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 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.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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