Careful where you point your camera!

From today, with the new Counter-Terrorism Act coming into force, among other things it will be illegal for you to take a photo of a police officer if he or they judge that your snap is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism."

You could find yourself in prison for up to 10 years.

There have already been cases of photographers who have spent hours in prison and had their cameras confiscated or damaged.

All this seems to reinforce Stella Rimington's concern about the development of a police state.

This act is really worrying, for a number of reasons.

1) A camera has been in some cases valuable in establishing culpability of the police themselves. This is severely threatened.

2) We saw with the earlier act which gave local authorities various rights, especially in surveillance, that the power was abused. They used powers intended to combat terrorism to spy on people who claimed to live in the catchment area of a particular school, or to snoop on dog owners and their pets. The phrase "likely to be useful to" could be stretched.

3) The government will know, and we know, that potential terrorists will be able to circumvent the law very easily, if they wish, with various sorts of spy cameras almost undetectable in a crowded situation. The BBC and other film makers regularly use cameras concealed in handbags in undercover reporting. We have seen the result of their filming.

It's vagueness, and possibility of misapplication, the fact that it will have probably little impact on potential terrorists, and above all that it gives still more power to the police, suggests that Stella Rimington is right.

This is an unnecessary and dangerous act by a government that has so weakened the ability to do ordinary policing that they have alienated the public. It will do little to restore confidence in the forces of law and order.