Photos and terrorism: the pink Vespa link

[Paul T.]

Hilarious, but of course topical and worrying, story on a dad photographing his daughter in a shopping mall in Scotland.

The security guards told him photography wasn't allowed. So far, so bad (but of course, within their rights). But far worse was that security called The Plod, and said police officers maintained that under the Prevention Of Terrorism act they were entitled to confiscate his mobile phone.

In the end, both the mall and the police apologised.. But what worries me is that those very same plod are the ones theoretically protecting us against terrorism. I'm scared!

 

[Harlee]

I was basicially told the same thing by a security cop here at an Orlando mall. "No pictures," he said. " If no pictures can be taken then where are the signs" I asked him. "I'm telling you now," he said. That's like commiting a crime and then being told "that's a crime!" How come there aren't any signs or laws regarding it??? KO-KO!

 

[woodphoto]

I was basicially told the same thing by a security cop here at an Orlando mall. "No pictures," he said. " If no pictures can be taken then where are the signs" I asked him. "I'm telling you now," he said. That's like commiting a crime and then being told "that's a crime!" How come there aren't any signs or laws regarding it??? KO-KO!

A mall is private property. They do not need to post any signs and its up to there discretion what they will allow photo wise. Had you been snapping a family pic, security would have ignored you. As a photographer you should be familiar with this. If you were outside on the "public" sidewalk you could have ignored him and continued shooting ( of course this applies to the US only)

As for the story link, thats just the world we live in now. Over reaction is now the norm and zero tolerance has replaced common sense. Get used to it.

 

[Sparrow]

A mall is private property. They do not need to post any signs and its up to there discretion what they will allow photo wise. Had you been snapping a family pic, security would have ignored you. As a photographer you should be familiar with this. If you were outside on the "public" sidewalk you could have ignored him and continued shooting ( of course this applies to the US only)

As for the story link, thats just the world we live in now. Over reaction is now the norm and zero tolerance has replaced common sense. Get used to it.

Did you read it? it seemed to me that the mall had learned to get used to our norms actually

 

[wgerrard]

The mall's owner now says that "friends and family" in the series of malls they operate will now be able to take pictures of each other without harassment, but the security guards will still be looking for "suspicious" behavior.

Shopping malls are typically private property and what we can and cannot do in them will vary from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They don't even need to let us in. The notion that malls are negligent by not posting "No photography" signs is silly. They don't post "No Homicide" signs, either.

Most of these overreactions are triggered by guards-for-hire businesses and local administrations who don't want to be left taking the blame if something actually did happen on their watch. It's a CYA thing, lest the local media report "Mall Bomber Seen In Surveillance Video Photographing Target".

 

[woodphoto]

Did you read it? it seemed to me that the mall had learned to get used to our norms actually

Yes i did read it. Read my response again.

 

[Sparrow]

Yes i did read it. Read my response again.

Then you will have seen the part at the end where both the police and the security people apologised, and the shopping centre changed it's policy? In what way is that "... just the world we live in now. Over reaction is now the norm and zero tolerance has replaced common sense. Get used to it"?

 

[finguanzo]

Sparrow, he was not talking about the article, but about Harlee's comment.....

 

[Sparrow]

Then I misunderstood, it was the "As for the story link, thats just the world we live in now." that led me to believe he was referring to the story itself