You wouldn't believe it!

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:03:23 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:

It is legal to take pictures of private property
provided you aren't trespassing at the time, and he hasn't taken
pictures of any people so they can't complain about invasion
of privacy.

Not necessarily.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to
be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that
kind.

(2) In this section “record� includes a photographic or electronic
record.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or
possession.

After being arrested and (also maybe charged), you would have to prove
that you had a reasonable excuse for taking these photographs.

Furthermore, if the house is owned by a person falling in the following
groups, you are again going to be in trouble.

The new section introduced by section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act
2008 states:

1) A person commits an offence who—

(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who
is or has been—

(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,

(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or
preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of the
situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.

Edster wrote:

Now look at this:

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/i...to/tv/ar1a.jpg

You are now looking at the front end of an 18 element Group A aerial
directed at Crystal Palace!

Considerably more of it is visible from a little further back (both ends
of the mounting bracket)but there is no possible means of stabilising
the camera - even the other excellent tripod I have is no use as it
isn't tall enough for the camera to 'see' over the tree that you can
make out in the pictures.

So, we now have an expensive loft conversion that appears to house only
a UHF aerial which is illuminated at night at further expense - I SAID
you wouldn't believe it ...!

Terry

The shadow on the ceiling looks a bit like a big canabis leaf.

I wouldn't know ...

.... in this case, however, its the silhouette of a tree outside. In the
first decent shot I got, the tree moved in the breeze and covered the
aerial, so I had to stand on tip-toe and reach as high as I could.
Fortunately, the fence post I was using for support is very high - but
the adjacent wall isn't!

Terry

J G Miller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:03:23 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:

It is legal to take pictures of private property
provided you aren't trespassing at the time, and he hasn't taken
pictures of any people so they can't complain about invasion
of privacy.

Not necessarily.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to
be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that
kind.

(2) In this section “record� includes a photographic or electronic
record.

snip


Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of the
situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.

I fail to see how anybody could believe that information that somebody
living in Greater London receives their TV signals from the Crystal
Palace transmitter; that they use a UHF aerial for the purpose and that
they illuminate it at night so it can clearly be seen by anyone on the
public highway, could be "information of a kind likely to be useful to a
person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" ...

Terry

Terry Casey wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:03:23 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:

It is legal to take pictures of private property
provided you aren't trespassing at the time, and he hasn't taken
pictures of any people so they can't complain about invasion
of privacy.

Not necessarily.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely
to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of
that kind.

(2) In this section “record� includes a photographic or electronic
record.

snip


Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of
the situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.

I fail to see how anybody could believe that information that somebody
living in Greater London receives their TV signals from the Crystal
Palace transmitter; that they use a UHF aerial for the purpose and that
they illuminate it at night so it can clearly be seen by anyone on the
public highway, could be "information of a kind likely to be useful to a
person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" ...

Terry
The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web. The excuse
that nobody is present (made in an earlier posting) seems to me to be
the same as sniffing someones underwear on their washing line but
claiming it's ok as nobody was wearing it at the time. It's an invasion
of privacy.

Terry Casey wrote:
I fail to see how anybody could believe that information that somebody
living in Greater London receives their TV signals from the Crystal
Palace transmitter; that they use a UHF aerial for the purpose and that
they illuminate it at night so it can clearly be seen by anyone on the
public highway, could be "information of a kind likely to be useful to
a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" ...

I do not doubt that after the fact you may be able to argue convincing
case that your activities were not related to gathering information for
the purposes of terrorism.

The issue is that the police can now arrest you and seize your equipment
on their interpretation as to what you are doing at the time.

After you have then been through the hassle of being arrest and having
your equipment seized, you then are permitted to make your defence of a
reasonable excuse and being released and getting your equipment back.

JN wrote:
The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web.

Perhaps you would correct me if I am in error, but as far as I am aware
there are no such laws of privacy in England and Wales, but there is the
separate ethical issue which you raise.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Tonight, I remembered the camera. It's only a cheap 'point-and-shoot'
So, we now have an expensive loft conversion that appears to house only
a UHF aerial which is illuminated at night at further expense - I SAID
you wouldn't believe it ...!

Terry


Really .. what people do in their own bedrooms is their business..

Dunno as if I'd like the missus to flog me with a XG18 tho..

Bill.. ever tried this?...

It's hopeless. Modern aerials are so flimsy they disintegrate when used for
BSM.

Bill

On Feb 17, 12:27*pm, J G Miller wrote:

Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of the
situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.

It's fine when Bill does it, though. No complaints ever coming from
you people then...

JN wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:03:23 +0000, Duncan Booth wrote:

It is legal to take pictures of private property
provided you aren't trespassing at the time, and he hasn't taken
pictures of any people so they can't complain about invasion
of privacy.

Not necessarily.

Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely
to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of
that kind.

(2) In this section “record� includes a photographic or electronic
record.
snip

Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of
the situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.
I fail to see how anybody could believe that information that somebody
living in Greater London receives their TV signals from the Crystal
Palace transmitter; that they use a UHF aerial for the purpose and that
they illuminate it at night so it can clearly be seen by anyone on the
public highway, could be "information of a kind likely to be useful to a
person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" ...

Terry
The unacceptable issue here is taking a photo which has the interior of
someones personal property visible and posting it on the web. The excuse
that nobody is present (made in an earlier posting) seems to me to be
the same as sniffing someones underwear on their washing line but
claiming it's ok as nobody was wearing it at the time. It's an invasion
of privacy.

No it isn't! It's on PUBLIC display!

Terry

wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:27 pm, J G Miller wrote:

Remember, the police have been given powers to arrest you, seize your
equipment, and possibly lay charges, all based on their evaluation of the
situation.

It is you who will have to prove that you that you had a reasonable
excuse (not just that you are not a terrorist) for taking these
photographs.

In fact if the house is indeed owned by a person falling into the
above categories, by publishing these photographs on the Internet,
you may have already breached the new section 76.

It's fine when Bill does it, though. No complaints ever coming from
you people then...

Thank you, Jamie!

You must have been reading my mind!

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:52:18 -0800, jamie_p84 wrote:

It's fine when Bill does it, though.

Good point except ...

Could you cite the URL of a photograph on the Wright's Aerial site
which shows the interior of a residential dwelling?

I can only find photographs of antennas themselves or not very
easily identifiable portions of rooftops except for

http://www.wrightsaerials.TV/aerialphotography/modern/041.html

and that does not show any interior. And the residents may very
well have given permission for the photograph to be taken.

Talking of antennas, I have long been curious as to the manufacturer
and model number of the UHF antenna at

http://www.wrightsaerials.TV/aerialphotography/modern/025.html