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 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.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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