Slashdot Mirror
Illegal To Take a Photo In a Shopping Center?
New submitter Kyrall writes "A man was questioned by security guards and then police after taking a photo of his own child in a UK shopping center. The center apparently has a 'no photography' policy 'to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behavior.' He was told by a security guard that taking a photo was illegal. He also said that a police officer claimed, 'he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.'"
only outlaws will have still cameras.
And the state will have video cameras.
Everywhere.
Long live privacy!
they're so into this privacy thing, they barely have cameras anywhere.
Partial credit. The correct answer is "Hell no." I would also have accepted "Fuck you."
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
There is literally nothing I enjoy more than to have a security guard and the police question me in front of my small child when all I was doing was minding my own business.
Shopping center take picture of YOU!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
What about writing in your journal?
How about making a phone call? After all, someone could hear what is going on in the background.
How about closed circuit T.V.? The U.K is famous for having cameras everywhere. Isn't that a privacy issue?
How much of our ability to record the events in our lives is illegal under this logic, and subject to confiscation?
What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?
It's not endemic to the UK or Europe. I was told the same thing trying to take a picture in a Target parking lot outside of Baltimore, MD. I didn't think much of it at the time, but what if my car had been damaged and I needed to document it for insurance purposes?
Furthermore, (and this might be a UK/US discrepancy) IANAL but I was pretty sure all a strip mall security guard could do was ask you to leave the premises. Confiscating private property seems like a torts lawyers dream, IMHO. All you would have to do is refuse to surrender your camera/phone and taunt the minimum wage rent-a-cop until he slugs you, and never have to work again.
Actually, I think I might spend more time photographing strip malls... working sucks...
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
if the people who responded to this actually had some knowledge about the United Kingdom's legal structure.
Probably not going to happen.
In Canada, the Security Guard's case would be dubious. While a shopping mall is private property it's not "private" private property. They could legitimately ask you to leave, but not confiscate your property.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
The security guard is within his rights to tell the customer that he is not allowed to take photographs within that environment, if it is private property. However confiscating the device is opening another can of worms, that would be considered theft.
The issue here has to do with various European treaties and the so-called "personality rights." the mall doesn't want to be sued, so they have this policy. Since it is private property, they can make threats like that.
I don't know about confiscating the phone though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In this economy, you'd think they would all but roll out the red carpet for anyone with disposable income.
This is common, and you can see such signs in most shopping malls, etc. On the other hand, it is against their *rules*, which isn't even close to the same thing as being *illegal*.
Braehead shopping centre has changed their policy on the matter and issued an apology to Mr White. There was a facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre, perhaps it was the power of social networking that put the pressure on them as it has hit 20,000+ likes in a very short time.
If I ever find myself in such situation, (And I do not live in the UK) I would ask the officer for the law that specifically forbids me from performing a specific action. Having said that, on several occasions in Australia, I have been asked by security guards in shopping centres to show the contents of my backpack. Every single occasion I have refused as I will not accept being treated like a thief. I have had arguments with security staff and even with managers of the largest shopping chains. On one occasion the matter went all the way to the court as I had a security guard forcibly inspecting my backpack and I called the police. The security guard was charged with performing an illegal search, and lost his security license.
The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!
Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
Don't be a sheep. Know your rights and stand up to unreasonable and intrusive behavior.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Also, there is a huge difference between "illegal" and "against policy".
As commercial private property, shopping centres can ask you to leave for whatever (reasonable) reason they see fit, and if you dont comply, can be forced by police under trespassing laws. Breaking their policies in the first place however is not illegal.
or "Fuck off", or "Don't be silly", or "You're embarasing yourself" the list goes on...
For fucks sake, please somebody put some comon sense to those people
</rant>
-- no sig today
The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time?
Yes, I for one am completely perplexed by this new found fascination with photographing your own kids. It's so strange.
No, that is NOT the real question. The real question is why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years. If one of the ways people exercise those freedoms is to tweet and blog all day long, theta's up to them. You're also free to ignore them.
Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
We have this thing called a Fourth Amendment here in the US, Jerry Brown notwithstanding. Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a barrister!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I can't wait for this to take hold in the USA... stores, businesses, theme parks... they could all just write up a policy and the police could enforce it for them.
What irony... police officers enforcing a "no cameras" policy in a public place in the UK.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
If this happened to me I would make a big scene, refuse to turn over the camera and also charge anyone who tried to take away my camera with assault and theft. If the mall guards detained me I would arrest them for false imprisonment. People cannot go like sheep. You must fight back with barred teeth.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Sure, I understand what you're saying. And if enough people did it, it *might* make a difference. Except that most people, especially the kind who shop at "the mall" simply don't care.
I mean, how do you think we in the so-called freedom loving first world countries got to where we are, essentially a collection of Fascist police states?
People are selfish children who care mostly about flashy toys, and as long as we get our flashy toys at prices only sweat-shop workers can produce, we're a happy lot!
In other words, most of us simply don't give a rip.
Sad, but true.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It's kind of ironic how out of control this "no photos" thing is nowadays, because cameras can be so small, either part of your phone or just slip right in your pocket, that people should be able to capture more spontaneous moments, to post on all of the social media or online photo sites that are available today. Instead, people are going to have to worry about getting their freaking phones confiscated.
And then, to make matters worse, police are apparently also allowed to nose around in your phone without a warrant. So even though your Facebook and Twitter and all that are normally password-protected accounts for your data and would require an official request to get access, police can just click the icon on your phone and look as they please.
I hate where all of this is leading.
There are already many posts on here questioning whether or not the security guard could legally confiscate the camera. The posts title is be a bit misleading. It is a case of having too many antecedents to choose from for the pronoun "he". The article does _not_ state that the security guard was within his rights to confiscate the camera. It states that the _officer_ was withing his rights to confiscate the camera.
A security guard has the right to detain you and call police to have you arrested. They have the right to ask you to leave.
That is ALL they have the right to do.
They are NOT police officers, though an obscene number of them are power-crazed wannabe-jackboots who THINK they have authority.
The security guard STOLE the camera. Period.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why do I never have mod points anymore? Mod up, +1.
http://www.google.com/search?q=take+pictures+security+public , and it will get worse. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
As do I, but keep in mind there are exceptions such as membership only stores like Sam's Club and Costco where you sign a contract stating that you will do just that.
Yes, but the contract doesn't say, "and if I don't show my receipt, you may detain me by force." And I'm about 99% certain Costco wouldn't be dumb enough to try. Yes, you'd be in breach of the agreement, but how would the person at the door even know who you are without seeing your membership card, which you wouldn't show on the way out either?
And yes, Fry's and the like can kiss my ass when they ask for a receipt. One time at Fry's, I went straight from the register to the bathroom to pee. Some associate came in and said, "sir, there's no merchandise allowed in the restroom. I informed him I didn't have any merchandise, I only had my personal property (since it was all paid for). He said it's their policy. I said I don't work for Fry's, so I don't follow their policies after my business with them is completed. He said, "my boss said..." I said to go get your boss and tell him what I said and he can come in here and try to tell me I can't take a leak with my stuff if he wants to try that. He walked away, sorry he didn't finish college...
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You might be surprised to learn that one of the first applications of practical personal photography has been proud parents taking informal photos of their kids. It seems to be quite popular. That was a few years before the internet, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Seems the mall came to their senses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848
fpfail
If you read the article, by the time the police was involved the picture was already on Facebook. This goes beyond taking pictures of your own kid.
lucm, indeed.
Other peoples kids however, hubba hubba.
I kid ;)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
They had movie titles like "The Firm", "The Executioner" and before you know it, they will have "The Mall, The Movie", coming to a theatre near you.
Soon.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Or (thinks) "Little do you know I'm also streaming live video of this little encounter with my BCVC (baseball cap video camera)."
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If you don't like it, tell all the vendors inside the mall why the infringement on your personal liberties is keeping you from patronizing their businesses.
It looks like people have. Never let anyone say we are powerless. Now the question is, how can we arrange a boycott of the police force???
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
On y va, qui mal y pense!
No amount of apology will make me visiting that piece of shitty mall
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
how come the owners of the mall are not allowed to establish rules for their own private building?
They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public. They can put up the signs indicating that there is no public shopping there and lock the doors, then whatever they say (within the limits of the law) will go. Naturally, the tenants might choose to leave at that point, but that's just the natural consequences of their actions.
You make a good point, but why stop just at photography? Why do people need to spend so much time, money and effort in sports events? Think of how much more advanced the human race would be if, instead of spending time and money watching a ball or an animal race around, we were to invest in new materials processes, science and exploration! A city near my home recently spent nearly a billion dollars (US) building a sports stadium. Why not build a rocket complex? Why not build a particle accelerator? Oh, speaking of which... my country just shut down its only large particle accelerator. But, we are building sports complexes all over the place!
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Another Internet tough guy, typing things he'd never say to someone's face.
Community college in my state is $27 a unit. Those too lazy to take advantage of it, or develop some other skill than being surly and unhelpful, as Fry's associates tend to be, can work for minimum wage and suck it. If that's elitist, so be it. The world doesn't owe anyone a living.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I was in NYC when I wanted to take a picture of the buildings around Wall Street. I was approached by a rent a cop who informed me that that was illegal. Well, this is BS. First, I see thousands of pictures of NYC taken and posted every day by professionals, so if I were in scouting for targets, I think I would have the camera in my backpack. Shit like this goes on all the time. Worse, most lawyers won't even bother to help you on issues like this. I guess it makes them look bad when they try to grease the skids for high paying clients.
Interesting that you say that! It seems there was a fair sized protest on Facebook (and presumably email). From that page:
Further to the previous statement Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have confirmed that they will be changing the photography policy at the 11 directly owned centres and that at the other 3 centres, which owned in partnership with other companies, they will be discussing with their partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.
As you will have seen Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have issued a formal apology and said that they have changed their policy on photographs and will allow family and friends to take photographs. I do intend to keep the dialogue going with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC and clarify that this aplies across all of 14 of their shopping centres including The Trafford Centre and Lakeside.
I don't know how many people participated, but it seems to have been enough.
By 1960, 55% of all photographs ever taken were of babies; recording the lives of one's children is not a new endeavour. I have precisely 0 interest in seeing a picture of a random child, but I genuinely do like seeing pictures of my friend's children as they grow up. Automatically uploading pictures to Facebook/Flickr/G+ isn't some strange dark new magic, it's standard tech. I can take my 'phone, hold down the "camera" button, *click* and share it instantly yet you talk like the people doing this are taking huge amounts of time out of their day...
By the by, if you want to rant about people filming music concerts, why don't you just wait for the next story about illegal filming at a music concert? Your comment seems a tad contrived in this context.
The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.
It still is absurd to ban something that is non invasive and non destructive. IDC about paparazzi type photo journalism but banning persons from photographing their peers is like trying to put copyright on photons. And in all legislatures there is a law/amendment/clarification that every law described in it has to be enforced in a sane manner.
-- no sig today
Never shop there again, try go get everyone you know, work with or have other connections with to stop shopping there.
If lots of people do that, this is a self-solving problem.
A company in a non-monopoly environment and whose business it is to sell stuff can not afford to have customer-hostile policies, unless the customers allow it.
It probably works better if you also make sure that the management of the place knows what you are doing and why... Of course, in the UK you probably can get sued for defamation if you do this... =/
A statement being true isn't always protection against this, since the accused have the burden of proving his/her statement to be true rather than the accuser having to prove that it's not.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
This bloke takes his rights with fake cops a step further in the UK.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cveitch#p/a/u/0nuYSVCW9ILs
Great stuff! I like to have them follow me around for ages when I refuse to open my bag here in Australia.
Most people don't realise that there is a difference between policy and the law.
In a mall in the U.S., I was taking a picture of a "Wet Floor" sign I found funny because the stickman on it looked like he was falling the same way I did when I broke my leg. I was still on crutches recovering from that injury, and some guy from a cell phone vendor booth had the nerve to tell me that I couldn't take pictures in the mall because "believe it or not it's private property". But he didn't try to take my phone, and I just crutched away.
About a month later, my girlfriend was harrassed in a Canadian sandwich shop for taking pictures of wall art she thought was cute. An employee had the audacity to harrass her (a paying customer, no less), block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him. He spouted some nonsense about "corporate espionage". After some very loud complaints by me, the owner of the sandwich chain apologized profusely, disciplined the employee (I think he's actually gone now), and mailed us a gift certificate.
So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly. It's difficult to tell if the situation is worse in the U.S. or Canada, but in both countries there are a number of ways in which you can be legally harrassed for taking photos inside a place of business. However, I don't believe anyone but an actual policeman, federal agent, etc. (not a rent-a-cop or employee) can legally confiscate your property (your phone) or look through it.
This "OMG no photos" mindset is not only the product of police-state paranoia, it's fed by the ideologues of intellectual property. The irony is that businesses should be embracing the free advertising...many of these photos will end up on the Web in some form, likely mentioning the location, maybe even tagged with that info and the name of the store, products, and other data-mining fodder. Not to mention the fact that cellphone cameras are an everyday reality now, and bothering anyone who uses them in a store makes for horrible PR and customer service in a very precarious sales economy.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Texas has what is known as an "Improper Photography" law. Relax, those of you who couldn't take a good picture to save your life. This law is aimed squarely at people whose photography offends other people, generally the people who shoot photos of complete strangers. The message seems to be that we don't tolerate street photographers in Texas. Now, that isn't how the law is sold to the public. This is supposed to be an anti-unwitting porn star law. It was born of the need to stop people from photographing strangers in locker rooms, dressing rooms and other places where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the law goes beyond that. If you stand at a children's football game and shoot photos of the children, you stand a good chance of an angry confrontation, followed by police investigation. One professional photographer was arrested because people thought he was shooting too many photos of women at a street festival (his case was dismissed). IOW, the people who are being arrested under this law aren't in private places; they are out in public. Most of those arrested people who are now reported in the press do seem seriously sketchy, but nothing in the law would discourage someone from pressing charges against any photographer who shoots photos of several strangers in public.
In theory, the Supreme Court says that I have the Constitutional right to shoot videos of anyone who is in a public place. In practice, several Texans have informed me that if they see me shooting photos of anyone's children, they will inflict on me significant bodily harm. This law is part of their justification that they are in their legal rights to do so.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Agreed. Just clarifying the article, since many posters confused the person supposedly within rights to confiscate the camera, according to TFA.
4:45 :-)
for the police officer to take his camera/phone away. the police officer presumably thought he had rights under section 44 of the UK terrorism Act but this has been declared illegal by the European court of human rights, the government is appealing this but its likely to lose. The most sensible thing is to make a direct complaint to the Police complaints authority.
Now having said that the space where the photograph was taken specifically forbade the man from using any form of camera, now if that place was considered public as in their was pubic right of way then it is illegal restrict photography but it is legal if it is on private property
this area of law is complex and one of the best place to get detailed information is http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2 which supplies a downloadable pdf with the relevant sections of law
> They are perfectly free to do that as soon as it is closed to the public.
Being open for business does not mean that the mall is "public" like the street. A mall is a private property, just like a movie theater or a restaurant or a casino, and as such, any customer walking in is a guest and must comply to the rules established by the rightful owners. Like any commercial building the mall is subject to specific laws, such as complying with the fire department regulations, but this is still a private property.
The title of the article is misleading - "illegal" does not apply here. It's a private matter, and by proposing a ban on this mall the guy who was displeased with the mall rules is doing the right thing since no law was broken.
lucm, indeed.
as it turns out, when people find out you are evil, they dont like it and then you end up eating crow because you fear them.
Photography Policy Change
We have listened to the very public debate surrounding our photography policy and as a result, with immediate effect, are changing the policy to allow family and friends to take photos in the mall.
We will publicise this more clearly in the mall and on our website, and will reserve the right to challenge suspicious behaviour for the safety and enjoyment of our shoppers.
We wish to apologise to Mr White for the distress we may have caused to him and his family and we will be in direct contact with him to apologise properly.
no need to appologize for getting caught being evil, just go bankrupt instead.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
In many countries, taking photos in public space is OK, but the ower of a building, shopping centre etc has the legal right to prevent you from taking photos within the private space. As for taking the phone/camera, again it depends on where you are, usually it's just erase the film or erase the images, I don't believe that they can take your personal devices away from you. Anyway, it is reasonable to expect that there should be signs around saying 'no photos', or instructions saying that it's condition or entry.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
> If you read the article, by the time the security guard was involved, the picture was already on Facebook.
Since the police came *after* the guard, then both descriptions are correct.
> I really don't understand why you have such a problem with someone sharing a picture of their own child on Facebook.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow, with everything being staged for a good pose. Just walk on the street, it's everywhere - people are even taking picture of themselves when they are alone. Millions and millions of those pictures are uploaded every day - what for?
The other day I saw this student demonstration on the street, thousands of students. And while they were marching, hundreds of them were texting (probably tweeting "I'm in a demonstration") and taking pictures of themselves; they were not *there*, they were staging themselves for pictures and tweets. This is beyond shallow.
lucm, indeed.
The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time? What is the amount of said pictures that are actually looked at by anyone? It's like those thousands of smartphones raised in the air during concerts so people can upload shitty clips to Youtube. Everyone is broadcasting, no one is watching.
People don't have a life anymore. They have pictures and youtube clips.
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If the money was spent on sports where the people are involved, at least it would lead to a generation of healthy imbeciles. Instead it's all about entertainment - that's what those buildings are, it's not sport when you are seated, drinking a beer, it's entertainment.
lucm, indeed.
I'm not sure there's any Irony either, but you may want to RTFA, in which a police officer threatens to remove the camera under (blatant misuse of) the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation.
Not illegal, but perfectly okay to be banned –on private property, in the UK, which this is, the owner is entirely at their liberty to say whether or not you can take a photo.
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
lucm, indeed.
Open to the public isn't the same as public property, but it DOES impose a number of limitations that would not apply to private property that is not open to the public. For example, in my home, I can be as racist as I like. I need not ever invite anyone of a race I don't like into my home. A place that is open to the public does NOT have that option.
I also hear that they have the rights to levy taxes on Tea without representation.
Um, I was the same age as the girl in the photo in 1977, and I can assure you my parents took a ton of photos of me, and now that we're all older, they seem to enjoy them.
Photographing your kids is nothing new and it seems to bring people a lot of joy, so why have a problem with it.
The Dutch government started a new campaign yesterday asking everybody to take pictures in shoppingmalls when ordinary people spot shoplifters, violent behaviour, etc. With this campaign they try to increase the chance of getting the criminals behind bars. When people take pictures of people doing illegal stuff then the court have more evidence to convict the criminals.
Actually, reality is a little bit more complex, the owner of the mall is within his rights to forbid the use of camera's within it's confines. However, that has to be clearly marked and the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises if you do take pictures. He does not have the right to delete your pictures nor to confiscate your device.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow,
Yeah, before uploading pictures to Facebook everything was deep and genuine.
Once you have children you'll get constantly pestered by your parents and assorted other family for updates, Facebook or Google+ are good ways to distribute them.
As for demonstrations: the *whole* point there is to be seen, to make as much of a media impact as possible.
What if you don't have any bars on your teeth? Dental work after a few solid punches is expensive you know and the trifecta of obscence language, assault and resisting arrest is hard to get around unless you are in a position in society to be respected more by a Judge than a policeman with a perfect record.
Yes I know you meant "bared teeth" and it's just a symptom of the education cuts that make you think that the world resembles the writings of Tom Clancy more than Kafka. Civil disobendience only works when you matter a great deal to society or if you have a lot of witnesses that will take your side that matter a great deal to society. Getting beaten up and imprisoned with hardly anybody noticing for some minor issue is not a very intelligent thing to do when more attention can be drawn to the issue by giving in and complaining later. It's an object that is being taken away and not a human being - do you really think it's worth pretending to be a hero and risking injury when things can be resolved in other ways? Did you really even think about it at all or did you just pour on the false bravery of yourself cast in a fiction when in reality you would not act that way?
See, that's the problem with putting so much value on "private ownership rights": someone ends up owning the government, and it generally isn't you.
I very much doubt they can do much else other than kick you out if you do take a photo, however. Definitely not confiscate your camera.
Well the thing is, on private grounds I make the rules and I can ask you to vacate those grounds if I feel that need. On public property however, the rules are different.
How about a flashmob with hundreds of us taking pictures with big lousy flashes and everything?
Maybe we'd get nice videos to post on youtube. It could well be the only way to reverse the trend.
(I've been bugged by a security guard about taking pictures in a French shopping center)
The "thing is" that all property is held in fee simple and ultimately belongs to the government, and most of what you can and cannot do anywhere is defined or enforced or allowed to be enforced thanks to the government. This will never change as long as the world is ruled by humans. So the question becomes whether you want a government which can be bought by the many or bought by the few. The answer will depend on whether the dominant philosophy in the country is to invent rights for the powerful or rights for the weak. America just might possibly be slowly changing its mind, but it's still firmly in the former camp.
"But won't somebody please think of the mall owner!" OK, I'm thinking of him, and I've decided that where lots of public eyes may go, he must permit private photographs as an extension of the natural faculty of memory (which may be photographic).
Hey, I didn't take any stance here, I just clarified what your rights are.
Not in Scotland, where the Breahead Shopping Centre is located. In Scotland, you own the land outright, not that it makes any practical difference.
the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property.. in Scotland that would theft along with "wilful deprivation of property"
Also doing so i Glasgow would be a bold move..lol the Weedgies would have yer eye out for less! i asked a mate of mine who is a Lothian and Borders(Edinburgh area) police officer and he said and i quote "that's a load of balls bud, they can't really stop you and definitely cannot take your kit, the force of law is not on their side" he then told me what the security dude could be charged with for taking your kit. Also under certain circumstances if the security "man-handle" you they can be done for assault as well!
Are you thinking of the Let's Pretend Feudalism's Over (Scotland) Act 2000? As you say, it makes little difference to the limits imposed by government on land ownership.
He also doesn't have the right to say that breaking his mall's rules is illegal. If you break policy, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are then trespassing. That is illegal. Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.
Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Even before that, if you were the feuholder of the land, you owned it outright, whereas the closest equivalent in England, the freeholder, merely has a licence to occupy the land in perpetuity from the Queen. I'm thinking more of the Norman invasion in 1066 which didn't happen in Scotland.
However, you do still need to get planning permission to do things with the land, and you can still be subjected to a compulsory purchase order.
... so they can have whatever rules they like. It's not illegal but security are within their rights to prohibit any activity they feel like.
On a public road however you are allowed to photograph anything you like. 6 photographers did an experiment in central London by photographing important buildings. They were hassled by building security, who then called the police, who then had to tell the building security that the photographers were on public property and thus couldn't be prevented from taking photos.
You're closer to correct than most people here. Trespassing in Scotland is a little harder to use for this, but instead of doing him for trespassing, they can arrest him using public order type acts for something like causing a public disturbance.
You see, the mall is private ground, so they get ALL of the benefits of controlling what people can do, because they're private. But as soon as *they* need the law, it becomes a public nuisance and the law steps in to help.
Best of both worlds.
no offence, but fuck off :)
i don't take many photos nowadays (i did much more when i got my hands on the first digital camera...), but i don't want to be assaulted by some idiot when i do. and no, i don't upload them facebook (i don't even have an account there) or anywhere else. absolute majority of them are for private use/sharing with friends
Rich
If they do ask to delete it, pretend to do so (or pretend to not know how). And in any case, you can still recover the photo from the smart card using photorec at home.
My new mall has a policy that it's against the rules to be black in it. So, can my rent-a-cops call real cops and make black people leave and maybe arrest them too? There's a big difference between "policy" and "illegal." When your "policy" becomes "law" then we're back to fiefdoms.
Shh.
the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
Yes we do.
while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property..
Agreed, but then other stories I've read on this have said he didn't try to confiscate it, he tried to get them to delete the photo.
This is one reason I hate shopping centres and the ever encroaching use of private space to live our public lives.
On a public high street, I can take a picture of whoever and whatever I like from the public highway (pavement). Every shopping centre everywhere in this country has the right to ban me from taking pictures. And yet we live more and more of our lives in these types of private spaces.
The same goes for public parks vs private parks, privately owned estates (e.g. Canary wharf) vs proper public spaces. Even though to a right thinking normal person, there's no difference between these two kinds of spaces, the law treats them differently
even at that bud, i'd tell the guy to jam it ;)
i doubt there's very much he could do about it and if he did try he'd most probably be breaking the law in some way
There's a distinction between private property which is a private place, private property which is a public place and public property. There are things you can legally do in private places which you can't in public places regardless of your ownership (such as drive a car whilst drunk), and things you can't prohibit even on private land (such as access to public rights of way). It isn't remotely unreasonable to impose additional restrictions on what owners can prohibit in places which function as public spaces. Build something which is an extension of the public streets then expect it to become a bit like one. (And even when you do have the right to make the rules it doesn't stop everyone else ridiculing you in the media for doing the wrong thing and being an arsehole).
I'm not saying I agree with the mall owner, but that according to the law, he can and has the right to ask you to leave. That's the only right he has. I'm clarifying this solely to inform people of their rights, if you are ever caught in this situation, they do not have the right to confiscate your camera nor can they demand you delete your pictures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848
"Customers will be able to take photographs at several UK shopping centres after an internet campaign." ...
"Capital Shopping Centres, which also owns malls in Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Nottingham, said: "CSC can confirm that we will be changing the photography policy at our 11 directly owned centres and that at the other three centres, which we own in partnership with other companies, we will be discussing with our partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.""
Sounds like they took the hint.
-- Simon Key
Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right.
Now, standing across the street on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the mall, would likely be a permissible activity from public property. But the law doesn't usually force property owners to allow people on their property to do any specific activity.
There was an interesting story recently about someone who ran into similar problems at the Mall of America, as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What freedom exactly is being undone by not allowing pictures to be taken on private property (like a mall)?
Okay, let me spell it out for you: As malls get increasingly popular, people spend more and more time on private property. While people used to be able to walk around their town and take photos, they are increasingly unable to do so. And obviously, malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't and taking photographs is only the least of the things people lose. Being searched on entry or exit? Wow. I'm assuming political speech is out too, but of course people like you are going to jump up and down screaming "it's not censorship because it's not the government doing so".
The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls and reassert public ownership of things like public transport, but in case that clashes with ideology, you can walk a middle ground of extending some civic rights to these places. This isn't particularly insane, last year a German court ruled that Frankfurt airport (a corporation where the public is a major stock holder) could not abolish the freedom of assembly on their premises.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
This is a very common trick used by people in positions of authority everywhere.
When you are want someone to do something but don't have an immediately clear reason why they should (or at least not one you're prepared/able to explain), pin responsibility on the absent third party. That third party doesn't have to be a physical person, it could just as well be some sort of rule - or for that matter the law.
Using "the law" is a common trick used by parents on their children; it's less common to see it used on adults because when it's misapplied, this is the sort of thing that happens.
Mate, look at the photo. They have MOTORBIKE SEATS instead of chairs in their cafe.
No amount of rights and freedom posturing is going to overcome the pressure of your kids wanting to SIT ON MOTORBIKES WHILST EATING ICE-CREAM.
My kids would happily have me donate DNA every visit in order to go to a cafe with motorbikes.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
UK contract law is bounded by the EU consumer contract directive, which are transposed as the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999". In particular, Article 3.1 states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if,[...] it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.".
Since the typical mall operator does claim the right to make photo's, and does not individually negotiate these terms of entry, there is an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. Therefore, this contract is legally unfair, and not binding.
From that, it follows that there is no legal basis for the confiscation of the camera, and then one must consider what criminal law covers such action.
"Causing a public disturbance" isn't actually a criminal offence, at least not in Scotland. The closest I'm aware of is "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress", but I suspect it would be quite hard to prove in this case. Particularly as the police have recently received guidance that people being offensive to them isn't in actual fact likely to cause them distress, because accepting offense is part of their job...
A common-law "breach of the peace" may also qualify, but in order for that to be proved, the offender must be shown to have threatened damage to person or property (or behaved such that a reasonable person believed they were under threat) whereas it was actually the centre owner who was threatening damage to property by trying to delete the pictures.
Like England and Wales, trespass (by itself) is not a criminal offence in Scotland, so you cannot be arrested for trespass. You can be required to leave, and you can be required to rectify any damage caused by your trespassing, but you cannot be arrested for it. There are exceptions: trespass on crown land, "encamping", and so on, but none would apply here.
Causing a public disturbance *is* grounds to issue an ASBO, so the photographer needs to watch out he doesn't get one of those. If he does, repeating the behaviour *would* be a criminal offence. But without actually issuing the order before the behaviour occurs, this is irrelevant from the point of view of arresting/prosecuting him.
So, no, I don't think they had a legal leg to stand on.
Above is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer, nor Scottish, but do take an interest in these things.
> malls aren't the only places that used to be public but now aren't
Do you have a date as to when the malls went from being public to not being public? As far as I remember, they were private property. But maybe I've been brainwashed after watching Mallrats too many times.
Also if you could name one or two of those other places that used to be public but are not anymore, it would be interesting. Unless you talk about those government buildings that were sold to developers who built condos.
> The ideal solution would be to raze the fucking malls
Yes, that sounds like an appropriate solution to protect freedom. After all, it is well-know that malls are a direct threat against freedom and democracy (especially those where the food courts have a 30-minute seating limit to prevent loitering). Also there must be a reason why Jesus went postal when he saw that the temple was becoming a mall.
Just to be sure, we should not only raze the malls but also spread one foot of salt on the grounds where they stood to make sure that nothing ever grows again on such forsaken land.
lucm, indeed.
There is a real easy answer to this question. The reason this is happening is because people keep asking the government to "solve" ever more problems. In addition, instead of trying to solve those problems that are properly the business of government at the local level, people try to get them addressed at the state or federal level.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Now what would have been hilarious would be if that man taking a photo had actually been a policeman, the security man would have the camera taken away, and then the policeman would have taken out his police badge and said "you are hereby arrested for theft of a mobile phone ..."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
All the art work on commercial packaging in the shopping center are copyrighted designs! You really think you can get away with copyright violations?
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as [...] research, is not an infringement of copyright." -- 17 USC 107
Actually make that police world, you have no freedoms, if you think you do you are mistaken.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I got my terms wrong, but basically, breach of the peace applies here because the centre did not act on its own volition. A member of staff of the ice cream stand is the one who called security. As such, the police can act based on the fact that this person was concerned / threatened enough to call the law :(
TWO YEARS AGO British police were warned by Scotland Yard that taking pictures is not illegal and shouldn't be construed as a suspicious activity in and of itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/yates-police-terrorism-powers-photography
"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped," wrote Yates, who is Britain's senior counter-terrorism officer.
The fact is that it was the mall who stopped the man (for flimsy and absurd reasoning) and the cop was simply being a jerk. The mall is getting it's peepee spanked by his Facebook page and will pay through economic damage caused by their stupid actions. And (I can't believe I'm saying this) it is unfortunate the man can't sue because of it.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
And again, you get 8/10 for snark, but not a whole lot of points for thinking along. The modern kind of mall always was a largely private thing (though often generously subsidised, no doubt), but instead of walking around in a private mall to visit stores, you could also walk around on public streets to visit stores. I guess it's fair to put modern malls in one line with market places (eminently public places) and market halls (e.g. this, don't know if those were typically publicly owned). Another example for public places that are now sort of private are all kinds of public transportation, e.g. the FFM airport case I referred to or the MTA Photo Ban thing which was discussed on Slashdot on numerous occasions.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Not in England. Trespass is (rightly) a civil offence only.
Sorry UK your police state is worse.
There is a real easy answer to this question. The reason this is happening is because people keep asking the government to "solve" ever more problems. In addition, instead of trying to solve those problems that are properly the business of government at the local level, people try to get them addressed at the state or federal level.
Of course they do. People will use the most effective tool available, the one that gives them the best leverage to accomplish their goals. Unless it's a purely local problem they're trying to solve, they'll naturally reach for the biggest hammer. This is why giving government such broad, sweeping power is a bad idea. It *will* be used.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In many western countries malls are disappearing, they are being replaced by shopping districts where superstores, specialized boutiques, hotels and entertainment complexes are close to each other but are separate buildings. Those shopping districts are still private property, where access is a privilege governed by the owner's rules and enforced by private security. Just as with casinos, taking pictures in those areas is not illegal but if frowned upon and might cause the security to intervene.
Preventing patrons to take pictures is not done by evil corporations wishing to destroy freedom. It is a simple, practical solution to enforce the expectation of privacy of the other guests as well as an easy way to minimize exposure to lawsuits. In many countries the privacy laws are in effect binding a corporation to protect privacy in self-defined boundaries; this means that if the owners of a mall are allowing patrons to take pictures, they must also take measures to protect the privacy of everybody appearing on those pictures, which is unrealistic. By forbidding pictures but not strongly enforcing the rule, corporations are basically shielding themselves from lawsuits, but in situations where there are complaints (such as the posted article where employees found the guy suspect) it is in their best interest to act.
This is the same logic with internet access at the office. Most employers will state that internet access is provided only for official business, which removes the expectation of privacy from employees (and therefore removes ground for most privacy lawsuits), but do not enforce the rule unless some abuse is reported.
lucm, indeed.
For some reason, my comment on this ended up archived from a post I was responding to here, so here is what I wrote in response to it: Actually, here in Canada security guards can arrest you, it's in the Criminal Code of Canada, however, it is actually still a Citizen's Arrest, but surprisenly, you must still tell the person you're arresting his/her rights!
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
While I was in London, I was at shopping center at Angel and a rent-a-cop asked me if I was taking pictures of the shops. I said I was taking pictures of the wings and halo sculptures. That was fine, but not the shops. I say, "If the let you in the shops what could they possibly be protecting against?"
2 years ago I tried taking photos of my family in front of some X-mas decorations at the Market Fair Mall in Princeton, NJ.
I was spotted by security and threatened with ejection - they cited private properly rules. Which is actually kind of hard to argue with.
But they said it was policy that I could take all the photos I wanted around the decorations, IF we paid for a kid photo with Santa.
I caved because that's what we were there for anyway.... To get my little daughter a shot with Santa Claus. (though in the old day's sitting on Santa's knee at the mall was free, and sometimes netted a small toy... greedy bastards the management is today...)
Huh?
that'll be a nice wrestling match if that officer wants to take my mobile, as I will not give it up to anyone for such nonsense reasons..
I guess I bored them to death. ;)
Either A. you forgot about another common law jurisdiction's counterpart to fair use, B. you have something substantial to say about the difference in scope between fair use under United States law and fair dealing under United Kingdom law, or C. you were just making a funny. I can't exactly tell which.
Only the Dutch would come up with the idea of using this force for good. :)
With few exceptions, the worst a private-property owner can due is escort you off the property, photograph you, and take down your license plate #. They can also intimidate you into providing your ID - more on that later.
IF their rent-a-cops are real off-duty cops, they can get the cop to give you a trespass warning on the spot and the cop can request and in some cases demand ID.
Once they have your ID or enough information to identify you, they can contact the police and get a no-trespass order. This can extend to the entire chain, entire shopping mall, or entire chain of shopping malls with exceptions granted only for things like voting.
They can also sue you to get a court ordered destruction of the photographs.
But they generally can't detain you or block your exit. Well, they can try but they risk facing kidnapping charges.
I say "with few exceptions" - if they see you taking pictures in a way that could be reasonably construed as part of a larger criminal act, then they can call the cops and have you arrested. Examples would include "upskirt photography" which tries to take pictures of what's under a ladies dress by photographing reflections (this is illegal in some states), videoing (or infrared-photography) of people using (or just finished using) ATM or other PIN-entry devices, or other photography that is more often than not associated with criminal activity.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The even easier answer is just to ignore idiotic security guards talking out their backside, claiming they have legal powers that they do not.
No philosophical discussions about the role of government in society required.
It's a pain sometimes (some big shopping centres have some nice displays during certain times of the year!) but yeah, as it's private property they can ask you to stop taking photos or be escorted out. They can even, if they really wanted to (though it'd be bad for business) kick you out because they don't like your face.
Doesn't mean taking photos is illegal as such, just that if they don't allow it they have the right to boot you out.
Malls being private property and not some sort of public rights-exercising ground is a concept that some have still to learn (WHY ARE YOU CLOSED? I HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOP!) :)
Reasoning for being told not to take photos seems to vary, but when I was asked to put my camera away once - politely - the reason given was "the shops get a bit upset about their copyrighted logos", which is probably where the claims of illegality come in. And knowing how extremely touchy companies tend to be about their logos, it's not entirely surprising if it's the most popular reason that brought forth all this fuss to begin with.
It gets a little different, I believe, if you're taking pictures of the mall (including any outward facing shop windows) from the outside, as there you would be in a public area and they have chosen to display things in view of a public area. I've heard of photographers being asked to leave from in front of a shop on a public high street and, basically, being able to say no. Though I suspect depending on the side the policeman's on if they got involved, they could possibly think up some sort of public order offence.
My taxes paid for their mall? Not likely. Here we have developers that pay for that kind of stuff because they want to profit from it. My taxes probably paid for things like access roads and traffic lights there but that's it. If I found them giving developers money to build a mall they were going to own and make money from I'd go batshit.
The problem with this stuff is that these no-photography policies are just that: policies. Malls are private property, so if you violate their policy, they only have one legal option: ask you to leave. They can't confiscate your equipment, in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you. If they don't want you having that photo, they only have one legal option: they have to sue you in civil court and get an injunction to make you delete the photo (good luck enforcing that and making sure you never copied it anywhere), or just suing for "damages" (good luck convincing a judge that the mall was economically harmed by your photo).
The disturbing part here is that an actual police officer apparently was in on this, and saying that taking these photos was a "crime". That cop needs to be fired and blacklisted so they can never work as a cop again. Corporate policies are not laws, and they can't be enforced as such. When we do, then we have officially become a fascist country.
1 a Shopping Center is PRIVATE PROPERTY with public access
2 the different storefronts are considered Copyright/Trade dress by each store
3 the various AntiTerror laws come into play because Shopping centers are a "target of Interest"
It quite frankly would be "legal" for the security guy to stomp the guys phone into gravel and have him thrown bodily from the premises (but NOT NORMALLY DONE).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Not in England. Trespass is (rightly) a civil offence only.
Huh?
So if some guy breaks into your house, even the police aren't allowed to remove him, and your only recourse is to sue him?
That makes no sense at all.
Better to nip this insanity in the bud, no?
Police have a "legitimate need" to stop lots of crimes. Searching everyone's homes without warrants would really help that. So can they come search yours, Mr. Helpful?
You're the fucktwit. In America, the law is clear: A shopkeeper needs probable cause to detain and search a person leaving his store. And me walking to a register and paying for everything in plain sight does not constitute probable cause, not even remotely close. It's settled law in all US jurisdictions, not an "invented right."
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.
Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.
Same thing in Sweden. Moreover, locations like malls and workplaces count as public spaces (even if they're privately owned), and the owner / security guards can't physically force someone to leave once they've let them in. They have to call the police to do it for them. You can, however, physically evict someone from your private home even if you previously invited them.
> There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
Or that contract that you signed when you paid your annual membership dues. Refused your inspection? You just voluntarily terminated your contract, so you're free to walk out, but your account is canceled, and you'll never be allowed to shop at the chain again.
But hey, it's your right to refuse!
Do you know how many people come in and out of a Costco in a given day? If I walked out without showing my receipt, the guy at the door wouldn't know who I am. If I did this once a month for a year, maybe they might eventually recognize me. Maybe not.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If some dumb security guy puts his damned dirty ape hands on you unlawfully, *you're the plaintiff* and he and his employer will be the ones with the legal bills. And in such a scenario, a lawyer would likely take your tort case on a contingency basis.
And it's "counsel."
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you.
Sadly, no.
FGD 135
Fully agreed. I was only objecting to the claim that people would just roll over on this one when I knew that public action had already overturned the polivy in at least the one case.
Not quite. Small difference. They have no right to force you to do or not do something, but they can demand that you leave if you refuse their requests. And they certainly can't demand your property. (such as take your camera) or demand your actions (such as delete photos taken) Short summary: you don't lose any of your rights simply because you're on someone else's property. BUT being ON their property is a privilege, one that they can rescind at any time, for any reason, including breaking their "house rules".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Holy crap, the UK is really insane. They say we're crazy for owning guns, but security guards (a.k.a. "thugs") are allowed to murder suspected shoplifters over a bottle of aftershave?
Over here, the security guard would likely go to jail for homicide (depending on the facts of the case), would be sued for everything he owned, and his employer would (rightfully) be sued as well. Only agents of the state (i.e. cops) have a right to preemptively use force; for private citizens (which includes security guards), you're only allowed to use force if you reasonably believe your life or safety is in danger, and no, simple theft from a store doesn't qualify for that.
In 1994, when our daughter was around a year old, we took her out to a salad bar restaurant (Fresh Choice, I think). She was playing with her food as one-year-olds do and it was very funny, so we decided to record it for posterity on the camcorder. When we did this, we were approached by a restaurant employee who told us that no photography was allowed inside the restaurant and asked me to stop videotaping my daughter. I did. I also pointed out that, given where we were sitting and the layout of the restaurant, it wasn't possible for me to shoot video of much more than my wife and daughter and the people sitting behind them. I also pointed out that not allowing us to shoot videos of our kid seems like a family-unfriendly policy and we would be passing the word on to our friends with young children. Later, on the same visit, we got a big apology from the manager, explaining that while it was company policy, we could go ahead and shoot video of our daughter. He also gave up free meal coupons for our next visit.
Because the culture of uploading pictures to Facebook makes the society fake and shallow
While the old culture of taking pictures and putting them in albums you showed to every poor visitor was not?
So in other words, as my other comment put it, it appears "you have something substantial to say about the difference in scope between fair use under United States law and fair dealing under United Kingdom law". What exactly is this relevant difference in scope?
Taking a picture used to be a significant moment, and because of the work involved from the pose to the drive to the mall to drop the film to the selection and preparation for the album it meant something. Now there is essentially no work involved so people take pictures all the time, putting everyone in a constant state of staging. It's like everyone is a hollywood star except the paparazzi are themselves, and no one is interested in buying the pictures but everybody keeps uploading.
It's cheap and fake. Broadcasting yourself, as they say.
lucm, indeed.
In a free society, the police have no rights. They only have the power to encroach on the rights of a person when that person encroaches on the rights of others. For a constable or police officer being thought of as having any rights except as a random individual is just wrong. They have limited powers vested in them by the people they serve.
However, that doesn't make taking photographs illegal. That requires a breach of criminal law, which is a matter for the police, not some fat minimum wage illegal immigrant who failed the exam to work at McDonald's. As a cleaner.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided is that I wish to prevent you from taking away this freedom. If you can't wrap your head around that, think of the GPL. The only restriction it seeks to enforce is that derived code remains free and available for others to modify. If you claim you still can't wrap your head around the difference I suggest your post is no more than an attempt to be childish. "I know you are but what am I?".
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Are you a policeman? ... and he's detaining me unlawfully. That's wrongful imprisonment, right? How many years?
No
Then call one.
I have the right to confiscate your camera
No you don't.. Attempt to do so and/or to touch me, and I will regard it as attempted robbery/assault. I will defend myself and my property to the full extent allowed by law. And when or if you get out of hospital, I will sue you, your employer and your cat.
I have the right to confiscate your camera
Since you aren't prepared to call the police, I will. Hello? Police? Yes, I've got some monkey with a walkie talkie who claims to be one of you. He's threatening me [start walking towards an exit]
Stay right there [stands in your way]
Security guards are all little Hitlers. Face up to them and they shit themselves. You might find one or two who think they're hard, but if they do anything an inch beyond their powers those places are full of CCTV cameras. Enjoy your windfall.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Obviously someone that didn't read the SUBJECT and then skipped over a lot of the text. Please read it again and then get back to me. Pay attention to the portion about taking action later.
:)
Also pay attention to the bit about it being an object and not a person. If somebody is taking children, loved ones or even just that guy on the street away it can be very important to stop them on the spot. For objects it doesn't matter as much.
Also try thinking about it seriously and whether you'd really want to serve a few years of time and have a permanent injury just to attempt to save a few photos and fail. That injury you wish to inflict on others above (hospital time) is going to result in hospital time for yourself in anywhere that doesn't have extremely professional law enforcement in addition to having to serve time for injuring a policeman. I doubt you'd do it because you'd work out how incredibly fucking stupid it is to sacrifice so much for something so trivial. That really makes me think your bold words put you into one of two catagories - an idiot that wants to escalate trivial situations into violence or a hypocritical sabre rattler calling for others to lose blood for pointless causes instead of important ones.
If a cop steals your stuff why get beaten up and arrested for it? It gets nothing done because by the time it gets to court the petty theft looks trivial in comparison and will be portrayed as a lie anyway. Instead go up the tree until you find somebody honest and then complain about the cop stealing your stuff instead of trying to look like a hero and instead getting labelled as somebody that tries to kill cops.
Reality is a little bit more complicated than a Tom Clancy novel
Pretty much, it is a publicly accessible area, and as such there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Unless somebody does something against criminal law, the most you can do is ask them to leave. If they don't, well that's trespassing and is against criminal law.
No really a fee simple title requires a fuedal lord; an oath of allegiance to a flesh a blood person.. I believe the calvin case is relavent here. In fides non ficta.
No the wording of it is such that it is not actually contingent on weather someone was distressed but weather it was likely to cause distress. I.e would a reasonable person become distressed.
No, the real questions here are:
- Why do you care? It is literally none of your business.
- What do you think gives you the right to decide for other people what they may or may not do, based only on your opinion that it is a waste of time?
This brilliant comment could very well be the beginning of a recursive and endless loop.
So tell me: why do *you* care why I care? And what do you think gives *you* the right to decide for other people [etc]
There's no recursion here. You have decided what others should do. The only way in which I have decided [...]
Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).
lucm, indeed.
That's simple, stop paying taxes. Not easy mind you, but simple.
Yeah, that'll stop people from being questioned under the Anti-Terror Law of 23562 or some shit. Did you read more than the first paragraph of the fucking article?
Thanks to confirm that *you* have decided what others should do.
(I would like to point out that I did not "decide" anything in the first place, I just made a comment, but this endless loop has now a life of its own).
As I suspect, you're a child, and one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot. Have a good day. Don't bite others.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
> As I suspect, you're a child
Obviously. You can decide what other people can or cannot do, so you also can decide who is a child and who is not.
> one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot
You started an "endless" recursion loop and now you are mad that I won't "terminate" it. If someone does not understand something, it's you.
lucm, indeed.
> As I suspect, you're a child
Obviously. You can decide what other people can or cannot do, so you also can decide who is a child and who is not.
> one that doesn't understand a terminating case in recursion to boot
You started an "endless" recursion loop and now you are mad that I won't "terminate" it. If someone does not understand something, it's you.
You forgot to call me a poopie head. Grow up. You can have the last word now. I have more important things to do.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
> You forgot to call me a poopie head. Grow up.
By saying "poopie head" and "grow up" in the same comment, are you being sarcastic, or is it just another demonstration of your inability to see that you contradict yourself frequently?
> I have more important things to do.
This thread has been going on for a while, so I am pretty sure you don't have more important things to do. Unless you mean starting other endless loops somewhere else.
lucm, indeed.
What part of "the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises" isn't clear?
WTF is all that heroic anarchist dead at 19 arguing over a bus ticket bullshit above then, such as:
OK then Mr Norris in your own mind, such as the sort of cop that is more likely to apply force to you? Have you ever considered that the cops that are most likely to beat you up are the ones that have done it a lot before? When you are dealing with corrupt cops you really have to pick your battles because you are going to get hurt if you push it far enough and you are going to end up imprisoned at least until it's time to see a Magistrate and most likely a great deal more time than that just waiting for the case to be heard.
Also do you realise that you are insulting yourself as well because you are not really the superhero you describe yourself as above. "Anyone that knows how to fight" indeed. Dodging bullets and batons and outrunning police helicopters I suppose. Please put aside the play and discuss this as an adult instead, especially if you are going to insult me to the point of calling me a coward. If you played things the way you pretend you would and lived my life you would have been killed in a pointless "what's in the bag" incident twenty years ago instead of just showing some corrupt (and later imprisoned cops) some textbooks.
Also, why go all kung-fu over an object when you can complain to the whoever was elected in your area and get things sorted out that way? Ammo box is not supposed to come before ballot box, it's for when you have no ballot box.
Yes you can if they had no legal right to give that direction, steal your stuff or if it's an injust law that you can complain to representatives about.
So you stand your ground and decide to provoke things until you get beaten up (as you said above) - congratulations, you are now a statistic but no matyr because hardly anyone is going to give a shit about what you've done. It's your word against a cop so your option "C" is not going to happen without a witness the Judge considers of greater prestige than a cop. Random bystanders from normal jobs are not going to count even if there are fifty of them, you need doctors, lawyers, other cops or people of similar standing in the view of a Judge. What's worse, the cop has to justify beating you up so you get charged with something and most likely imprisoned for a while. Am I breaking through that naive shell yet?
At least I've given you someone you can misunderstand. make a straw man out of and feel superior to once you've inflated your ego a bit, but that really was not the point. Your action in doing that has disgusted me somewhat.
The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.
What if they arrest him and then release him without charge? Do they have to give the camera back? do they have to give the memory card back? If so do the pictures still have to be on the card when it's given back?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
In 2003, when I was trying to get on a plane in Kalgoorlie to fly to Perth an Airport security guard started claiming that my digital camera might 'be a bomb' and started demanding I hand it over so he could 'throw it away'. I believe (and still do), that what he really wanted was the camera, so I refused to hand it over. He then said he'd get the police, so I agreed that he could call them. He then said if I could prove it was a working camera he'd let me keep it, else he'd assume it was a bomb and take it from me. So I turned it on and showed him it working ... I was a little afraid at this point because the batteries had previously died and I wasn't sure it would turn on. The fear was that I'd be put in a position where I'd have to chose between keeping my camera or flying where I needed to go. The camera was worth $500 and the plane ticket about $150 ... but I needed to get to my destination. Anyway, luckily the battery had enough charge to turn on once and prove it was a working camera (and died a few seconds later after he'd checked it .. phew).
My youngest brother wasn't so lucky and when he was out photographing nature in a park the police told him taking photos was illegal and confiscated his film and threw it in the bin. I spoke to my boss about this (he was a Snr Constable - I was working for WA Police at the time as a civilian) and he told me that the police officers did the wrong thing. Anything personal property they take from you, if it isn't something illegal (like drugs, weapons etc), you have a right to demand a receipt for and they are required to return it once the reason for why they took it from you had passed. For instance, in this case my boss suspected an operation was going down and they wanted to ensure that the photos my brother had taken didn't contain anything that might jeopardise the operation (like put officers lives at risk). But, also, if there was nothing jeopardising on the roll of film they took, then it should have been given back later. I wish my brother had taken their numbers down so that he could report them, but too late now. But, know your rights ... while we still have some to know.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
The center may have a policy but that policy is not law.
I am astounded that a "center's" policy results in
the confiscation of personal property.
Was the policy posted in a clear and obvious way.
I have heard of people that have a policy that they should
liberate goods from establishments when they are of the opinion
that it over priced and or otherwise in need of liberation.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.