A man snapped a few pics of his daughter in a shopping center near Glasgow. Did the security guards and police there really believe this was an act of terrorism? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758 I wonder if those "You Are Here" signs and directories in malls are even legal anymore, since they give you the layout of the place and can be used by terrorists. I can just see a group of terrorists loitering around one of those signs, trying to decide if J.C. Penny's is the best place to implement their devious plan...or K-Mart... maybe Payless? Then again, maybe security will be on the ball and keep them from loitering too long, and foil their plan entirely.
I think it is quite obvious that he was probably in the pay of some terrorist organization or another. Okay maybe not, but at least I'll bet he was a sympathizer. We will not be safe from terror until we have ceded all rights to the government. The government and only the government can keep us secure. Until then, be afraid .
There is very little I fear, and the threat of authorities (or government) isn't on that list lol I added this just to highlight how some places are overcautious, to the point of being ridiculous... outside of the insanity of airports of course.
In the age of Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Image Search and with more than 80% of the population having a camera in their phone - its like locking the barn door after the cows have gotten out. All it does is harass.
Reminisent of the Thread Peter started about a similar incident in a American Mall, just goes to show that stupidity knows no bounderies
Unfortunately, the difference with most American malls is that there isn't much legal protection against this sort of thing happening in Scotland. Malls are private property, so they can institute any 'security' regime they like, within reason. However, this is part of a broader pattern in the UK of the police abusing anti-terrorism laws to harass people they can have no reasonable suspicion to be terrorists, or engaged in terrorism-related activity. For some reason, they seem to have concluded that amateur photographers in particular pose a grave threat to national security.
I think it's unfortunate that this poor guy got caught up in this situation, but I don't really see anything wrong with a mall or any organization instituting a "no photos" rule. Even if people taking pictures are not involved in terrorism, who's to say they wouldn't be involved in industrial espionage? The idea of everyone having a camera that is so readily available at every minute of the day is more threatening to me than is the idea of asking people not to take pictures with that camera. Personally, I'd love it if cell phones were not allowed at all in stores, since I find them so annoying, but that's just my personal opinion.
Actually, you may have a point, a no photos rule may be fair enough, but I'd say a couple of things. Firstly, they should advertise it much better - tourist attractions, for instance, have very prominent signs warning people that photography isn't allowed. Without that, I think this guy was perfectly entitled to assume that he was in a public space and that taking a picture of his won daughter was a natural enough thing to do. Secondly, telling someone that they've done something wrong on "anti-terrorist" grounds is incredibly over-the-top and provocative. Most people would react with bewilderment and anger. If the security guard had just quietly said "sorry, mate, that's not allowed here, don't do it again", I'm sure there wouldn't have been an issue.
I completely agree on all points, James. If there is a no photographs policy, then there should be signs posted saying so, at various points in the mall. People aren't supposed to have to guess at mall policies. If he saw no evidence that he was breaking the rules, then there was no reason for him to assume that he was doing so. I think the problem started with the people who assumed he was taking pictures of them, instead of taking pictures of the cute little munchkin that was with him. Paranoia is at the root of a lot of irrationality. The second problem was the clueless security guard that had no people skills. If the mall is smart, they'll hire consultants to work with them in teaching their current staff in teaching people skills. It's an entirely unfortunate situation that, as you point out, could have easily been avoided.
(From the article): "The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed." I'd argue that the rule can't stop terrorists from taking pics in secret anyway. As for industrial espionage, while retailers generally don't like their competitor's snooping around, espionage happens more from employees than customers. In this modern World, with easy access to video-recording devices that are unnoticeable, I don't see how stopping the general public from taking pics is going to make the area safer... except from pedophiles I guess.
