Police Restrict Public Photography

An anonymous reader writes "News.com is reporting that in Australia, recent attempts by a photo club to take pictures of industrial installations was met with police resistance. From the article: 'Club member Hans Kawitski was told not to photograph industrial installations and was ordered to inform members of the camera club to follow his lead. Liberty Victoria said its advice to photographers would be to ignore the directive. "The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC said.'"

Comments

Re:Photos inside buildings.

[tpgp]

The article mentions being 'hauled away by security' for taking photos inside Eastland shopping center. Well, that one's understandable. The shopping center is private property... can't take photos without the property owner's permission.

You are correct that the shopping centre is private property, but incorrect that this means you cannot take photos there without the property owner's permission (I am going to make a huge punt and guess you are not an expert in Australian law)

This wiki has a reasonablly good explanation:

The Summary Offences Act 1988 states: 'public place' means (a) a place (whether or not covered by water) or (b) a part of a premises, that is open to the public, or is used by the public

As much as the shopping center operaters would love to control everything, they opeate a public space.

That the article fails to mention the difference between photots inside someone's property, and from outside the property, is poor journalism.

What you fail to mention is that US!=The rest of the world. Things work differently in Australia.

In that case

[Sycraft-fu]

He should have called the police, filed a report for false arrest and sued the company for destruction of property.

The actions of a private security force are not the responsibility of the government, and they are restricted by the same laws as the rest of us. This isn't the government cracking down on terrorist bogeymen, this is a private security force that needs to be informed they aren't cops.

Learn your rights, and stand up for them.

Now this is, of course, assuming your friend wasn't doing something illegal while taking the pictures like tresspassing, which is illegal and would get him in trouble. This would actually be what I would suspect, given my past experiences with such things. I've had a number of "rent-a-cops breaking the law" stories related to me in my life, most in person. Initally, it always sounds like the security force was in the wrong and, of course, I advocate standing up for one's rights as always. However it then usually comes out that the person involved was doing something they shouldn't have: Tresspassing, shoplifting, whatever.

Either way, my advice for the future: If private security tells you to stop taking pictures while you are on public land, tell them to get lost (do make sure you are on public land, not their property). If they try to detain you, get your cell phone out and threaten to call the police, while backing away. If they push the issue, make the call. If they do detain you and take your property, file a police report, and contact a lawyer about a civil suti. It IS illegal.

Security forces can temporarily detain a person only under very limited circumstances, such as if they are on the private property they are hired to protect, and they have witnessed the person comitting an illegal act (like shoplifting). Otherwise, they are just civilians in a silly uniform. If they try to grab you for something like taking photos on a public street, they'll lose their jobs at the very least.

Re:In that case

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to respond to your recommended recourse against private security guards:

PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS!!!!! PLEASE DO NOT ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS ABOUT SPRAYING US WITH MACE OR INTIMIDATING US WITH WEAPONS!!

Ok, my background. I'm licensed as an armed guard in the state of Oregon; I've gone through a lot of training with various levels of law enforcement to understand the charge and the responsibility of the sort of work I do.

First, it's not always the most interesting work, to be a security guard (unarmed.) Mostly I walk around a factory interior and tour the grounds a couple times an hour in the evening and at night. But as a guard, I may be assigned to do a lot of different things - sometimes instead I'll do entry security at an event, and YES, we're allowed to search bags, but only because you paid to get in. And of course there's some level of profiling involved: the clean-cut, courteous individuals don't make trouble 999 out of 1000 times, even if they sneak in a flask. And it's absolutely not a matter of race, mind you, or ethnic wear, not among anyone in this company that I've worked alongside with, but manner of dress, habit, and personal effects. (So if you want to smuggle a flask into a concert, dress like a business professional who's going to an event after work; you won't be searched. If you make trouble anyway, yeah, you'll still get thrown out.) But this is all a digression...

The purpose of employing security guards, nine times out of ten, is not to hold off a major break-in attempt: it's to scare off vandals and call the fire department if something catches on fire. At the factory where I work, there's no point in trying to steal anything, anyway - they turn giant rolls of steel wire into much smaller segments of differently-shaped wire. You'd need a tractor trailer and a forklift to try to make off with anything, and then what - are you going to sell a hot 5 ton spool of steel wire? To whom? So it's not about theft prevention. But to prevent some kids from hopping the chain link fence and throwing rocks at the windows, that's worth it to the business.

So, if I saw someone wandering on the property taking pictures, I'd probably ascertain: are they on the property? If so, then I will inform them that they can't be here (note: you don't say "You're trespassing! Cease your ingress!" - you use words that any native speaker and many nonnative speakers understand); I won't ask what they're doing, I won't engage in a conversation about why they should be allowed to remain. They can't be here. (Showing a company badge means I let them alone for now and then call my supervisor to let him know that a suspicious character has a badge, and he calls the plant manager to find out if they're legit.) If they're not on the property, let em go.

I don't know of a single guard who would try to take down someone without really good cause. I sort of don't believe that these people actually exist - I think they're the fictional nemeses who lend bravado and excitement to our friends' exploits, a contemporary ghost or gang of bandits. Why? Because it's dangerous and stupid to confront anyone. They could have a knife, a gun, and then your life is over, and for what? the glory of tackling some punk with a camera (hint: there is none) to save a few windows? to protect a five ton spool of steel wire?

(The "reall good cause" could be - some thug is having a party in your department store, knocking over displays, menacing customers, threatening people. I haven't, but I've worked alongside with some guards who have tackled and bodily restrained these people until the police arrive and detain them. And when I've worked armed, the rule is - property can be replaced, while your life can't. Only if someone threatens violence or death do you draw your weapon, and first as a deterrant, last as a protective.)

One last thing: yes, anyone can place anyone else under citizen's arrest, and anyone can bodily detain anyone else. The

There was a good reason for this paranoia...

[jheath314]

Prior to WWII, back when Russia and Germany had relatively friendly relations, a lot of German 'tourists' visited the USSR and had their photographs taken by various strategic landmarks, such as bridges and tunnels. The photographs intentionally included the nearby signs, which provided important parameters such as clearance and maximum allowable load. Once this information was systematically compiled, the Germans had an unprecedented knowledge of their future enemy's infrastructure, enabling them to plan troop and weapon deployments with an incredible level of detail.

That is (or at least was) illegal...

[interactive_civilian]

DrEldarion said:

One of my friends was taking pictures of an industrial facility at night for a photography class - security detained him and destroyed his film.

Was this private security for the complex? Or was it actual law enforcement?

Because if it was private security, the first thing your friend should have done was call the police and have the security guards arrested for theft and/or destruction of personal property. It is not legal for them to do that. They can ask you to stop taking pictures and if you actually are on their property then you must comply, but they cannot take your film. Well, at least not without a court order.

Check out the Photographer's Right.

Re:this is all the rage in britain at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

the police do not need to charge you with anything to detain you - if they have suspicions of any sort that they can relate to terrorism in any way, they can haul you off to the station for questioning

And having gotten you to the station, they can take a DNA sample, which they keep even if they subsequently release you without charge.