking much at all.

    I've had camera film confiscated and scum bag press arrested for taking pictures even in civvy street.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. I have never understood the "signed" pieces of legislation thing. The law applies to all and ignorance is not an excuse. You dont sign the Road Traffic Act before driving do you
  11. Exactly. The only reason we 'sign' anything to do with the OSA is to confirm our understanding upon joining.
  12. Section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 states that it is a criminal offence to take a photograph of a “prohibited place”, which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly “useful to an enemy”, for a purpose which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state.

    Prohibited places include:
    • All HM Defence establishments;
    • Places declared by Order of the Secretary of State to be prohibited places (i.e Nuclear facilities and property belonging to, or used for, the purposes of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority.

    Furthermore it's an offence under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (thats proper warranted copper not a bloody hobby bobby), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

    The last one is a bit tricky as they don't wear uniforms - unless they're pretending to be postmen...ahem! - so you'd probably not know if you were snapping people from SS or SIS.

    The defence being, should you be stopped, that you were acting with a reasonable excuse such as taking a shot of a mate, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, apparently.

    It should be noted that the police have lost the power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as the act was amended after a the press kicked up a stink about civil liberties. Brown's government were really taking the piss with some of the terrorist legistlation you will recall.

    With regards to your 'acquaintance' you should ... I mean, she should, use common sense, as GF says. Furthermore there are usually bloody great signs up prohibiting snapping of sensitive areas.

    That said, there seems to have been a little bit of overreaction by the shouty people - they probably shouldn't have confiscated the camera and the sensible thing to do would have been to ask the snapper to delete any shots that were sensitive .

    In the UK if someone other than a warranted police officer tries to take my camera I'll happily remonstrate robustly- the favoured course of action being to record yourself wailing off camera: 'Why are you attacking me - oh help, help..'
    whilst kicking him the bollocks. (Outside the Israeli embassy 2009)

    Overseas is another matter and I've been 'persuaded' to hand over tapes in Lebanon, Beijing, Greece, Jordan, Split, and some Mexican hovel....
  13. That was all I was really after. I was interested to know the law or rules surrounding it. It's nice to learn something.
  14. What were the circumstances?