The citizen has the right to be able to walk the street without constantly being photographed

The authors of section 44 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act did not intend to mandate the systematic harassment of photographers. The law gives police the power to stop and search people, without suspicion of criminal intention, in any area considered a possible target for terrorist attack.

Since al-Qaida targets civilians, an area vulnerable to attack can plausibly be defined as a place where people gather. Predictably, that interpretation is the one police seem to prefer when using their power. They are also zealous in following guidance that identifies photography of public buildings as one possible stage in the chain of planning a terrorist act. So anyone taking a picture anywhere can be stopped by the police as a potential terrorist.

The New Review today reports how a rising tide of suspicion is threatening the art of street photography. Anti-terror law is only part of the picture. Concern about paedophiles has lead in many public places to a ban on photography where children might be caught in the frame. Many streets and shopping centres that appear to be public spaces are run by private companies with their own rules on photography enforced by security guards in pseudo-police garb.

Meanwhile, CCTV cameras belonging to private and state bodies are constantly capturing images of the public, with no obligation to respect privacy or seek consent.

The ubiquity of the camera, whether mounted on government buildings or in a mobile phone, is a defining feature of our lives, but we have yet to settle the laws and protocols that should govern their use: what is public, what is private, what is fair game for a snapper. It is clear, however, that the balance is currently skewed the wrong way. Moral right gives citizens possession of the streets. Governments and corporations should ask permission to take our pictures if they must, not the other way around.