On 27/2/10, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Cotty" > > >> >> I think your premise is wrong. The threat comes from smaller cameras and >> cell phones just as much as big cameras. It is the activity that >> attracts attention, not the size of the camera IMO. YMMV. > >Photographing in public places during public celebrations?
If I were a policeman and saw someone I thought was acting suspiciously (definition of 'suspiciously' - ack, your guess is as good as mine) I would certainly monitor that person. If they had a cellphone or a larger camera it wouldn't matter to me. I'm a police officer so am slightly let down by my ignorance - I will watch the larger camera... >Photographing while brown? Race? >Photographing architecture? Anything anywhere - it's a different world now :-))) > >Who decided that this sort of activity was suspicious. >And if it is, why isn't it illegal? The activity isn't suspicious - the manner in which it is carried out could possibly be. Trying to hide the fact one has a camera would come under that. Think like a policeman! >And why is it still legal to drive a lorry up beside a building? Hase no one >ever heard of car bombs? >Any one of the vehicles that you walk past could potentially blow up and >kill you. >It's been proven time and again that this can happen. >Why is photographing a building downtown subject to police harassment but >parking a car beside that same building not? There are parts of London where this is the case - heavy CCTV, patrols, no parking. Financial district etc. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
