Sure you are much more likely to understand the law and give opinions about it than a specialized lawyer. He is probably talking nonsense, unlike you who knows absolutely everything about the law and cannot be possibly wrong, right?
Taking pictures in public bathrooms and other places where privacy is expected is covered by specific laws, but as a general rule you are free to do it in public places regardless of who is the owner. The owner can ask you to leave at any moment if he doesn't like what you are doing, or if he doesn't like you, or whatever may be his motive, but you can take as many pictures as you want in your way out. They can only ask you to leave, and as long as you comply in a timely fashion, which he was doing, you are not trespassing.
The proof of that is that the cops where forced to give him back his pictures and couldn't press charge of anything against him.
Taking pictures in theaters is covered by copyright laws and it is actually a crime. It has nothing to do with the case here.
How does one "use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag" without resisting? To protect something would require moving in ways that other than directed. Again, security guards are not psychic. The act of protecting a bag can look very much like the act of getting a weapon out of a bag.
He was already handcuffed and dominated you idiot. He represent zero threat. How can you be this stupid? Do you even know how to read?
The quote is the opinion of one lawyer. Have lawyers always been right about the law? If so, then why do we have courts? If the lawyer could cite cases to support his claim I might be less suspicious.
Sorry, but The opinion of one lawyer is considerably more valuable than yours in this, especially considering you have talked nothing but ignorant nonsense from the beginning.
There is a clear distinction of many laws regarding public and private spaces that have nothing to do with property. For example it is illegal in most countries to take pictures in private spaces (like bathrooms or inside the house of someone else) without permission, but it is allowed for anyone to take pictures in public spaces. Taking a picture in this context is not a crime, remaining in the location after the owner(or his proxies) asked you to leave (for which motive he pleases including because you are taking pictures or because Mars is aligned to Venus) is a crime though, but the act of taking pictures in itself is not.
He didn't do even that. He refused to erase the pictures (which was within his rights) and was leaving as requested and snapped a picture of the COPs in his way out (which is still within his rights), when they pinned him down.
The police overstepped their authority and searched his belongings looking for the camera, which they unlawfully confiscated and were forced to give him back later. They also damaged his property by unecessarily cutting his backpack. Two police officers and two security guards could easily remove his backpack if they hadn't handcuffed him before trying to take it . He didn't resist.
Last but not least if you still want to discuss laws, go discuss it with a lawyer (I am sure you think you know more about law than him):
Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.
Next time try reading TFA before arguing about it.
Nowhere in your article public space is defined, as I said, and you have failed to find anything to corroborated your distorted association between public space and public property.
Additionally, although the police officers can arrest you they can't search you without a good reason. They had no reason to search him. There was no suspicion that anything in his possession was illegal. Even if taking pictures is reason enough for being spelled of the place, the pictures are still legal and are his property. That is why they were forced to give him back his pictures. Even more, they had no excuse at all to damage his property, as they did by cutting his backpack.
Slashdot at large is not responsible when you make a fool of yourself, and as common stupid people are both here and everywhere else there are always exceptions.
Nope. It is not the law. By law public space is any space open to the public regardless of it is public or private property (as a bar, restaurant or a mall for example).
The article you quote has nothing to do with the definition of public space and basically confirms what I said. I suggest you read the articles you cite before doing so.
They may also simply ask you to leave, and by not doing so in an orderly fashion, you are trespassing.
If you refuse to leave, the owner can call the police and have you arrested...
They can't assault you, confiscate your property or even touch you (unless they have reason to suspect they or other people are in risk of physical harm because of you) until the police arrives. The police can arrest you, but can't confiscate your property and even go through it without a good motive. Furthermore any pictures you have already taken are yours and can't be confiscated by either the owner of the space or the officers.
Oh I am into something here. I am just much more interested in discussing your need to put yourself apart of those people who "nerdrage" (which is not a verb, mostly because it is not even a word), than about discussing a the truthfulness of an event that happened in the front of a crowd, was therefore witnessed by several people, and was even confirmed by the "other side" (they couldn't really deny it considering all those witnesses), but you would know all this if you had read TFA before starting your little troll spree.
But back to the main topic, it is very revealing that your need to put yourself apart from your peer in this way. Please tell me what drives you to such degree of self-hatred. Maybe I can help you to cope with it.
And shouldn't have cut his backpack. Actually they didn't have any reasonable motive to even check inside it (as taking pictures is not illegal in any way), which by itself was a violation of his rights.
In US a mall is private property as it is in Canada and in most places in the world. It is also a public space as any space private or public open to the public. And no, you don't need permission to take pictures by default, but conditions can be put in place by the owner to allow your presence there. Those conditions need to be informed and if you fail to comply the can ask you to leave. If you refuse they can then call the police and the police will remove you from there. even if things reach this point neither the mall employees or the police can confiscate your already taken pictures or damage your property as happened here, and the mall security can only assault you if you present a clear danger to them or the people in the building.
When you are told to jump from a bridge, jump from a bridge, right? When you are told to delete something that can't be deleted (because it is within a chemical film) by people who don't have the right to ask you to do so, then do it, right?
Your opinion about what is public space is irrelevant. Legally a private property can be public space as it is the case here. The owner can still put conditions to your presence there, but the only thing he can do if you don't comply is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, call the police, which will then arrest you. They cannot confiscate your property or the pictures you took and much less assault you.
That is also false. The beauty of Android is that you do have all that, you just need to look for third party accessories, and they usually have a much longer live than Apple's accessories because Android phones use standard interfaces (micro SD, micro USB, etc) and therefore most accessories are interchangeable among android phones even from different manufactures.
I have multiple dock stations, several batteries, several SD cards, a Blue Tooth keyboard, a Car Charger,and several other accessories for my Galaxy S2 and most of them fit just as well on my old Galaxy S and would fit perfectly in my S3. Sliding keyboards and car supports are the exception because they need to fit physically around the phone, as every phone has its own geometry (including the different I-phone models).
Some times another company enters the market when the government wants to open a new concessions. That has nothing to do with the amount of profit though, and it will always be limited to the number of concessions the government wants to open.
In the end as there are very few companies anyway, sometimes from the same owner, it is very easy for them to arrange for a mutual beneficial agreement regarding basically anything, including prices.
But that is the big catch. They have concessions. No matter how profitable their business get they will have no further competition than they already do.
That would be true if they weren't all in the same market. All smartphones are competing for the very same users to accomplish the very same purposes. A different OS certainly differentiates your product, but does not make it necessarily better, or more desirable, or even different enough. For all purpose sliding keyboards would be much more significant differentiation factor between HTC and Samsung than a different OS, just to give an example.
That is mostly false. People want features they judge useful and are not that worried about eventual crashes, as long as they are not too frequent or too critical. The success of IBM PC desktops and Windows is a proof of this.
More often than not, the common user will get much more distressed when he sees an application that does something he wants and does not run in his machine than he would get by a buggy program.
Good excuses, but that is all they are excuses. US has a higher percentage of incarcerated people than any other country and most of them do not have death penalties.
Seat Belt laws and patent laws may not be responsible for that, but piracy laws among and a few thousand senseless laws guarantee that your government can always have something against you, no matter how much you try to live a lawful life. There are so many laws that you cannot be really innocent in the light of all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you are much more likely to understand the law and give opinions about it than a specialized lawyer. He is probably talking nonsense, unlike you who knows absolutely everything about the law and cannot be possibly wrong, right?
The proof of that is that the cops where forced to give him back his pictures and couldn't press charge of anything against him.
Taking pictures in theaters is covered by copyright laws and it is actually a crime. It has nothing to do with the case here.
How does one "use his body to protect two cameras he carried in his bag" without resisting? To protect something would require moving in ways that other than directed. Again, security guards are not psychic. The act of protecting a bag can look very much like the act of getting a weapon out of a bag.
He was already handcuffed and dominated you idiot. He represent zero threat. How can you be this stupid? Do you even know how to read?
The quote is the opinion of one lawyer. Have lawyers always been right about the law? If so, then why do we have courts? If the lawyer could cite cases to support his claim I might be less suspicious.
Sorry, but The opinion of one lawyer is considerably more valuable than yours in this, especially considering you have talked nothing but ignorant nonsense from the beginning.
He didn't do even that. He refused to erase the pictures (which was within his rights) and was leaving as requested and snapped a picture of the COPs in his way out (which is still within his rights), when they pinned him down.
The police overstepped their authority and searched his belongings looking for the camera, which they unlawfully confiscated and were forced to give him back later. They also damaged his property by unecessarily cutting his backpack. Two police officers and two security guards could easily remove his backpack if they hadn't handcuffed him before trying to take it . He didn't resist.
Last but not least if you still want to discuss laws, go discuss it with a lawyer (I am sure you think you know more about law than him):
Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.
Next time try reading TFA before arguing about it.
(4) destroy far more pictures than what you originally want to delete... You can't be that ignorant...
Nowhere in your article public space is defined, as I said, and you have failed to find anything to corroborated your distorted association between public space and public property.
Additionally, although the police officers can arrest you they can't search you without a good reason. They had no reason to search him. There was no suspicion that anything in his possession was illegal. Even if taking pictures is reason enough for being spelled of the place, the pictures are still legal and are his property. That is why they were forced to give him back his pictures. Even more, they had no excuse at all to damage his property, as they did by cutting his backpack.
Slashdot at large is not responsible when you make a fool of yourself, and as common stupid people are both here and everywhere else there are always exceptions.
The article you quote has nothing to do with the definition of public space and basically confirms what I said. I suggest you read the articles you cite before doing so.
They may also simply ask you to leave, and by not doing so in an orderly fashion, you are trespassing.
If you refuse to leave, the owner can call the police and have you arrested...
They can't assault you, confiscate your property or even touch you (unless they have reason to suspect they or other people are in risk of physical harm because of you) until the police arrives. The police can arrest you, but can't confiscate your property and even go through it without a good motive. Furthermore any pictures you have already taken are yours and can't be confiscated by either the owner of the space or the officers.
Oh I am into something here. I am just much more interested in discussing your need to put yourself apart of those people who "nerdrage" (which is not a verb, mostly because it is not even a word), than about discussing a the truthfulness of an event that happened in the front of a crowd, was therefore witnessed by several people, and was even confirmed by the "other side" (they couldn't really deny it considering all those witnesses), but you would know all this if you had read TFA before starting your little troll spree.
But back to the main topic, it is very revealing that your need to put yourself apart from your peer in this way. Please tell me what drives you to such degree of self-hatred. Maybe I can help you to cope with it.
And shouldn't have cut his backpack. Actually they didn't have any reasonable motive to even check inside it (as taking pictures is not illegal in any way), which by itself was a violation of his rights.
In US a mall is private property as it is in Canada and in most places in the world. It is also a public space as any space private or public open to the public. And no, you don't need permission to take pictures by default, but conditions can be put in place by the owner to allow your presence there. Those conditions need to be informed and if you fail to comply the can ask you to leave. If you refuse they can then call the police and the police will remove you from there. even if things reach this point neither the mall employees or the police can confiscate your already taken pictures or damage your property as happened here, and the mall security can only assault you if you present a clear danger to them or the people in the building.
Well, if the whole argument started with an ad hominem fallacy it is just fair that we keep it in its rails. ;)
ITT: Slashdot nerd badmouthing other Slashdot nerds because he, in his deep inferiority complex, feels the need to be different.
When you are told to jump from a bridge, jump from a bridge, right? When you are told to delete something that can't be deleted (because it is within a chemical film) by people who don't have the right to ask you to do so, then do it, right?
Your opinion about what is public space is irrelevant. Legally a private property can be public space as it is the case here. The owner can still put conditions to your presence there, but the only thing he can do if you don't comply is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, call the police, which will then arrest you. They cannot confiscate your property or the pictures you took and much less assault you.
I don't know if it is a bug or an intended feature but it happens from time to time.
That is also false. The beauty of Android is that you do have all that, you just need to look for third party accessories, and they usually have a much longer live than Apple's accessories because Android phones use standard interfaces (micro SD, micro USB, etc) and therefore most accessories are interchangeable among android phones even from different manufactures.
I have multiple dock stations, several batteries, several SD cards, a Blue Tooth keyboard, a Car Charger,and several other accessories for my Galaxy S2 and most of them fit just as well on my old Galaxy S and would fit perfectly in my S3. Sliding keyboards and car supports are the exception because they need to fit physically around the phone, as every phone has its own geometry (including the different I-phone models).
Some times another company enters the market when the government wants to open a new concessions. That has nothing to do with the amount of profit though, and it will always be limited to the number of concessions the government wants to open.
In the end as there are very few companies anyway, sometimes from the same owner, it is very easy for them to arrange for a mutual beneficial agreement regarding basically anything, including prices.
But that is the big catch. They have concessions. No matter how profitable their business get they will have no further competition than they already do.
That would be true if they weren't all in the same market. All smartphones are competing for the very same users to accomplish the very same purposes. A different OS certainly differentiates your product, but does not make it necessarily better, or more desirable, or even different enough. For all purpose sliding keyboards would be much more significant differentiation factor between HTC and Samsung than a different OS, just to give an example.
That is mostly false. People want features they judge useful and are not that worried about eventual crashes, as long as they are not too frequent or too critical. The success of IBM PC desktops and Windows is a proof of this.
More often than not, the common user will get much more distressed when he sees an application that does something he wants and does not run in his machine than he would get by a buggy program.
Which he would have easily fixed if the certification process had given him the conditions of the failure in the results.
Oh, but he did it, and he also did send the program to a lot of MS employees and affiliates to test, and it passed every time.
Oh, and btw, US executes more people by death penalty than China too.
Good excuses, but that is all they are excuses. US has a higher percentage of incarcerated people than any other country and most of them do not have death penalties.
Seat Belt laws and patent laws may not be responsible for that, but piracy laws among and a few thousand senseless laws guarantee that your government can always have something against you, no matter how much you try to live a lawful life. There are so many laws that you cannot be really innocent in the light of all of them.
And that is why US is in the first place on jailed people. There are proportionally more people in jail in US than in China or North Korea FFS.