BEagle, which brings to mind one story, I forget the details to protect the guilty b*st*rds.
After a number of photographs were submitted up the line (official camera or not I cannot recall) we received two responses.
Predicatably one was a bollocking for a clear and proven breach of the rules.
From another department a letter thanking us for some excellent Int and asking for more.
Of more recent times I seem to recall that it was personal cameras bought duty free in theatre that provided many GW1 media released imagery as there had been no thought to combat photography.
To the isue of trying to force someone to change their mind, this is not new. I seem to remember a wg cdr informing a politician of the state of the RAF. More recently the RAF Club bar was a well known conduit of both fact and rumour with Teddy Donaldson the often unwitting dupe. Or the Daily Express being the 'must-read' journal for the facts.
There was much in the OSA 1911 about sketching etc that I think most people would be aware of what is right or wrong. Indeed digital photography is more 'secure' as it remains in the hands of the originator whereas wet film was usually processed out on the High Street.
Unauthorised photography is prohibited but who best to know whether authorisation should be given except those in the front line? OC Plod is competent to say No but incompetent to say Yes. Matey in his chopper knows what is classified and what is not. If in doubt they can refer to the sqninto.