JHC Diktat bans personal cameras?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this not just another case of weak leadership and an unwillingness to face up to military discipline? In which case rules are brilliant.
I have taken countless photographs of aeroplanes, landscape and sunset whilst flying Her Majesty's aircraft. (And would continue to do so if we still had the ones I drove) I don't think any would constitute a security risk.
On the other hand, if I were to be that stupid that I took a picture of a radar scanner, SF mate or weapon event I would expect to be keel hauled.
Is there a security issue with cameras? If so who caused it? Court martial the guy and no-one else will do it.
Or are we just in a world where we have to have a rule 'just in case' - like the ability to be vicariously offended..in that you weren't offended but thought someone might be; so you deemed what was said 'offensive'. There was no security risk, but there was a chance that someone could think there was, so we mitigated the possibility (of a chance) with a brand new rule. And a six month 'not carrying cameras' currency. Those out of currency will have to carry cameras for a dual and a solo before recommencing no camera ops. By day.
Perchance we are simply further into the turgid world of a rule for everything.
I have taken countless photographs of aeroplanes, landscape and sunset whilst flying Her Majesty's aircraft. (And would continue to do so if we still had the ones I drove) I don't think any would constitute a security risk.
On the other hand, if I were to be that stupid that I took a picture of a radar scanner, SF mate or weapon event I would expect to be keel hauled.
Is there a security issue with cameras? If so who caused it? Court martial the guy and no-one else will do it.
Or are we just in a world where we have to have a rule 'just in case' - like the ability to be vicariously offended..in that you weren't offended but thought someone might be; so you deemed what was said 'offensive'. There was no security risk, but there was a chance that someone could think there was, so we mitigated the possibility (of a chance) with a brand new rule. And a six month 'not carrying cameras' currency. Those out of currency will have to carry cameras for a dual and a solo before recommencing no camera ops. By day.
Perchance we are simply further into the turgid world of a rule for everything.
It was only because I happened to have my private Olympus Pen-FT with me that we were able to send some photos of Soviet Bears to the int folk....
They were extremely grateful, to the extent that the squadron was given 4 x Canon cameras with telephoto lenses for future occasions.
I wonder what happened to them in subsequent years.....??
They were extremely grateful, to the extent that the squadron was given 4 x Canon cameras with telephoto lenses for future occasions.
I wonder what happened to them in subsequent years.....??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the squadron was given 4 x Canon cameras with telephoto lenses for future occasions
Last edited by Tiger_mate; 17th Dec 2011 at 09:46.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Beagle - Ive got a couple like that in the back of my logbook as a souvenir of the many dragonfly sorties I flew on over the years. Mine were courtesy of a Lightning Mate - we tankers stayed back a respectful distance! They werent even classified Restricted at the time, and from time to time similar piccies appeared in the press.
As for the rumour argument - I'm all for rumour being discussed on here, it's the whole point, isn't it? As for the security aspect, can anyone point out any breach of security on the thread?
All smacks of the attitude of that Met inspector wally who tried to stop that kid taking photos of a military parade, which ended up with the Met (ie the taxpayer) handing over damages and legal costs to the kid because of the inspector's illegal interference.
As for the rumour argument - I'm all for rumour being discussed on here, it's the whole point, isn't it? As for the security aspect, can anyone point out any breach of security on the thread?
All smacks of the attitude of that Met inspector wally who tried to stop that kid taking photos of a military parade, which ended up with the Met (ie the taxpayer) handing over damages and legal costs to the kid because of the inspector's illegal interference.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In GW2 an F3 nav took a nice piccy, with his personal camera, of an Iraqi airfield that had been attacked. After landing the Squinto got the picture off him as he thought it may be useful for BDA etc. The next day it appeared in a US brief marked SECRET NOFORN (because of the super secret asset that had taken the picture, obviously 
).
).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the question of copyright and who retains it, if a private photo is submitted and used for official purposes (BOI or Int, for example), would the copyright be with the individual who took the image or with the MOD?
Different situation altogether, but if anyone submits an image to the annual RAF Photographic Competition it used to be the case that you signed over copyright to the MOD as a condition of entry. This was the reason I didn't enter one year when I was advised by the Stn Photo Section that I had a worthy photo.
Different situation altogether, but if anyone submits an image to the annual RAF Photographic Competition it used to be the case that you signed over copyright to the MOD as a condition of entry. This was the reason I didn't enter one year when I was advised by the Stn Photo Section that I had a worthy photo.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
P6, I believe, but stand to be corrected, that any picture taken in the course of one's duty is automatically Crown Copyright. Clearly a photograph taken in the air of a target of interest ought to be CC but when it is simply taken on base then . . .
Thread Starter
I started the thread because the whole thing smacks to me of rules to avoid any embarrassment to JHC.
I have always been aware that photographs taken on HM ac are Crown copyright and that is why my photos remain in my possession and not on the internet. In any case, there is absolutely nothing embarrassing or sensitive in them apart for some of my cheesy yellow-teethed grins. However, some of the photos I have taken on the ground in various locations would be a little sensitive (at the time).
Surely we need a rule about public disclosure, not restrictions on an area that brings everyone so much personal pleasure, especially as they look back with the rose-tinteds on.
The only thing I regret about my time in the cockpit was not having taken enough photo's. What a missed opportunity.
I have always been aware that photographs taken on HM ac are Crown copyright and that is why my photos remain in my possession and not on the internet. In any case, there is absolutely nothing embarrassing or sensitive in them apart for some of my cheesy yellow-teethed grins. However, some of the photos I have taken on the ground in various locations would be a little sensitive (at the time).
Surely we need a rule about public disclosure, not restrictions on an area that brings everyone so much personal pleasure, especially as they look back with the rose-tinteds on.
The only thing I regret about my time in the cockpit was not having taken enough photo's. What a missed opportunity.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Marly, quite. I still have my photo from the cockpit of the first T* to land at Mount Pleasant. Now had I released it to the press as soon as I could it would have been acutely embarrassing to the VSOs that were on the first official T* flight to open the airfield as I think that was the flight after ours.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any picture taken in the course of one's duty is automatically Crown Copyright.
If you use your own camera and you do not have a remit to take photographs formally, the copyright is yours regardless of subject matter. This does not provide protection from the Official Secrets Act and could still get you a visit to your AOC. ....and I should know
To encourage photography with 'Photograph of the Year' competitions and then discipline you for taking photographs is clearly a case of mixed signals or conflict of interest. There is not a plane in the sky that has not been photographed by someone with a fortunes worth of long lens; Area 51 may prove me wrong, but you get the drift. However a short camera phone video of impending doom is a little embarassing especially when on youtube: Que "Ye have little faith" said the Apache pilot, seconds before "Mayday..."!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate the word is infamy!! ....and in discussion very recently about that very subject, [email protected] sends his regards.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Bitburg... during a summer Tiger Meet (1981 I think) a certain Puma pilot colleague (DB) gave me his SLR with a zoom lens, with a directive to take some photos while he was shooting a 12 bore in the skeet competition. The firing point was up a ten foot high earth bank. The earth bank was populated by many spectators, some of whom were attractive, female and wearing mini dresses and other skimpy oufits .
I took lots of photos from below the earth bank . I even took one of DB firing a gun. I handed the camera back to him without a word. He later sent his wife to fetch the developed photos. Boy, was he in trouble over those photos ...... 
I took lots of photos from below the earth bank
. I even took one of DB firing a gun. I handed the camera back to him without a word. He later sent his wife to fetch the developed photos. Boy, was he in trouble over those photos ......
Well at least this only hits the pilot classes who seem to be the most keen to record their efforts so acurately.
I left the mob several years ago and I'm actually envious of those who have/had so blatantly swerved the photography rules for so long - using unregistered cameras as they saw fit.
Camera registration is still a mandatory MOD requirement, by the way - on all MOD establishments and on many civil contracted operations.
I left the mob several years ago and I'm actually envious of those who have/had so blatantly swerved the photography rules for so long - using unregistered cameras as they saw fit.
Camera registration is still a mandatory MOD requirement, by the way - on all MOD establishments and on many civil contracted operations.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said earlier I snapped happily for many years and glad I did. The pictures were not intended for gain, nor did I plan to publish. I just hope service charities can eventually benefit from my efforts in addition to recording some images which would otherwise now be lost. I knew what I could photograph because I briefed many visitors to the squadron about the "rights and wrongs". I avoided the subjects to be avoided and also helped out with some snaps to assist "the authorities". And I do know the "no photographs on base" rule but the UK is not Greece thank goodness.
I still say that photographs are the lifeblood of an organisation. In this day and age, a system which tries to roll back the waves will wither.
Lets be sensible. Enforce OPSEC but encourage public relations.
I still say that photographs are the lifeblood of an organisation. In this day and age, a system which tries to roll back the waves will wither.
Lets be sensible. Enforce OPSEC but encourage public relations.
Couldn't agree more Geehovah. As a young fg off on my first tour on F4s I used to take my camera with me. Even I knew what I could and couldn't photograph.
Even so, I wish I'd taken more at the time.
Even so, I wish I'd taken more at the time.