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 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.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














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