The concern in the world of photoreporters and casual photographers grows in relation to the increasingly difficult relationship with law enforcement. Several unusual events have populated the news last few years. Starring: reporters, fans, tourists, each intent on photographing places, persons or entities deemed to be sensitive to possible terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately it seems that the number of items "not photographable" in the various countries of the world is increasingly growing: the state of alert is high enough to inevitably lead to an increasing number of false positives, incidents involving people with absolute honest intentions, but caught and judged to act "suspiciously". Consequences: from a simple request for information and identification to the arrest in a pure Hollywood style.
And if sometimes it is easy to simply explain what you are doing - photography - other times, one can found himself involved in embarrassing situations in the attempt of justifying his own position, sometimes objectively impossible. So, it is always better to be at least informed and then decide how to better move, pointing out that some places can be banned and warning signs placed in the street. Often the sole reason to contravene the prohibition is enough to convert a photographer into an unlucky culpable.


The countries most affected are the United States and the United Kingdom.
The latter is in the process (16 February 2009) to introduce a rather restrictive set of rules (section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act) that will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) [..] which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
Many more details can be found in this article: Jail for photographing police? which expresses doubts about how such a measure could be too susceptible to interpretation by officials. Prime Minister Gordon Brown insists on the legal right by the police to restrict photography in public places. In the same article some true stories can be found. This source reports only a small number of incidents which, as mentioned, are constantly increasing.
Surely such measures open up interesting debates about the preservation of the right to report, that involves professional photojournalists and ordinary citizens about events of public interest.
I personally have had problems in this regard only occasionally, and in a rather contradictory way. In Rome, where the use of a tripod is considered as occupation of public soil, I had several times problems with urban police officers. In New York I spend hours photographing bridges always with the tripod where signs warn of the presence of video surveillance. It is not a ban, which is effective below, clearly a more sensitive area in terms of security. I had no problem in a city that is not anymore the mecca of freedom and where there, month after month, news of accidents come after for behaviors that in the past would have been considered as normal and harmless. On the other hand, beyond question, the attitude of a photographer may result unusual. Sometimes one takes much time to study seemingly insignificant details, an attitude that often capture the attention of passers-by. Evidence that this kind of behavior leaves a little off the rails of normality.
This is a witness by Stephen Clarke, "a man who was accused to taking pictures of sewer-gratings in Manchester and arrested. Though the police couldn't find any photos of sewer-gratings on his phone, he was held on suspicion of planning an act of terror, imprisoned for two days while the police searched his home, his phone and his computer. When they couldn't find anything suspicious, they released him, but kept his DNA on file." (Source: boingboing.net) (source www.channelm.co.uk - TV for Manchester)

Curiously, some time ago I took this shot in NYC (for the record, nothing a memorable shot). A girl stopped me, asking what kind of interest could a sewer grating cause. I was definitely luckier than Stephen...


Leaving apparently calm territories, the most serious experience was in Oaxaca, November, 25, 2006 during the days of more intense clashes and riots. There, just a month before the reporter Brad Will of Indymedia was killed by paramilitaries in the protests cross-fire while working, leaving as last witness the tragic shooting of his last moments. The situation did not appear to be changed, a real hell between supporters of APPO (2 dead, many injured, 141 arrests) and the repression of the Federal Preventive Police. I was there almost by mistake, 24 untellable hours between the barricades, the exasperation, the anger and desperation of the people. The concern of being involved in an injury, or an arbitrary arrest came along hour after hour. An experience to absolutely stay away from, at least for those who don't know exactly how to move and don't play a precise role.