[Smeggypants]

Scottish police praised after foiling Al Qaeda toddler ice-cream plot

Scottish police praised after foiling Al Qaeda toddler ice-cream plot

Yes folks, this is actually a serious story, excellently spoofed by News thump

Security and Pen Pushing Borgs in a Scottish Shopping centre have harassed a man for taking a photo of his 4 year old daughter. They even called the police

Story here ....

BBC News - Row over photo in shopping centre

Facebook group here

Boycott Braehead | Facebook

[aT0Mx]

I hate to tell you, but it's private property.

They can tell you not to take photographs.

[bimjo]

I hate to tell you, but it's private property.

They can tell you not to take photographs.

Doesn't rule out using a little bit of intelligence, tact and diplomacy however.

[RioRico]

Obvious solution: Shooter tells mall staff that he's using a security camera. UK is already covered with security cams, so another will just fit right in. If HIS security cam is illegal, then so are the MALL's, eh?

Next obvious solution: Leave and never return. Shop elsewhere.

[aT0Mx]

Doesn't rule out using a little bit of intelligence, tact and diplomacy however.

Yes, true. If they're going to do this to him they better do it for everyone else. Selective punishment is unethical.

[Adam]

Shouldn't this be in general talk?

[Smeggypants]

Shouldn't this be in general talk?

I put it in General photography because it's about photography ?? - I'm confused now

[Smeggypants]

I hate to tell you, but it's private property.

They can tell you not to take photographs.

Ya don't say

However, the moronic way in which the security guy acted and the lies he and the spokesman for the shopping centre told were out of order.

And as a photographer I am angry at the attitude displayed to photography since the fabricated 'War On Terror' 15 years ago, no one would have batted an eyelid over people taking photographs in a shopping centre, private property or not.


The other worrying trend is the increasing amount of publically accessible land which is now privately owned. Turning over everything to the private sector will mean a huge erosion of Photography and when people rightly complain someone will chime in and tell us it's private land

[magkelly]

But private land is private land. Someone owns that mall and they've posted signs all over saying that photography isn't permitted there apparently. I feel for the guy, and the way the security people acted was definitely overkill for the situation, but he shouldn't have taken out his camera there in the first place now should he?

Where I live you walk into someone's land with intent to trespass and they can threaten to shoot your arse and legally if you make one threatening move they can do it and not face much if any prosecution either. A mall is just a place of work, a big office building only with shops, basically. You're a visitor there when you come, and you're usually expected to follow the rules of the place, whatever they might be, right?

Would you really expect to be able to walk into any office building and to be able to take any pics you wish? Can you in most places now without someone in security asking you to stop? I don't think I've ever worked in any large place of business actually where that has been permitted, the taking of pics, except maybe at the Christmas parties.

I don't find it so odd the mall wouldn't want photography on it's premises actually. I've done my share of working in a mall. There are a lot of things that the mall might find a tad embarrassing to have photographed by the wrong person. The public bathrooms for one. No matter how most malls attempt to keep them clean they almost never are for long. What the public does to mall bathrooms all the time is just criminally abusive. Chain stores are also very anal about not having their window set ups and their customers photographed. It can annoy people and hurt business, other people walking around with cameras. I used to see that a lot working in SF, people snapping away and other tourists getting annoyed and walking away because they didn't want that in their face. No one cared if someone was taking pics of the breathtaking views, in fact there were places marked with signs for tourists to take pics there, but most people they didn't want to see a camera aimed at them.

We had an interesting set up in our store, and the people using the product made for good portraits. We allowed our customers to photograph their own families, but the moment someone else tried, stepped across that line people would get hostile and we'd have to ask them to leave. It was either that or lose customers. I hated to have to say anything but it was company policy and as the manager I had to act. I was however a lot politer about it than most.

Money is the bottom line in the mall. If something is being done that will make people uncomfortable, maybe have them leave out of discomfort, then you can't really allow too much leeway on that. These days the malls are hurting for business as it is they can't afford to be too liberal about their policies. Not if doing so might cause them $$$.

Not being able to take a pic of your own kid in a food court? Absurd and annoying, and unfair, but you can't allow one person to take photos and not everyone. You can't randomly enforce a policy without encouraging lawsuits anyway. Like I said I think the security people way overreacted, but if people really did complain, then I'm thinking they might not have had too much of a choice in asking him to stop. They were too heavy handed though it looks like, but that's typical of mall security guards. Most of them think they are little tin gods with or without the capacity to carry a gun...

If you think how they treat the customers bad you should try working there. Some malls it's nearly to the point of scanners and random body checks when you walk through the door to work. You're automatically issued plastic bags for your stuff. You can't even hardly have a breath mint on the sales floor with you and security, they're watching your every move just as much as they're watching the customer's moves. You're always on camera, only it's their cameras, not yours...

It sucks, but that's mall life these days, big brother at work 24/7.

[rawr]

In the BBC report there was a quote from the mall saying they ban photography in order to protect the privacy rights of shoppers.

Meanwhile every section of the mall is covered by CCTV and every store likely has extensive CCTV too, sometimes even in places like change rooms. I find their concern about shopper's privacy touching, but hollow and insincere.

What is doubly annoying, as reported in the BBC story, is that the photog was originally reported to mall security by the staff of the ice cream shop where he had bought the icecream for his daughter:

Staff at an ice cream stall in Braehead became suspicious after they saw a male shopper taking photographs at their counter.

"The staff thought the man had also been taking photographs of them and they alerted one of the centre's security staff."

They were worried that they were being photographed, as much as being concerned about the kid. So more general paranoia about photography.

Meanwhile most of the staff probably have no qualms about putting up on Facebook all their family snaps and exposing them to the world, nor any qualms about being videoed 8 hours a day by CCTV whilst at work, and out on the street, and in the pub, and in the supermarket.

[Smeggypants]

Would you really expect to be able to walk into any office building and to be able to take any pics you wish?

IMO that's not a valid analogy. Office buildings aren't open to the public.


A good analogy is a pub or restaurant. Would you expect to go into a pub or restaurant and be told not to take photographs? Of course not, but these are privately owned zones

And what about the the High St? High St's are not privately owned ( yet ) and are lined with shops. Nothing stopping people takign photographs along High St's incvluding the shop windows and shoppers on the pavement. No one is campaigning to stop photography top protect the security and privacy of shoppers.

Therefore the excuses by the Shopping Centre doesn't wash IMO - Sure have the policy inside teh shops, but not in the concourse areas

It sucks, but that's mall life these days, big brother at work 24/7.

The more we just let it go on the worse it'll get.

[Smeggypants]

And ..... the good news is ...... the shopping centre has changed it's policy because of the public reaction to their formally absurd nonsensical banning of photography. Let's hope other shopping centres and similar establishments follow suit

http://www.braehead.co.uk/Whats-on/News/Photography-Policy-Change

[Dma110]

Sure, rudely accost the man, accuse him of being a terrorist, attempt to have him delete his photos (illegally)
here in the states, and scare his daughter; then send him a "oops, my bad" letter, only because 7-8000 people threaten to boycott your mall, and suddenly everything is ok?
Real big of them.

Dennis

[aT0Mx]

IMO that's not a valid analogy. Office buildings aren't open to the public.

The lobby is, but it's still private property, and if you go to take a picture in the lobby (or loiter) without the permission of the owner/management you'll more than likely be kicked out.

A good analogy is a pub or restaurant. Would you expect to go into a pub or restaurant and be told not to take photographs? Of course not, but these are privately owned zones

So is the mall.

Therefore the excuses by the Shopping Centre doesn't wash IMO - Sure have the policy inside teh shops, but not in the concourse areas

The concourse is still private property. All the way to the edge of the parking lot.

[RioRico]

In USA, shooting on private property is legal. Trespassing isn't. If you are shooting on private property and are told to stop or leave, and you don't comply, THEN you are trespassing and THEN the police can be called. But first you must be notified. Comply, and you're legal. Don't comply, and you're busted. So, shoot all you can before the rent-a-cops show up! Then stop.