More "no photography allowed"

Many of the comments posted to that Gavleston Daily News piece are disappointing. Their writers contend that rules are rules.

This appears to be another instance of an institution having an internal no-photography policy and mistakenly behaving as if that policy carries the force of law. If an institution has the legal authority to prohibit photography, to seize film and cameras, etc., then it should be required to post signs and notices saying that. Those of you who have entered secure government facilities may remember seeing such signs.
 
The comments following the story are frankly scary. It sounds like these people feel more comfortable living in a police state. If these people represent a greater majority it's no wonder some types of policies are easily implemented.
 
In the Netherlands, those that write comments on the newspaper articles, mostly are ignorant right-wing simple folk.

Seems its the same all over the globe already.
 
I dunno - but many from that group that commented sure does seem to be from the "he vas only followink orders" crowd.
 
Hi Chris it's "Follovink" ;o)

I had a similar encounter in Austria where security guards statrted to cite non existant laws about taking photos of a Jewelry shop in a tourist zone.
It seems that as a punishment for all the jokes we made about "primitive people" (now or in the past) being afraid that dragons lived in the uncharted territories of the world or that a photograph takes away one's soul.
There we are proud inhabitants of a brave new world who:
- have very clear descriptions of Extraterrrestrials - be it Greys, Reptilians or Nordics. Although positive proof of their existance is still missing
and
- prohibit photography in public areas when Voudun cultists allow to be photographed

Seems that a big part of those who wrote the letters are still clinging to their childhood dreams of becoming police officers without having realized that this means more than ordering people around and shooting around.
 
The Article said:
Haire, who said police had no right to question him or ask for identification,
Click to expand...

On the side of impartial facts, I have to point out that cops (or security guards) don't need any particular reason to approach someone and initiate contact. And people are free to break off that contact until an officer has made an investigative detention (Terry stop), which requires a standard of reasonable suspicion...even then, they don't have to say or do anything unless there's a local law requiring, for example, displaying ID on demand to a police officer.

As a photographer and a guy who works in the security sector, I have to say that there are valid concerns about photography. The most effective way to deal with them effectively, however, is typically through [initially and hopefully remaining polite] non-threatening questions and evaluations of responses, not through imaginary bans and handcuffs.
 
AgentX said:
On the side of impartial facts, I have to point out that cops (or security guards) don't need any particular reason to approach someone and initiate contact. And people are free to break off that contact until an officer has made an investigative detention (Terry stop), which requires a standard of reasonable suspicion...even then, they don't have to say or do anything unless there's a local law requiring, for example, displaying ID on demand to a police officer.

As a photographer and a guy who works in the security sector, I have to say that there are valid concerns about photography. The most effective way to deal with them effectively, however, is typically through [initially and hopefully remaining polite] non-threatening questions and evaluations of responses, not through imaginary bans and handcuffs.
Click to expand...

An officer. With legal authority. Not a hired goon with no legal power but a high opinion of himself. Or even a copper who is exceeding his/her authority.

(Not you, obviously).

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Edit: Roger, you're 100% right--my syntax made it sound like a security guard could make an investigative detention...no way...sorry.

Well, a security guard can come up and ask question or even request/tell you to go away, just like any other citizen on the street...he can even stand in front of you (to a reasonable distance and degree of aggression not commensurate with assault) if he wants as you try and take a pic. You, of course, don't have to listen to or do a damned thing he says if you're in public.
 
Last edited:
AgentX said:
Well, a security guard can come up and ask question or even request/tell you to go away, just like any other citizen on the street...he can even stand in front of you (to a reasonable distance and degree of aggression not commensurate with assault) if he wants as you try and take a pic. You, of course, don't have to listen to or do a damned thing he says if you're in public.

He has no more authority than anyone else on the street, of course, if he's not within the private property of his employer, but he is still a citizen like anyone else and can do what he wants in public just like you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Even on private property (at least in the UK) he can ask you to leave, and use reasonable force if you do not do so reasonably quickly, But you can take his picture as you are leaving, or as soon as you are off the premises, and short of calling the police,there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

(I do not post this for your edification, as you know it well; but others may not. EDIT: between your post and my reply, you clarified the point. Sorry for quoting a post made in haste and corrected later, but I hope you will agree that this is a sufficiently important point to warrant both your and my emphasis.)

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom