But... but... but... the anti-terror laws are there to protect you!!!

[Casper]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758

[chevysoldier]

OMG. Really? It's a public place.

"We have a 'no photography' policy in the centre to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behaviour if required.

Then don't go out into public. I don't know the circumstances, maybe he did look suspiciously like a pedophile and should have been questioned (although after a couple of minutes of watching them should show he was the father) but to have a law against photography in public is ridiculous. Does the government have cameras set up over there? Hypocrisy?

Those that give up liberty for temporary safety are idiots.

And on a side note, it was a cute picture.

[C-bus]

As we try to quickly model ourselves after the European countries, we forget that it ain't America over there. No offense Scruit.

[ReconRat]

Yeah, terrorism laws. I would advise not taking pictures in bus stations in Florida and California. Nor train stations in California. Nor in some places around airports. And don't ever take a picture of a train on a track where some one can catch you. Not even wanting to take a picture of a tall building on a bad day. And that's all USA.

Terror

[Tonik]

Then don't go out into public..

It's a mall, and if theyare set up like they are in this country it is private property and it is not public. The owners can bar photography. Many malls in this country do it also. Now, are the cops out of line on the terrorism law claim, probably. Again, in this country it would be a civil matter between the mall and the photographer. Cops would not be involved unless the mall told you to GTF out of the mall and you refused, that would then become criminal trespass.

[ReconRat]

Theaters, concerts, museums. All places photography often is forbidden.

[chevysoldier]

It's a mall, and if theyare set up like they are in this country it is private property and it is not public. The owners can bar photography. Many malls in this country do it also. Now, are the cops out of line on the terrorism law claim, probably. Again, in this country it would be a civil matter between the mall and the photographer. Cops would not be involved unless the mall told you to GTF out of the mall and you refused, that would then become criminal trespass.

It may be private property but the general public frequents that area. There is no expectation of privacy, nothing of sensitive nature. I'd wager there are security cameras there also. Why can the mall be trusted but the clientele can't? This goes for the US as well. I still stand my my statement of liberty vs safety.

Theaters, concerts, museums. All places photography often is forbidden.

Usually it's flash photography that is forbidden. They are keeping you from reproducing their music, paintings, whatever. The guy took a pic of his kid in the eating area. Who cares...

Edited October 10, 2011 by chevysoldier

[Tonik]

It may be private property but the general public frequents that area. There is no expectation of privacy, nothing of sensitive nature. I'd wager there are security cameras there also. Why can the mall be trusted but the clientele can't? This goes for the US as well. I still stand my my statement of liberty vs safety.

This has nothing to do with privacy or who you can trust or who you cant. If you don't like the security cameras, shop somewhere else. This is all about private property rights.

No offense intended, but I am going to be blunt. It will be easier to make the point that way. You have no liberties on my private property, other than the liberty to GTF out. My Private Property rights completely trump your perception of liberty. My private property is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and I am said dictator. Another good example is OR. Casper allows us to post our drivel here publicly and he allows public access. But if push comes to shove there is no Free Speech here. Casper and his moderators have the final say on Casper's private message board. His board, his rules. If he owned a mall it would be his mall and his rules. We are all welcome to shop and post somewhere else.

I understand your concern about liberty, especially photography. I am a pretty hard core amateur photographer and I have experienced this kind of thing. And again, the cops response in this is totally out of line. I speak only of the mall owners rights. Do I think the mall owner is stupid for banning photography, yes. He is a blithering idiot. But in a free country he can be as stupid as he wants on his property.

[jbot]

that's a shitty dictatorship if i can't keep you crackers out of my mall.

[John]

No offense intended, but I am going to be blunt. It will be easier to make the point that way. You have no liberties on my private property, other than the liberty to GTF out. My Private Property rights completely trump your perception of liberty. My private property is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and I am said dictator.

if you open your private property to the public (like a mall) then your rights are limited. your house that is not open to the public is different from your mall that you DO open to the public.

the courts have held that a privately owned shopping center operates as the equivalent of a business district open to the public.

see Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. and Marsh v. Alabama just for starters.

"the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

But in a free country he can be as stupid as he wants on his property.

do you think a mall owner could post a rule that says "no blacks allowed" and get away with it since its private property?

who knows what the rules are in the UK though, where this incident occured...

Edited October 10, 2011 by John

[chevysoldier]

This has nothing to do with privacy or who you can trust or who you cant. If you don't like the security cameras, shop somewhere else. This is all about private property rights.

No offense intended, but I am going to be blunt. It will be easier to make the point that way. You have no liberties on my private property, other than the liberty to GTF out. My Private Property rights completely trump your perception of liberty. My private property is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and I am said dictator. Another good example is OR. Casper allows us to post our drivel here publicly and he allows public access. But if push comes to shove there is no Free Speech here. Casper and his moderators have the final say on Casper's private message board. His board, his rules. If he owned a mall it would be his mall and his rules. We are all welcome to shop and post somewhere else.

I understand your concern about liberty, especially photography. I am a pretty hard core amateur photographer and I have experienced this kind of thing. And again, the cops response in this is totally out of line. I speak only of the mall owners rights. Do I think the mall owner is stupid for banning photography, yes. He is a blithering idiot. But in a free country he can be as stupid as he wants on his property.

No offense taken. I know exactly what you are saying.

Yeah, they can do whatever they want to do, within reason and without violating people's civil rights. No different than a store posting a no gun sign; I don't shop there. My entire point is it's stupid.

[RVTPilot]

who knows what the rules are in the uk though, where this incident occured...

[attach]2688[/attach]

[chevysoldier]

“In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. If you commit a crime, the police will say "Stop, or I'll say stop again."” - Robin Williams

[Tonik]

No offense taken. I know exactly what you are saying.

Yeah, they can do whatever they want to do, within reason and without violating people's civil rights. No different than a store posting a no gun sign; I don't shop there. My entire point is it's stupid.

Well that sucks. We are in complete agreement and have nothing left to debate.