Certainly seems like a necessary precaution to me. But then again, I've always been in the "If you've got nothing to hide..." camp.

From the Guardian in the UK "Andy Trotter, chief constable of the British transport police, who drafted guidance for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said photographers should be left alone to get on with what they are doing.

The shift in policy was a direct response to negative media reports surrounding photographers, amateur and professional, who said they were being unfairly stopped, usually under section 44.

A succession of high-profile incidents involving the use of the legislation against photographers has embarrassed senior officers, who privately concede that the rank and file are misusing their powers on the ground.

In December Guardian reporter Paul Lewis was stopped and searched while taking pictures of the Gherkin building in London and Grant Smith, an architecture photographer, was apprehended around the corner while photographing Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church.

Recent cases include Jeff Overs, a BBC photographer who told the Andrew Marr Show he was stopped under suspicion of terrorism reconnaissance while photographing St Paul's Cathedral, and Andrew White, an amateur photographer questioned by two police community support officers for photographing Christmas lights in Brighton.

Last April two Austrian tourists were forced to delete their shots after being stopped by police in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an amateur photographer, was arrested under section 44 after taking images of a fish and chip shop in Kent."

When you become frightened on the shadows, the terrorists have won. Why should we surrender our rights in this way?

"I think a few photographers being harmlessly searched is much better than having one slip through who was going to use their shots to plan a bombing."

Except it's not just that - people (some professional photographers also) have been bared from photographing public spaces, some have (illegally) had their shot's deleted (by the request of police) and it's a question of greater the greater freedom. These are public spaces after all, and though it's fine for a copper to say "let's have a look at your bag and what you've got on film (real pain if you used real film)" it's another thing altogether to have people barred from photographing public spaces (which has occured) and footage deleted (which has also occured). It may be an issue with how the "younger" cops are interpreting their powers but it's still an issue - it all comes down too the idea of public spaces.

How likely is a terrorist to use a large DSLR to shoot buildings while trying to be discreet?

Why would an actual terrorist risk being caught taking pictures of publicly visible buildings when he could just as easily spend 30 seconds on google images/flikr/smugmug/etc finding a picture already taken? (now throw google streetview into the mix)

The argument of "I've got nothing to hide so why worry" is nonsense. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing - it is an inherent human right.

Well, I live in London and have so far been stopped and questioned by police on three occasions whilst taking photographs. There have been several instances where photographers have been arrested in such circumstances , not for actually taking pictures as such, but for having the audacity to question the authority of the police or PCSO by explaining that taking photographs in a public place is an entirely lawful activity. The excuse that it's linked with terrorism is pretty spurious at best. Have terrorists never heard of Google Street View? Even the senior police are worried by the way some of the rank and file are misusing anti-terrorism laws.

'Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter OBE QPM Chief Constable Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group'

The rights of society, as a whole, must always outweigh the rights of any individual.

@David (1) How can you say that 'I've got nothing to hide, so why worry' is nonsense? How is that not a valid argument? Privacy an inherent human right? Unfortunately, not according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ If it was a human right we wouldn't have satellite imagery, cell-phone tracing, CCTV and, as you say, Google Streetview.

I would rather put up with a search of my person and bags than die in a terrorist attack. The practice of search needs to be tempered though, a professional photographer or even a tourist snapping some pics of famous landmarks is a long way from someone scouting likely targets for destruction.

I also have no issue with being scanned by airport x-ray machines and having security dogs sniff my crotch (they respond well to a friendly word and a pat on the head while doing their duty).

David#4 - maybe not "large" DSLR's but DSLR's are quite likely to be used under the guise of being a "tourist"!

Initial planning of the truck bombing of the Worlrd Trade centre building used photographs taken by the terrorist team. In this day and age, an "innocent" photograph of buildings etc can pose a very real threat to security and as Pete #6 states, rights of society outweigh rights of individuals

There was another case of this unreported in any of the linked articles above where an amateur photographer was stopped by police whilst taking photos of a building scheduled for demolition in his home county in the UK.

He was taking photos of the building on behalf of the council.

The police detained him, requested that he delete all the photos, and when he produced a document that said he didn't need to, arrested him for obstruction, slightly injuring him and damaging the camera in the process.

It went horribly wrong for the police afterwards when they discovered they didn't have the power to arbitrarily arrest a photographer and were forced to publicly apologise several times.