Ade-oh
Well-known
Interesting. My hazy memory tells me that a Justice of the Peace can swear anyone as a Constable in the UK. As it happens, as a churchwarden I have the power of arrest on church property within the parish where I live in London... mwahahahahahaha!
Gumby
Veteran
I think it is also the fear of stalking with later intent to abduct, molest, murder, etc.
bmattock
Veteran
It can be difficult to discuss the issue rationally when one side argues logic and the other argues emotion. I agree that the thought of a pervert taking a photo of someone child must be very distressing. I worry that our (as I perceive it) tendency to take such things as valid reasons for regulating behavior (or, to put it more bluntly, suppressing civil liberties) is increasing.
Generally, there are definable and verifiable dangers to society or to individual civil liberties of others before the courts are willing to restrict liberties.
Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is the premier example. One has freedom of speech, yet yelling 'fire' is easily understood to create a risk of panic and subsequent death-by-trampling of patrons running for the exits.
So where is the clearly-defined society-threatening danger here? I have heard vague references to notions that a pervert might take photographs of children in order to come back later and kidnap a particular child. I can certainly understand that fear, but how likely is that to happen, or has it ever happened? In what other way would a child be placed in danger by someone not their relative taking their photo?
I understand that no rights are absolute, and I'm no fan of sickos taking photos of children for their twisted reasons. I understand that such things happen - one has only to Google for arrests of upskirt photographers and bathroom videographers and the like. And where a legal expectation of privacy exists, such as up a person's skirt or in a bathroom, etc, I can easily understand the validity of laws against such behavior. When a person is in public, where the courts in the US have consistently stated that there is reasonable expectation of privacy, I think it is over-reaching to try to stop people taking photos, even for reasons such as the often-stated fear of pedophiles taking photos of children.
Treading on civil liberties is serious business. It ought only be done when a very clear threat is set forth and actually exists, to the extent that it threatens the civil liberties of others or the safety of society in a very definable way.
bmattock
Veteran
Often stated. I have yet to see any such documentation of any such thing ever happening.
Gumby
Veteran
So what? Human fear is not based on fact or documented experience. Boogey-men don't exist, yet people fear them too.
bmattock
Veteran
In the US, the line between 'official' police powers and the common-law private 'citizens arrest' powers of security guards is a bit less blurred. A security guard can be armed in some circumstances, and can certainly have the ability to hold someone they witness committing a crime (citizens arrest), but they are not 'police' in any real sense of the word.
It is for this reason that merchants often like to hire off-duty police officers as security guards. They retain their police powers even when off-duty, and in many cases, are permitted to wear their police uniforms, carry duty weapons, and so on.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree that fear is often not based on reality. And I have no trouble understanding why a parent would have fear of someone they do not know photographing their child. If I were a parent in that situation, I'd definitely want to know what that photographer was up to.
However, fear is not a good enough reason in and of itself to restrict the lawful activities of others, IMHO. Freedom does not mean freedom from fear or freedom to always feel comfortable. When we speak of tolerance, we are often speaking of tolerating lawful behavior which we do not personally approve of.
Gumby
Veteran
OK. I was just commenting on Ade-oh's post about why people are fearful of bald, overweight, middle-aged men without girlfriends/wifes of children who take pictures of other people's kids.
On your point #1: I'm glad we agree.
On your point #2: I'm glad we agree, but it is not logic that drives people to assume what one's intent is. Most people don't want to wait until they are murdered to wonder why a creepy guy is following them up the dark alley. Most people are not logical to that extent in this or any other matter. Absolute logic, like you desire, is for Klingons... not the majority of the human race. We agree, and you are correct.
Let me conclude my invovlement in this thread with a solemn, "yes, dear."
David Murphy
Veteran
You see these Santa rackets in the malls are all really about selling parents pictures of their kids talking to Santa for $20 a pop (or whatever it is now). I know - been there and done it with two kids (Santa's done in this household, at least for now). They were probably irked about the money.
If I were the photographer I'd certainly hire a civil rights attorney to fight this fascist outrage.
If I were the photographer I'd certainly hire a civil rights attorney to fight this fascist outrage.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
These kinds of posts really freak me out. I'm almost scared of taking a camera to the UK next year! Wait, I was planning to bring LOTS of cameras and all of them suspiciously old fashioned and funny looking with strange strips of light sensitive material in them!
The shot below was taken this year in my hometown. A suspicious glance aside, nothing happened. I shot half a roll in plain sight with a noisy SLR.
Maybe I could write to the British embassy and ask them very sincerely what would be allowed?
and all of them suspiciously old fashioned and funny looking with strange strips of light sensitive material in them!The shot below was taken this year in my hometown. A suspicious glance aside, nothing happened. I shot half a roll in plain sight with a noisy SLR.
Maybe I could write to the British embassy and ask them very sincerely what would be allowed?
bmattock
Veteran
sjw617
Panoramist
You would be wasting a large amount of money and your reaction is over the top,,, fascist?
Steve
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A lot depends on the camera. Many people are frightened of SLRs.
When the Bessa-L and 15/4.5 came out, I tried it at Bluewater mall in Kent. No problem. Frances was there too, trying out a Contax with a 35/1.4. She was stopped.
To call some of these people pig-ignorant is an insult to many pigs (the oink-oink variety, not slang for police).
Cheers,
R.
When the Bessa-L and 15/4.5 came out, I tried it at Bluewater mall in Kent. No problem. Frances was there too, trying out a Contax with a 35/1.4. She was stopped.
To call some of these people pig-ignorant is an insult to many pigs (the oink-oink variety, not slang for police).
Cheers,
R.
gb hill
Veteran
RUN is too much like work!...besides I'm too slow... I thought about the beer can & if he had of found one I would of requested a breathalizer test. Thats one thing I don't worry about because I gave up drinking alcohol because it makes me very sleepy much like some sinus medicine does!My suggestion, Greg, is that next time one of your local cops stops you... RUN, and run FAST! It isn't a matter of him just being rude, he sounds completely untrained. He searched you while you still had a potential weapon in your hand???? He accused you os something he isn't sure he witnessed???? So what if he found a can in your vacinity -- what next, assume that you were drinking from it????
The cop is a goober.
Jonas Adolfsen
Architect & photographer
I would say that part of being a photographer is getting around and getting your work (or hobby) done. I have photographed in several different countries, all from USA to China, police states like Tunisia and in difficult places like Belfast in northern Ireland. And i have learned that if you can't control your anger og be gentle to the law, being the police og the wannabe rent-a-cops, you will get in trouble.
I have never been arrested and taken to a cell, but i have cetainly had difficulties with the police in Belfast. And in New York. And i know for sure now not to photograph police officers of police stations, unless i'm back here in Norway. Here i'm allowed to photograph everything, even the American Embassy (but not without some trouble), but there are other rules. If i photograph people and they are a main part of the photo, i'm not allowed to publish them without the persons approval. This makes street photgraphy quite hard compared to walking the streets of NY where noone except the police cares.
My point is, know the rules and be gentle. Malls are private, parents are protective to their children and the police doesn't like a tough guy. Almost everyone already knew that i guess.
I have never been arrested and taken to a cell, but i have cetainly had difficulties with the police in Belfast. And in New York. And i know for sure now not to photograph police officers of police stations, unless i'm back here in Norway. Here i'm allowed to photograph everything, even the American Embassy (but not without some trouble), but there are other rules. If i photograph people and they are a main part of the photo, i'm not allowed to publish them without the persons approval. This makes street photgraphy quite hard compared to walking the streets of NY where noone except the police cares.
My point is, know the rules and be gentle. Malls are private, parents are protective to their children and the police doesn't like a tough guy. Almost everyone already knew that i guess.
George9
-
Jarle Aasland
Nikon SP/S2, Fuji X100
Sad madness! We should all voice our concern, before it's too late.
Photographer at work (please don't arrest me): http://www.cafepress.com/photoatwork
Jarle
Photographer at work (please don't arrest me): http://www.cafepress.com/photoatwork
Jarle
sqjaw
sqjaw = Mr.Lauren MacInto
But The mall Has its rights also, Since it is concidered Private Property that gives them the right to say no Photographing With out permission, But on the other Hand they can photograph you when you walk around in their Mall , Hum Double Standard.
Olsen
Well-known
Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Particularly if the private property is a shopping mall that invites 'the public' to come and shop. Not to say: To try to prohibit photography at a shopping mall sounds unrealistic today when even twelve year olds have phones with 3 million megapixels photo capacity in their pockets.
Reading this thread convinces me that all the talk of 'freedom' is just bogus in the US. Why is this? Does US law prohibit photography? Or is this all proof of typical US police incompetence?
wgerrard
Veteran
The public enters with the understanding and awareness that they are on private property where the rights of the property owner take precedence. Mall owners can legally ban photography just as they can legally prohibit someone from pitching a tent in the food court and taking up residence.
The issue with malls and other businesses is the seemingly selective or biased focus on photographers using more noticeable equipment, such as SLR's with long lenses. People with cellphones and p&s cameras do not appear to drawing attention.
In addition, that issue -- businesses and private security guards without police powers -- needs to be considered separately from hassling of photographers in the UK and elsewhere under the auspices of legislation that legitimizes the police behavior.