I went to see The Social Network, and I really enjoyed it. I reckon that a lot of people will go to see the ‘Facebook Movie’, because they use facebook a lot, and I think they will probably come away disappointed. The movie was quite business, and technology orientated, and while that will appeal to some people (like me), I think it might bore others.

What I am really interested about the movie, is how much truth is actually in it. ‘The Social Network’ is a movie, based on the book, ‘The Accidental Billionaires’, which is based on Eduardo Saverin’s account of the history of Facebook.

Having read a few blogs and articles about the movie before going to see it, I was of the opinion that it was going to be more or less a fabrication, and imagine some of it was, but I also suspect there was a good deal of truth in it.

The movie is focused on two lawsuits that founder, Mark Zuckerberg, was involved in. One with Facebook co-founder, and former best friend, Eduardo Saverin, and one with the Winklevoss twins. Mark comes across as a bit of a jerk, who stabbed his best friend in the back, and stole his big idea from other students at Harvard. However I think he is portrayed as a worse person than he probably is. I think the person that is to blame for the damaged relationship between Mark and Eduardo, was Napster founder, Sean Parker, although Mark still has responsibility for his own actions.

Regardless of the negative way that Zuckerberg was portrayed, the film did still portray him as driven, smart guy. It has also made Mark Zuckerberg a celebrity to millions of people who otherwise wouldn’t have heard of him, even though they use his creation every day.

What I would really love, would be if Zuckerberg, Saverin, and the Winklevosses, all published their own books, with their version of events. I have no doubt that all 3 books would have conflicting stories, but it would be interesting to see the differences.

I think now that I have seen the film, I will re-read the articles I have read, and I want to also want to read ‘The Facebook Effect’ by David Kirkpatrick, and ‘The Accidental Billionaires’ by Ben Mezrich, to gain a bit more insight into the origins of the the site that now has over 500 million members.

I do recommend the film, but being a little bit geeky I am somewhat biased.

Saw this fantastic video, made by Sean Stiegemeier, of the Volcano that has caused so much havoc across Europe.

Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull – May 1st and 2nd, 2010 from Sean Stiegemeier on Vimeo.

You can also watch it in HD on it’s Vimeo Page

I hadn’t planned to blog this month, because I am really busy, but I definitely wanted to post this.

You all know about the earthquake that hit Haiti on Tueday. I’m sure you have seen some of the horrific images on your TV Screens and across the internet, and the huge international relief effort that is now under way. We in the UK are among the richest people in the UK, so we should give what we can to help in the recovery. Even small amounts will help.

There are so many places to donate money, the DEC, Red Cross, Oxfam, Christian Aid. Whereever you donate to, be careful, as belive it or not there are some scammers seeking to cash in on the disaster, read more about that on the CNN website.

I want to suggest that if you want to donate some money, you could donate to Compassion International. Compassion already have staff and workers in Haiti. Compassion doesn’t receive and funding from government, so it relies on support from its sponsors and donors.

How your money could be used.

All funds raised in response to the Haiti earthquake will be used immediately to provide for Compassion-assisted children and families affected by this crisis. Any funds raised in excess will be stewarded by Compassion for additional and future disaster relief efforts.
You can provide immediate relief today.
• $35 helps provide a relief pack filled with enough food and water to sustain a family for one week.
• $70 gift helps care for their needs for two weeks.
• $105 helps provide relief packs filled with enough food and water to sustain two families for two weeks.
• $210 gift helps care for two families’ needs.
• $525 helps provide relief packs filled with enough food and water to sustain 10 families for two weeks.
• $1,050 gift helps care for 10 families’ needs.
• $1,500 helps rebuild a home.
• $2,100 helps supply 20 families with the basics for three weeks.

If you want to donate to help in the recovery please use the Haiti Earthquake page on the Compassion website.

https://www.compassion.com/contribution/giving/haitiearthquake.htm?referer=105120SocialSponsorshipBlitz

If you are anyway interested in photography then you can’t have failed to notice the recent slew of photographers being questioned by the police.

For example,

Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van and searched his belongings under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search anyone without need for suspicion in a designated area.

“Three of them descended on me and said they were here because of reports of an aggressive male,” Smith said. “One of them even admired my badge which said ‘I am a photographer not a terrorist’. But they searched my bag for terrorist-related paraphernalia and demanded to know who I was and what I was doing. I refused. saying that I didn’t have to tell them, but they said if I didn’t they would take me off and physically search me.”

Smith’s trouble began when he refused to provide his name and explain what he was doing to a security guard from a nearby Bank of America office. He said he was astonished by the police response, not least the expense of dispatching four vehicles and seven officers.

Taken from this article on the Guardian website.

And this excellent video from the Guardian, I know it’s 9 minutes long but it’s worth watching.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws

Now, I do agree that this guy was being a little bit provocative, but even still, special branch?! These incidents and more are being reported by Amateur Photographer magazine almost weekly now. What is the justification for this action from the police. Well it’s all to do with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The act states (section 43 and 44):

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Power to stop and search

44 Authorisations

(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—

(a) the vehicle;

(b) the driver of the vehicle;

(c) a passenger in the vehicle;

(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.

(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—

(a) the pedestrian;

(b) anything carried by him.

(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4) An authorisation may be given—

(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;

(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;

(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;

(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.

(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

I don’t really know what all this technically means, or how it applies outside London, or in Northern Ireland, but it seems to be that if you start taking photographs near a bank, government building, or tourist attraction then in the eyes of some police officers you are potentially a terrorist and they can search you.

Don’t get me wrong, if a police officer asked me what I was doing, and why, I would quite happily explain that I am an amateur photographer, just taking some photographs. However I would not be happy about being made to give my name and address to go on police files as having been searched under the terrorism act.

All this comes just weeks after Andy Trotter, Chief Constable of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said on BBC 1, that it is not ‘an offense to take a photograph in a public place. ‘These powers were brought in to protect the public, not to oppress,’.
Then yesterday the sentiment was reaffirmed.

John Yates, assistant commissioner of specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, has today issued a statement to all Metropolitan Police members reminding them that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.

He also says that unless there is a very good reason, ‘people taking photographs should not be stopped’.

Taken from BJP website

I don’t know of anyone personally that has been stopped, but if you do please share the story in the comments of this post.While reading various articles about this type of event, and section 44 I came across this useful advice to keep in mind if you do get stopped.

• You do not have to give your name and address
• You do not have to explain why you are there (though it may be advisable if you don’t wish to get arrested)
• If requested, a police officer can ask to see what photographs are on your camera, but has NO power to delete them.
• Police officers have no power to stop you taking photographs in a public place, under section 43 or section 44.
• Take details about the Police officer(s) searching you, name, badge number, police force etc.
• Take details about the search itself, time, place, length, what was searched.
• Keep any documentation the police officer(s) give to you

What are your experiences or thoughts on this issue, let me know.

Also here are some useful links that I came across, and people recommended.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871996 – This is one of many articles on the BJP website on the issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws – Guardian Video of a video-grapher at St. Mary’s Axe
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/ – Amateur Photographer News section, a whole host of articles
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/your-rights-under-section-44.shtml - Your Rights under Section 44
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44 – Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060308/gillan-1.htm – R & Another vs Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another