backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Oct 14 at 1:57 PM


The photo that Chris White took of his daughter Hazel in the Braehead shopping center  (Source: BBC News)
UK citizen Chris White took his daughter, Hazel, to the Braehead shopping center near Glasgow on Friday and ran into trouble when photographing her within the mall

The U.S. has had its share of photo-related issues when police officers were arresting citizens for videotaping or photographing them while on duty. But a recent incident in the UK took the prohibition of photography to an entirely new level when a citizen was told he was not allowed to photograph his own daughter.

UK citizen Chris White took his daughter to the Braehead shopping center near Glasgow on Friday and ran into trouble when photographing her within the mall.

According to White, he had photographed his daughter eating an ice cream while "looking cute on the back of a Vespa seat at an ice cream bar." He had uploaded the photos to Facebook.

White was then approached by a security guard, who told him to delete the photos he had taken. The security guard also mentioned that there were signs within the establishment saying that photographs were not allowed. Apparently, employees at the ice cream bar had told security that they were suspicious of White for taking pictures at their counter, and had thought that he was also taking pictures of them.

White told the security guard that he had already sent the two photos to Facebook, and that's when the police were called. They took White's information and noted that they could take the mobile phone as well under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. White was then allowed to leave.

A spokesman for the Braehead shopping center assured that the police were polite about dealing with the situation, and that the matter was handled correctly.

"Our priority is always to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all of our shoppers and retailers," said the Braehead spokesman. "The member of our security staff acted in good faith. We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behavior if required. However, it is not our intention to -- and we do not -- stop innocent family members taking pictures."

Superintendent George Nedley, of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde division, said a "full review" has been launched in regards to a complaint regarding White's photography incident.

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 1:26:10 PM , Rating: -1
A lot of people seem to jump to the conclusion that this is about children and terrorism laws. This isn't the case.

What is missing from most peoples thought patterns is that this is a shopping center and is thus PRIVATE property. It is not in the public domain. You have limited rights when you are on someone's property.

The shopping center doesn't want you taking photos of their property and employees. The businesses don't want you snapping photos of their employees and property. The people behind the counter don't want to be a part of your photo album. The public around you doesn't want to be in your photo shoot while they are trying to shop and carry out their business.

The rules in this place are designed to respect the privacy of the people around you, the businesses, employees, etc. If you want to take photos of your kid outside your home they should be in public venues, not private establishments. Respect the people around you.




RE: misunderstanding
By ClownPuncher on 10/11/2011 1:32:29 PM , Rating: 5
Well, the police were called, and they cited terrorism and child protection laws...

Other than that, your post is correct.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 2:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
The mall cited a POSTED no photography policy and complaint by the vendor staff as the reason for calling the police.

The police responded to questions by citing additional laws that applied to this behavior.

The mall is enforcing a policy that is clearly posted for customers to see

The arrest was made based on violation of existing laws, including the laws permitting the mall to forbid photography.

The police are enforcing a broader government policy intended to make planning a little more difficult for criminals. Ordinary criminals appreciate having maps and pictures of their targets just as much as terrorists do. The police were less worried about the mall policy than they were about the everyday hazards that police anywhere must contend with.

As far as the child being in the photograph, well a great way to scout a location and take pictures of things & places of interest is to have your "model" pose so that your real focus of interest appears in the photographs. The police are aware of this method of scouting and assume that people doing photographic surveillance/data gathering are as well.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/11, Rating: -1
RE: misunderstanding
By nafhan on 10/11/2011 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 4
Have you ever been on a military base? Generally, you don't just walk in. I think it makes sense to say:
1) A reasonable person may have second thoughts about taking pictures of military hardware and defenses after going through a line of armed guards who have just searched their vehicle.
2) That same person wouldn't necessarily suspect that they would get accosted for taking pictures of their child at a seemingly unguarded ice cream stand.


RE: misunderstanding
By vicarious1 on 10/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: misunderstanding
By vicarious1 on 10/11/2011 4:47:35 PM , Rating: 1
You are very right. If I could here I could show anyone X pictures I shot of USA warships & Helicopter carriers docked in HKG next to the Ocean Terminal shopping mall (meaning you can walk the mall car park for hours on end and zoom and photograph the vessel or go along with X thousand Chinese hopping around the ship as tourist/visitors and taking photographs of much of what is displayed. Anyone go to a good intl. airshow and shoot what ever is on display most likely some fancy military jets to show off the makers of the killing machines.
But no, a little girl eating ice cream that is dangerous.
Shopping mall "no photography "ares simply DUMB. I am a Designer and in Italy shop keepers go hay wire when they see you taking a photo of some wares displayed be it clothes or others as they think they will be replicated in a no time in Asia. But go at SIESTA time and not one soul cares. And buy the goods and they'll ship it to you in Hong Kong and China with great pleasure. So how DUMB is it to stop someone from shooting a sweater and therefor stopping me to mail the pic to my friend and ask her. "Shall I buy it for you" and loose the sale. The world has changed since he cold war especially Photography and taking photos knowingly (showing your camera) is nothing short of memorabilia collecting. The one who really is the danger is the one walking around with a pin hole video and films 99.9 % of a mall and inside stores and the mentally sick and dangerous who prey on woman, children or what ever makes them tick. Or staff for their own gain or the shop managers who send undercover video to prey on staff (and don't anyone tell me that is not happening) I work in a related industry that has a huge presence in malls and everything is game to know who does what how where and when.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I have and the APs (Air Police) at the time politely explained that the camera I was carrying on the Flight Line of RAF Woodbridge (A US fighter base in Suffolk England) was not permitted even if there was no film it it :P

#1 No armed guards at the gate ... it was about 600 yards after the gate on the way to the maintenance hangars where the airs-sea rescue helicopters were parked. The F-4s were in the same general area. The armed guards you refer to were common at SAC bases and still are on the perimeter of missile sites. Not all secure areas are locked up, many are simply watched.

#2 The mall has signs up saying NO photos. The staff at the Ice Cream stand say NO photos. At this point would a reasonable person assume photography is permitted? The mall security and local police certainly disagreed with you.

Break the mall's rules & a reasonable person SHOULD expect mall security to get involved. Invoke legal problems that mall security is not allowed to deal with & a reasonable person SHOULD expect mall security to call in backup that IS permitted to deal with the problem.

Taking pictures without permission in a location where the prohibition is posted and employees say NO is grounds for a reasonable suspicion that taking photographs might land you in legal trouble.

The way the article reads, the police were called in because the illegal photographs had been published and mall policy required police intervention due to circumstances. This is actually quite common. Private security guards have legal limits on their authority that can only be legally exceeded if they are assisting the police. Even then company policy often requires that they do not assist, merely observe and file a proper report afterward.

The company I work for has multiple levels of escalation. On site company security is normally the only ones you see ... when they require escalation due to legal limitations they can call on tribal police, city police and state police ... there have been occasions that escalation has required the FBI to deal with a security problem on the property.

Just because you like to take photos do not assume the property owner permits you to take photos.


RE: misunderstanding
By nafhan on 10/12/2011 12:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
?_?
Come on, my point wasn't about how the UK chooses to secure their air bases... the point was that a reasonable person is going to have different expectations of security on a military base than they would at an ice cream stand. You were trying to draw some sort of correlation between security at military bases and ice cream stands where none exists.

I'm also going to disagree with you that a reasonable person would understand that no photography is permitted in the mall for a few reasons:
1. There's no obvious reason why it would not be allowed (because there's not a good reason).
2. I find it unlikely that a significant percentage of people going out to shop or eat, stop and read the posted rules and regulations before entering a mall.
3. In places where one can enter and exit freely, photography is generally permitted.
4. A bit anecdotal, but, if "reasonable persons" were likely to feel that this was reasonable, it probably wouldn't have made the news.


RE: misunderstanding
By ihateu3 on 10/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: misunderstanding
By Solandri on 10/11/2011 2:52:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The arrest was made based on violation of existing laws, including the laws permitting the mall to forbid photography.

Just a clarification. You cannot be arrested for photographing on someone else's private property. They most they can do is ask you to stop taking pictures or leave, and escort you off their property.

If you refuse to leave and they call police, you can be arrested for trespassing, but that has nothing to do with photography.

They (the property owners) cannot confiscate your camera either. That would be theft. Just because I came invited onto your property and you decided to kick me out, does not mean you're free to take stuff that belongs to me. If the police have reason to believe my property was used as part of a crime, then they can confiscate it. But never the property owners. (This has been an issue with people using phones in movie theaters. The easy fix would seem be to take the phone away until the movie is over. But the legal recourse is to boot the talker out of the theater.)

And most malls prohibit photography so you won't take pictures of their prices to comparison shop, or (if you own a store) so you can set your prices to beat theirs.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is true. They cannot take your property. They can and should have placed a lawsuit against the individual and legally proved that he violated the terms and conditions for entering the private property of this company which clearly posts no photo signs. Then the legal system would enforce the removal of the offending photos.


RE: misunderstanding
By Amiga500 on 10/11/2011 1:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.... I think it is held in a different legal area to say, a private house.

For instance, you could be done for trespassing in a private house during the hours of 8/8.... not so in a shopping centre.


RE: misunderstanding
By inighthawki on 10/11/2011 2:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's because they let you onto the property. If you disturb the shopping center they are well within their rights to ask you to leave and never come back, and if you do, you CAN be arrested for trespassing.


RE: misunderstanding
By sviola on 10/11/2011 1:52:00 PM , Rating: 4
So, let me understand, they have no problem taping everyone on the mall with security cameras, without their authorisation (and doing whatever they do with the images), but have problem with someone taking pictures of themselves in their premises (What are the odds they probably have a picture taking/selling service in that mall?). What a delightful place our world is turning into...


RE: misunderstanding
By inighthawki on 10/11/2011 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Security footage doesn't commonly get put on facebook, in photo albums, or any other public places. In fact, the footage is never even viewed unless there's a crime committed.


RE: misunderstanding
By Aloonatic on 10/11/2011 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 5
No, security footage doesn't get onto facebook usually, just youtube.

I can only imagine how divesting a photo of a happy girl enjoying an ice-cream at this shopping centre would be to their business.

It's a good job that they tried to stop this man though, else this might have only been viewed by a few people. Now it's gone global.

Hang on, maybe it's a marketing master stroke :o)


RE: misunderstanding
By Solandri on 10/11/2011 3:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
You go into the mall knowing that they are recording you on security cameras (or at least, you should be notified of it as you enter). If you don't like it, you can choose to forgo the shopping opportunity and not go into the mall. Likewise, the mall owners have chosen to allow you to enter their premises. If they don't like what you're doing (photographing, streaking, whatever), they can choose to uninvite you and forgo your shopping dollars. Nothing says the two parties must interact with each other, it's a mutually consensual business relationship.

There is no hypocrisy here. There is no law saying that the rules a property owner makes for guests must also apply to the owner. I open my refrigerator and grab food out of it all the time. I rearrange the books on my bookshelf. I sort my clothes in my dresser in the order I like. Does that mean I'm not allowed to complain if a guest does these things without asking me? Likewise, I can put security cameras in my house, while at the same time asking guests to leave if they start photographing or videotaping inside.


RE: misunderstanding
By ClownPuncher on 10/11/2011 5:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, you can do that. You'll also end up with a news article about it and get negative PR.


RE: misunderstanding
By Aloonatic on 10/11/2011 2:10:51 PM , Rating: 4
If there were employees or other members of the public in the photo, I'd have more sympathy with someone raising an issue, but clearly, there aren't.

Not wanting people to take photos of their premisses. I'm not so sure. Why would they really be bothered?

"Oh no, they took a photo of their child enjoying themselves at our business. This must be stopped else they might look at that photo again in the future and think about coming back to our store as they had such good time".

I mean, really, what is their problem. What am I missing?

Also, there's a difference between private property that you own and don't invite people into, such as your back yard, and private property where you invite people to in order to sell ice cream to their children while providing pretty pink scooters for them to sit on.

I don't see anything in the above photo that is not respecting the privacy of other people.

I assume that if you were to take your child to Disney land, you wouldn't take photos there either? It is private property after all.


RE: misunderstanding
By bah12 on 10/11/2011 4:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why would they really be bothered?
quote:
I mean, really, what is their problem. What am I missing?
quote:
I don't see anything in the above photo that is not respecting the privacy of other people.
Ok you're missing the point. Signs where posted that no photography was allowed. No further debate necessary. It is private property they can set that rule, period end of story. The why's, privacy issues, or your interpretation that there was no harm are completely and utterly irrelevant, as the point is they said no photos, and he was taking photos. Rule broken, he was wrong, then end.
quote:
I assume that if you were to take your child to Disney land, you wouldn't take photos there either? It is private property after all.
On the contrary, Disney doesn't have a no photos policy so take all you'd like.
quote:
Also, there's a difference between private property that you own and don't invite people into, such as your back yard, and private property where you invite people to in order...
This is the only thing about your post that is truly worth debate, and that is was calling the police justified. IMO no, but I wasn't there. Certainly they have every right to ask him to stop and tell him to leave if not. Was he belligerent? Did he refuse? Doesn't really say anything about that, so if he wasn't, then yah they over reacted, but if he resisted at all then he should expect trouble. You give up rights when entering private property, even if invited to do so.


RE: misunderstanding
By Aloonatic on 10/11/2011 5:27:05 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not missing the point. That they might have a tiny sign, down a dark corridor, just outside the janitors closet (I've never once seen a sign in a UK shopping centre, but I would not be at all surprised if they existed everywhere) but that they have them does not mean that it's the end of the story and that the police should be called.

Firstly, all I hear on the TV day after day from our police is how over stretched they are, and if I was to hear someone breaking into my home and call them right now (22:13) I would be more amazed if the police actually turned up, than if the person breaking and entering actually just md me a cup of tea and then left. It's a gross waste of their time and resources.

Secondly, this just shows how far down the road we are now, that people are so happy to blindly go along with this sort of over the top, heavy handed behaviour. Where people find the notion of someone taking photos so horrendous that the police have to be called. Before even mentioning that pathetic state of affairs, where the first thing that jumps to peoples minds is that, rather than thinking that this is just a father wanting to take a photo of a happy moment with his daughter, people think that he is some kind of deviant/paedophile or a terrorist.

This is both pathetic and embarrassing. Sometimes I am totally ashamed to see where we are now.

And still, the stores might have signs up saying no photography, but why? Seriously, why? You say that because they have them, then that's ok, end of story, no questions asked. But still, I believe that there needs to be some explanation as to why they are so frightened of people taking photographs.

One thing that was heartening, was the campaign that quickly followed, and I very much hope that people carry on boycotting the site, and any other shopping centres that has similar rules, which is probably most.

If the owners were that sure that photography should not be allowed, and their all powerful and never to be questioned sign is justified, then they should have stood by it.

But they didn't, they backed down, so what does that tell you about the sign? Will they have to change it to "no photography allowed apart from people who have a facebook group with more that 1,000 likes, and then we'll back down"?

That they folded tell us all we need to know. The sign(s) meant nothing.


RE: misunderstanding
By Schrag4 on 10/11/2011 6:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not missing the point. That they might have a tiny sign, down a dark corridor, just outside the janitors closet (I've never once seen a sign in a UK shopping centre, but I would not be at all surprised if they existed everywhere) but that they have them does not mean that it's the end of the story and that the police should be called.


That's not what he said. He said that if he was asked to stop and he refused, THEN police should be called. We simply don't know the facts, though.

quote:
Firstly, all I hear on the TV day after day from our police is how over stretched they are, and if I was to hear someone breaking into my home and call them right now (22:13) I would be more amazed if the police actually turned up, than if the person breaking and entering actually just md me a cup of tea and then left. It's a gross waste of their time and resources.


If someone walked into your backyard and started having a picnic and you asked them to leave, would you not want the police to show up if they refuse? I ask this of those in the UK because in many parts of the US, refusal to leave someone's home might be life-threatening (that's a good thing, by the way).

quote:
Secondly, this just shows how far down the road we are now, that people are so happy to blindly go along with this sort of over the top, heavy handed behaviour. Where people find the notion of someone taking photos so horrendous that the police have to be called. Before even mentioning that pathetic state of affairs, where the first thing that jumps to peoples minds is that, rather than thinking that this is just a father wanting to take a photo of a happy moment with his daughter, people think that he is some kind of deviant/paedophile or a terrorist.


Nah. It just shows that people are still willing to go to the mall even though they have to give up their rights to do so. THAT to me is the road that we've gone far down. The mall? Really? No thanks.

quote:
And still, the stores might have signs up saying no photography, but why? Seriously, why? You say that because they have them, then that's ok, end of story, no questions asked. But still, I believe that there needs to be some explanation as to why they are so frightened of people taking photographs.


And this is the point that you're missing. It's private property. They don't have to give an answer to why they don't want photos taken. Again, how would you like the guy who sets up a picnic in your backyard to say "Why don't you want me eating outside? I'm not hurting anyone." when you ask him to leave? It's really very simple. If it's your private property (and malls ARE private property) then you set whatever rules you like and people who don't follow them can be asked to leave, and the police should be called if they refuse. As others have said, "End of story."


RE: misunderstanding
By Aloonatic on 10/12/2011 3:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's not what he said. He said that if he was asked to stop and he refused, THEN police should be called. We simply don't know the facts, though.
Well, that's what did happen. It's not the first time either, and the same thing has happened in the street too, not just inside a privately owned shopping centre. (Although, to be fair, many of you probably aren't aware of that.)
quote:
If someone walked into your backyard and started having a picnic and you asked them to leave, would you not want the police to show up if they refuse? I ask this of those in the UK because in many parts of the US, refusal to leave someone's home might be life-threatening (that's a good thing, by the way).
I'll hold my hands up, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. The point I was making here is that the UK police constantly say that they are over stretched, and do not come out to people's homes for potentially serious calls, but seem to be happy to turn up t this sort of nonsense. See below if you're making the point that my back yard is the same as a shopping mall.
quote:
Nah. It just shows that people are still willing to go to the mall even though they have to give up their rights to do so. THAT to me is the road that we've gone far down. The mall? Really? No thanks.
I was making a wider point about how/what people think when they see a man and a child, or anyone and a child, rankly. I wasn't referring to the Mall specifically, but I'm happy that you took the chance to make the point that your too cool for the Mall, or whatever.

And the final point. I do think that they have to give a reason to stop people partaking in perfectly innocent and innocuous activities. Maybe you are happy to just do as you are told without question wherever you go, but I'm not.

I made the comparison between "my back yard" and the Mall already, and it seems pretty obvious that there is a difference between the private property that is my back yard, and the private property that is a Mall, that invites people in to spend their money, to buy camera-phones that possibly even advertise that you can take great photos and HD videos anywhere you go, and have ice-cream stand and pretty pink scooters for your kids to sit on.

Hopefully you can see the difference?

IMHO, if they want to have the public come into their private property then they should expect that people will expect to be able to do normal things that they would in any public space without thinking twice about it. If they want to restrict any of these freedoms, then they should have a good reason for it, not just cause they wanna.

That's not too much to ask, is it? I'm not even saying that they shouldn't have the sign and enforce it, as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification, but they couldn't. When what they were doing became public knowledge, they crumbled went against their own, all powerful sign.


RE: misunderstanding
By Schrag4 on 10/13/2011 1:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I made the comparison between "my back yard" and the Mall already, and it seems pretty obvious that there is a difference between the private property that is my back yard, and the private property that is a Mall, that invites people in to spend their money...


I know this issue is settled in your mind, but you're simply wrong about there being a significant difference. Yes, they invited you, but they can UNINVITE you if they don't like what you're doing.

quote:
I do think that they have to give a reason to stop people partaking in perfectly innocent and innocuous activities. Maybe you are happy to just do as you are told without question wherever you go, but I'm not.


It's private property. They can ask you to cease any "innocent and innocuous activities" and if you don't like it you can leave. If you don't "do as you are told" then they SHOULD be able to ask you to leave and call the police if you don't.

Look - I get it. He was doing nothing wrong. The people that own the mall should have no problem with him taking pictures of his daughter. But that's up to the owners. If they don't want people taking pictures on their property, they shouldn't be FORCED to let people take pictures. If customers want to take pictures in the mall, they should stop going and make it clear to the owners that they won't return until the policy is changed.

When all is said and done, your right to snap pictures of you daughter (and yes, you do have that right) doesn't trump the mall owners' rights. It's not unlike the right to bear arms in the US. Yes, I have the right to carry a gun. But the mall doesn't have to let me carry a gun on their property. It's really no different than if my neighbor said "We'd like you to join us for dinner but please leave your gun at home." My right doesn't trump their rights on their property. And yes, I know you're going to say "but taking pictures of your daughter isn't dangerour like carrying a gun." You'd be missing the point, and it wouldn't be the first time.


RE: misunderstanding
By Aloonatic on 10/14/2011 1:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Your last sentence confirms your conceited attitude, which only makes your earlier comments about this being settle in my mind all the more amusing, as if it's not in yours either, and that should not be seen as am admission that it is in mine, by the way.

That you cannot see that there is a difference between private property that THE PUBLIC ARE invited into and private property that THE PUBLIC ARE NOT invited into, with the exception of YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY is quite mind boggling.

You seem to be missing the point (which someone else replying did get) which is that we need to always be able to ask at least why they have the signs up and if they are justified, not just blindly go along with any sign that appears like a castrated poodle, which seems to be your attitude, and not accept being treated in the heavy handed, over the top manner that the man was with the police being called in.

On a wider note, I believe that this is yet another example why the public and the Police in the UK have never felt more disconnected, as there seem to be too many cases where they are on hand to attend such an "incident". Yet when people really need them, they are no where to be seen. This kind of over the top Police reaction, and over the top shopping centre "security" is just a sad reflection of how people are treated, namely with very little respect. However, I'd wager that the Police Officer and the security guard probably go home most nights and wonder why it is that the public no longer respect them.

Sad.


RE: misunderstanding
By mostyle on 10/12/2011 6:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think the greater point here.. At least for me is this.

Why should there be policy in place in the first place that prevents a guy from taking a picture of his daughter in a public place?

Where do we draw the line? Do public parks start posting the signs as well? So if I suddenly want to take pics of, say, my girlfriend on a picnic will that be prohibited as a future point as well? It's the slippery slip that scares me here. Don't misunderstand my point. I grant that property owners should have the right to dictate what occurs on their property however I'm highlighting the why and how we got to this point that the need to mandate photography between willing individuals.

Had there been third parties in the photo I could see THEM declining to be photoed.

There was a time pre 9/11 where no one would have felt the need for that 'no photography' sign to be posted.

We have slowly and ever so continually foregoing our individual freedoms for the sake of 'safety' of the masses.

We got to this point because we allowed it.

Just one guy's opinion.


RE: misunderstanding
By mostyle on 10/12/2011 6:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think the greater point here.. At least for me is this.

Why should there be policy in place in the first place that prevents a guy from taking a picture of his daughter in a public place?

Where do we draw the line? Do public parks start posting the signs as well? So if I suddenly want to take pics of, say, my girlfriend on a picnic will that be prohibited as a future point as well? It's the slippery slip that scares me here. Don't misunderstand my point. I grant that property owners should have the right to dictate what occurs on their property however I'm highlighting the why and how we got to this point that the need to mandate photography between willing individuals.

Had there been third parties in the photo I could see THEM declining to be photoed.

There was a time pre 9/11 where no one would have felt the need for that 'no photography' sign to be posted.

We have slowly and ever so continually foregoing our individual freedoms for the sake of 'safety' of the masses.

We got to this point because we allowed it.

Just one guy's opinion.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 4:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe for this photo, maybe the next snap did catch something in the background or someone who didn't want to be part of your family adventure. Doesn't really matter anyway... The rules were plainly posted for all to see. Just because it was an innocent act doesn't mean its ok.

Just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you can break a law. This is real common sense stuff here.

So take for example, the next photo might contain a store employee picking their nose in the background. Some unlucky employee gets ridiculed on facebook, the shop owner looks bad, the store looks bad, the store owner probably has to fire the employee now. The employee is poor and in a bad economy and decides its better to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. All this over a stupid photo.

There are any number of things that can happen with a simple photo. There are plenty of examples of this all over the web.

Irregardless of any of the possibilies, you willingly signed an agreement the second you entered the store to abide by the rules and policies of that store. You don't get to decide what rules you want to follow and the ones you don't. That's the breaks. And if you don't like it, you are free to go someone else. Simple as that.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 4:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So take for example, the next photo might contain a store employee picking their nose in the background. Some unlucky employee gets ridiculed on facebook, the shop owner looks bad, the store looks bad, the store owner probably has to fire the employee now. The employee is poor and in a bad economy and decides its better to file a wrongful termination lawsuit. All this over a stupid photo.


LOL so clearly the answer is to ban photos entirely and call you a terrorist for taking them?

Way to illustrate how easily one can fall into a police state mentality. The belief that all rights and reasoning extends from state.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 4:18:41 PM , Rating: 1
I think what the police said to the man was wrong. It doesn't however make anything done prior to that null and void.

You can focus on the flowers and lollipop aspect of this all you want. Doesn't make it right.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think what the police said to the man was wrong. It doesn't however make anything done prior to that null and void. You can focus on the flowers and lollipop aspect of this all you want. Doesn't make it right.


Oh NOW you bring up right and wrong? I love how you try to separate the two; the law itself and the police handling of it, all while attempting moral relativism. Epic fail. It's not irony, it's just plain idiocy.



RE: misunderstanding
By SandmanWN on 10/11/2011 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 1
I brought it up the whole time, you were just reading what you wanted to see. I can focus on any particular aspect of this article I wish. The only idiot is you telling me I have to focus on what you find relevant.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 5:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
So you're Sandman and Buckin huh? What, one account to rate people down isn't enough for ya?

quote:
I can focus on any particular aspect of this article I wish.


So can we! You're the one trying to force us to focus on the legal aspect and nothing else. You damn hypocrite.

I'm not a robot. I don't care if a law is made, that doesn't mean it's beyond question or shouldn't have to stand up to reason. People who make laws are NOT our masters and we're not helpless. Well, obviously in the UK you are...

I don't know why I even give a shit. I'm not the one who has to live in that fascist hellhole. Yeah, the Patriot Act isn't that great. But you don't see people being called terrorists for taking family photos.


RE: misunderstanding
By SandmanWN on 10/11/2011 5:21:02 PM , Rating: 1
Since my company monitors all traffic at work I use one for home and one for work. I abide by the rules of my environment like the father should have done on someone elses property. ;)

It was my post and my topic. If you didn't like it you could always start your own and talk about whatever aspect of the story you wanted. Why you insist on forcing other people to recognize what you feel is important is almost as big a travesty as big brother telling the people what they should think, do, and feel is important.

You are just as bad as those you protest against. Sooner or later you will realize that.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 5:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was my post and my topic. If you didn't like it you could always start your own


Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you're talking to? I own Daily Tech pal, you're playing in MY sandbox :P I'll post what I want, when I want, and where I want!

quote:
Why you insist on forcing other people to recognize what you feel is important


And AGAIN, you're doing the same thing! You're forcing the conversation away from trying to make sense of the law, to simply saying "It's the law, stfu terrorist!" Yes, we KNOW it's the law. So what? We want to debate the law!

quote:
You are just as bad as those you protest against. Sooner or later you will realize that.


Oh please, give me a break. You think that after school special bullshit is going to work on me? Comparing someone speaking their mind in debate to someone holding a position of power over someone else, with them having no recourse, is absurd!


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Reclaimer77 on October 11, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you're talking to? I own Daily Tech pal, you're playing in MY sandbox :P I'll post what I want, when I want, and where I want!


Reclaimer is Anand???

I'll think about calling this post a trolling attempt in a few days when I stop laughing :D


RE: misunderstanding
By dark matter on 10/11/2011 6:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
"It was my post and my topic."

Go and call for you mummy as the nasty bad men from the Internet are not doing as you tell them to.


RE: misunderstanding
By SandmanWN on 10/11/2011 8:01:55 PM , Rating: 1
Internet bullying? Really???
Don't worry, you don't have what it takes.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 8:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh that's kind of the opposite of bullying. Your "It's my post so you can go to hell" attitude is more like bullying.


RE: misunderstanding
By SandmanWN on 10/11/2011 10:47:15 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, not even close really.


RE: misunderstanding
By mindless1 on 10/11/2011 2:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to disagree. While it is private property, they are extending an open invitation to the public to enter.

Were there signs clearing stating taking pictures is prohibited BEFORE coming onto the property? If not, I argue that they waive their right to limit anything within the bounds of the law.

You cannot invite someone onto your property THEN (waiting to) impose your rules upon them. You can state your rules and if they refuse to comply you can ask them to leave but you CANNOT compel them to obey you further, and that most certainly does not entitle them to access your property, including doing so to delete pictures.

Yes privacy is important but that does not mean the individual gives up all their other rights in the process. There may be distinctions made between UK and US law, but in the end the only reasonable position is that you are not "god" or "owner" or "master" of someone else simply because they are on your private property. Unless. They. Agree.

You wrote "respect the people around you" but it goes both ways, you must respect those who do not wish to comply and limit yourself to legal methods of dealing with things. No law was broken, there is no right to detain someone, access their property, or demand deletion of pictures.

At most, the man should have been asked to leave. That is all.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 3:47:31 PM , Rating: 1
No, there is no open invitation. That's just ignorance talking. There are laws and regulations that the local governing body has placed upon this type of business. They spell out exactly what this type of company can and cannot do and what rules they can enforce upon you.

I guarantee you the rules for this particular business are openly posted and available to the public for viewing. A company like this has spent a great deal of time and energy with their lawyers and posted rules for the property that you must abide by.

Ignorance of the law and the rules of private property like this one is NEVER an excuse.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 3:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I see. Hey it's a law, so nobody should question it.

Welcome to 1984, England.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 4:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just wait till they put the shackles and chains on you. Then you can complain. ;)

Look I know you are spastic so I will say that I fully understand your point of view. I'm not one of these mentally challenged 30 year olds with a 13 year old mental capacity. I understand the police pushed it way too far here insinuating terrorist nonsense. It was wrong of them to do so. They should be punished, but that doesn't mean we can go out and force our own beliefs onto someone elses private property. There are two sides to this story.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Be glad its not 1884 England ... a similar offense might have meant jail time or if the judge was in a bad mood and the prosecutor having a good day, transport or death.


RE: misunderstanding
By mindless1 on 10/11/2011 9:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, YES IT IS an open invitation for everyone to enter, they advertise to entice NEW customers as well as existing ones.

A governing body cannot past laws about what a business can or cannot do that repeal the national laws and personal rights!

Yes the business can make a rule that no pictures are allowed. If you do not follow that rule they can ask you to leave.

You are ignorant of the law. A business rule is NOT LAW. Ignorance of a business rule is not only acceptable, it is entirely normal and inevitable. You most definitely do not know the entirety of all rules of every business you have ever been to, so it is laughable that you can't grasp the difference between a legislative body making what is LAW, and a snarky business that has no right to govern over you.

Sorry buddy but you just don't get it. Walking onto someone's property does not make you their slave. They can ask you to leave, they can report any legal offense to police and detain you with probably cause that a LAW was broken, but what they cannot do is impose a rule and declare you are their puppet except for asking you to leave their property.

Get it yet? If it is not illegal to take pictures, without having broken a law, the most anyone can do is have you leave the private property or call law enforcement to have you removed from the property.

You seem to be suggesting there is a law that states that if you are on someone's private property, you can wait until they are on that property then command them like a puppet. Wrong.


RE: misunderstanding
By mindless1 on 10/11/2011 9:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
... and in case you didn't get it yet, the whole reason this made the news is how ridiculous and wrong it is. If they had done the right thing and only asked him to leave it would have been normal, commonplace, and acceptable to the majority even if it seemed a mean spirited way to run a business.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 10:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't get it and so what anyway, a lot of ridiculous crap happens. The only reason this makes news is because its political which this site was never meant to go near to begin with.

Of course if the guy just followed some simple rules to begin with none of this would have happened, so how ridiculous is he? But noooo, he had to do what he wanted to in a place that didn't belong to him and then start distributing his photos of a private establishment on the web. As far as we know he probably popped off with an attitude when asked to knock it off by the security guards instead of deleting a stupid photo, which is why the police were called in.

You assume they got arrogant with the man first. All they wanted was the guy to delete the photos. Could have just as well let him go about his way and continue to stay in the establishment and enjoy the place after removing the photos. Then again he could just as well been some pompous moron spouting off how he could do whatever the heck he wanted to in someone elses place cause he felt like it.

The lesson here is when you are in someone elses establishment you should probably conduct yourself like a guest, just as you would expect them to abide by your rules if they were guest in your home.


RE: misunderstanding
By mindless1 on 10/12/2011 9:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
... and if someone doesn't act like a guest you ask them to leave, it doesn't give you the right to search, confiscate, or demand they destroy their OWN PROPERTY.

I can't imagine what you "think" live would be like if you were right. Fortunately you aren't.

You walk onto someone property and all they can do is ask you to leave. They cannot command you to do anything else, their only other option is call the police and detain you till police arrive. Anything else is a criminal act by the property holder.

If you don't understand that's ok by me. Owning property does not mean you own anyone that wanders onto the property and if you don't own them you do not control what they do except to have them leave.

I tell ya what, post your address and I'll find some way to trick you to come over to my place, and I'll post some hidden "rule" somewhere that you didn't know about, then once you have broken that rule I'll confiscate your belongings, and force you be my butler for a couple years because you broke my MAGIC RULE.

lol... the world doesn't work like that, owning property means you control the property, NOT someone you invite onto it.


RE: misunderstanding
By BugblatterIII on 10/11/2011 2:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
They said they could confiscate his phone under the prevention of terrorism act. That's heavy-handed policing at best, and a worrying indication of where we're heading at worst.


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 3:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
I am just as much concerned that they can do that as you.

Traditionally you would have to take someone to court and prove they violated some law or agreement. At which time the camera and photos would be confiscated. That is the way it should be.


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 3:58:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am just as much concerned that they can do that as you.


You don't sound very concerned. At all.

quote:
Traditionally you would have to take someone to court and prove they violated some law or agreement. At which time the camera and photos would be confiscated. That is the way it should be.


Go to court because I took a picture of my own daughter? Man get the fuck out of here! Do you realize how ridiculous that is?


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's only ridiculous because you believe enough pink flowers, ice cream cones, and unicorns will somehow allow you to do something you know you can't do to begin with.

This isn't the land of fairy tales and fluffy clouds. Get real buddy.


RE: misunderstanding
By bodar on 10/11/2011 8:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Did you seriously say that Reclaimer77 believes in "pink flowers, ice cream cones, and unicorns?" LOL, I don't think it's possible to be more wrong.

Listen, his point is simple. The mall is completely retarded for making such a big deal about this. If this doesn't make UK citizens question why they even have such laws -- especially if they can be extended so far -- there's something wrong. How far is too far? You can't just dismiss people who question whether these kinds of laws are overreaching and abused by saying, "Terrorists, paedos and bad guys, OH MY!" It's completely simplistic.

Hey, while we're at it we can stop libel by putting the press under control of the government. What could possibly go wrong?


RE: misunderstanding
By BuckinBottoms on 10/11/2011 10:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
The mall didn't make a big deal out of anything. Read the story again. They asked him to remove the pictures. A very simple request. He obviously didn't comply. He made the big deal out of it. Just delete the photo and go about your way. He knows he was wrong to do it. It was explained to him that he couldn't do that. He figured he could do whatever he wanted in someone elses place. Pretty piss poor decision for anyone to think they can do whatever they want on someone elses property. The police gave him an attitude because he gave everyone a hard time and was wasting their time on some petty crap. There is nothing wrong here. They put a little fear into someone that clearly doesn't respect the wishes of others and thinks his desires are more important that everyone around him.


RE: misunderstanding
By bodar on 10/12/2011 12:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
FTFA
quote:
We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behavior if required. However, it is not our intention to -- and we do not -- stop innocent family members taking pictures.


Do you hear how ridiculous you sound? They "put a little fear into someone" for taking pictures of his kid. The picture is right there at the top of the article. Hell, if anyone was wasting the cops' time, it was the mall. Quick, get some constables in here! There's a guy recording his positive experiences at our establishment and sharing them on the internet! Sounds more like advertising to me. What happened to discretion? Gee, I do hope it was worth the bad press.

What's wrong here is that sheep applaud laws like this and actually think they would stop anyone with even a bit more brains and motivation than the aforementioned sheep clearly possess.


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't upset because he took a picture of his daughter

They are upset because he took a picture of the interior of the mall ... his daughter appearing in the picture had nothing to do with his problems.

His daughter appearing in the picture also does not make a picture of the mall interior around her not a picture of the mall, so the defense that "I was photographing a child" does not work when the charge is "photographing the place where the child was located."

The police warning effectively eliminated any future claims of "I am really sorry officer, but I wasn't aware that it is illegal" should they ever discuss this subject with him again. Really quite nice of them since he could be facing jail time if they have to discuss this subject with him in the future :P


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 3:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you're just being an apologist for the UK's increasingly Gestapo tactics toward their citizens. I cannot think of a first world nation where it's people have less rights and a more overbearing police state. It's just really scary!


RE: misunderstanding
By Fritzr on 10/11/2011 6:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Parts of the US perhaps :D


RE: misunderstanding
By TSS on 10/11/2011 7:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
That all depends if you count russia as first world or not.

Otherwise, i'd say you'd be right. Kinda ironic though, 70 years of peace after world war 2 and brittain is becoming an police state while germany is spending tons of money to help others in europe.

Maybe you should move those militairy bases from germany to brittain :p


RE: misunderstanding
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2011 7:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That all depends if you count russia as first world or not.


Sadly no. Russia is quickly becoming a third world nation.

quote:
Kinda ironic though, 70 years of peace after world war 2 and brittain is becoming an police state while germany is spending tons of money to help others in europe.


Sigh, exactly...


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki