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

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.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














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