Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

[cybercoma]

Malls are our town squares now though. It speaks to our culture that our gathering places are the privately-owned cathedrals of consumption now rather than town squares and parks and neighbourhoods.

[GostHacked]

This sends the message that the police cannot be trusted at all. If this is the case perhaps the hiring policies need to be reviewed. This sounds like big brother. How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

That is already happening.

[WWWTT]

You're not allowed to take photos on private property without the owner's consent.

You are neglecting the fact that the teen whom took the photos may have done so because of several reason.

You can not cherry pick parts of Canadian law and discard other parts to suit an agenda.

WWWTT

[guyser]

That is already happening.

Please describe or show where this is done legally?

I amended the question slightly...

How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

[cybercoma]

You are neglecting the fact that the teen whom took the photos may have done so because of several reason.

You can not cherry pick parts of Canadian law and discard other parts to suit an agenda.

WWWTT

his reasons don't matter. By law you cannot take photos on private property without the owner's permission.

Edit: and actually you're cherry picking by saying the law only matters sometimes and not others

Edited November 16, 2012 by cybercoma

[login]

Since the mall's owners/management said so.

It's not at all uncommon. Similarly, though, no doubt, people take pictures on the TTC all the time, one is not actually allowed to take photographs or video on the TTC without first receiving permission from transit headquarters. The rules are posted, just as they apparently were in this particular mall.

I've never seen the posting. None the less, you can't confiscate property if someone violates a private property rule. Like occured, you can ask them to leave the property which he started doing. But, there was no arrest for tresspassing.

You could apply for a court order, but a breach of personal preference does not facilitate use of force for private citizens.

Also normally security should escort someone off private property, but they do not have the right to make any physical contact whatsoever, unless the person fails to leave the property endangering peoples lives and police will not be available to intervene---

Security are not suppose to make arrests through use of force unless there is no other option and even then they are liable if they act outside of the the TPA or whatever other act exists because individuals do not have immunity, except perhaps indictable offences.

And confiscation of private property is a definate non allowance, that is theft. Also issuing orders to individuals under threat of violence against the indivdiual or their property is also assault,and could be interpreted as uttering threats.

Basically anywhere you can't smoke, you can take photos.

Edited November 16, 2012 by login

[guyser]

his reasons don't matter. By law you cannot take photos on private property without the owner's permission.

One can take photos on this type of property. Its a privately owned open to the public spot and as such they can post no pics, although they wouldnt, but the law does not state it is illegal

[WWWTT]

it is not in any way whatsoever public space. It's private property.

I was at a mall Maine last year and they have a huge sign posted at the doors of their rules: ie, no running, no shouting, no photography.

Again, lax enforcement doesn't change the rules.

Edit: BTW security trespass people from malls all the time and it is indeed illegal for them to show up on the property. Those trespass notices are without "due process" and totally legal by virtue of it being private property not public.

Are you saying that when you enter private property you lose your constitutional rights???

There are many reasons why someone can be taking a picture.

In fact it can be argued that this kid was trying to protect someones rights by taking a picture as evidence!

A freekin stupid sign over a door saying "no pictures allowed" in no way can waive away your rights!

Your slipping cybercoma,what's going on with you lately?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

his reasons don't matter. By law you cannot take photos on private property without the owner's permission.

Want to provide a link to back this up?

WWWTT

[guyser]

Are you saying that when you enter private property you lose your constitutional rights???

In some cases yes! It was never ever any different.

You have no freedom of speech in my house.

You have no mobility rights in my house.

A freekin stupid sign over a door saying "no pictures allowed" in no way can waive away your rights!

WWWTT

Oh yes it can !

[eyeball]

The cops should have layer mischief charges.. Having a cell phone make you a "reporter"? Social "media" is dragging morals into the doldrums.

It's quite the opposite actually, social souveillance is dragging them into the light of day and placing them under our noses where we can't ignore them.

[eyeball]

delete

Edited November 16, 2012 by eyeball

[WWWTT]

In some cases yes! It was never ever any different.

You have no freedom of speech in my house.

You have no mobility rights in my house.

Oh yes it can !

LOL.Man that's so freekin spun its funny!

Are you saying that if I'm in your house and if I want to use the washroom you may suspend my constitutional rights and not let me?

And what if I said something about a hockey game or something like that and you didn't like what I said,what are you going to do?

Your either a comedic genius or you know what!

WWWTT

[guyser]

LOL.Man that's so freekin spun its funny!

Perhaps a littel research would have been the smart thing before posting ''Its so freekin spun.."

Are you saying that if I'm in your house and if I want to use the washroom you may suspend my constitutional rights and not let me?

You nhave no right to use my washroom.

You have no right to speak in my house.

Hang on a sec....let me put this right here for ya....Your either a comedic genius or you know what!

And what if I said something about a hockey game or something like that and you didn't like what I said,what are you going to do?

I can ask you to leave or throw you out on your uneducated ass and smile while I do it . Not a damn thing you can do about it

Your either a comedic genius or you know what!

WWWTT

Genius yes, comedic sometimes.

Beats the alternative, which is spouting off about something you have extremely limited knowledge of.

Now thats freekin funny !

Edited November 16, 2012 by guyser

[login]

So can someone take an infared image, or paint a picture then at that mall? What about filming that ain't photography.

So like this wouldn't get him kicked from the mall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

Edited November 16, 2012 by login

[eyeball]

This sends the message that the police cannot be trusted at all. If this is the case perhaps the hiring policies need to be reviewed.

Actually it provides police with the means to gain and maintain trust. Just ask the cops wearing Bobby-cams.

This sounds like big brother.

Except it's Little Brother when the people start monitoring the government.

How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

It will be shortly after the government's right to secrecy supersedes our right to privacy. You'll know we're almost there when sycophants swarm to the defence of authorities every time there's an incident like the one this thread is about.

[WWWTT]

Perhaps a littel research would have been the smart thing before posting ''Its so freekin spun.."

You have no right to speak in my house.

Beats the alternative, which is spouting off about something you have extremely limited knowledge of.

Now thats freekin funny !

Ya actually what you are referring to the right to "privacy".

When you open your doors to the public,for whatever reason,you lose it.

That's why if you invite the police into your house you lose many the right to privacy!

How about you do a little research!

WWWTT

[guyser]

So can someone take an infared image, or paint a picture then at that mall? What about filming that ain't photography.

So like this wouldn't get him kicked from the mall.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Thermography

Im thinkning if the rent a cop could ID a thermoimage camera from afar, yes you would have some issues going forward.

Why would you want to know where the hot spots are in a mall? For what purpose? I think that would set some alarm bells off inside one of the RaC's head.

[WWWTT]

delete

Edited November 16, 2012 by WWWTT

[cybercoma]

One can take photos on this type of property. Its a privately owned open to the public spot and as such they can post no pics, although they wouldnt, but the law does not state it is illegal

Look, it's a public space, so you're allowed to take photos there until you're told otherwise. Since it is private property if you are told otherwise (ie, by mall security, or there's a sign hanging [we don't know if there was or not in this case]), you must stop taking pictures or you will be considered criminally trespassing. What needs to be established is whether 1) the person was told to stop photographing, or 2) there was a sign posted that indicated no photography on mall property. Regardless, the property owner or those acting on the owner's behalf (security) have every right to ask you to stop photographing on their property and you must comply.

[guyser]

Ya actually what you are referring to the right to "privacy".

NO I am not.

When you open your doors to the public,for whatever reason,you lose it.

Lose what?

What doors to the public?

Can you keep a thought straight....oh a squirrel!

That's why if you invite the police into your house you lose many the right to privacy!

NO I dont.

Geebus, is it that hard to figure out?

Yes the plain sight doctrine kicks in should I let the cops in , but that does not mean they can do a search for anything once inside.

How about you do a little research!

WWWTT

Yes well, it is obvious you have no grasp on this subject, nor are you an honest debator.

I will have more success nailing jello to the wall than following along with your logic and thought process.

[cybercoma]

When you open your doors to the public,for whatever reason,you lose it.

How about you do a little research!

WWWTT

I have researched it. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy, but it's private property so they have every right to insist that you don't take pictures. If you do, you're breaking the law (trespassing).

[The_Squid]

you must stop taking pictures or you will be considered criminally trespassing. What needs to be established is whether 1) the person was told to stop photographing, or 2) there was a sign posted that indicated no photography on mall property. Regardless, the property owner or those acting on the owner's behalf (security) have every right to ask you to stop photographing on their property and you must comply.

I don't disagree... but when he leaves to go, attempting to take away his camera and assaulting him while attempting to do so is clearly illegal.

And the entire premise that security guards should be chasing kids around the mall who are taking cellphone pictures is patently absurd.

[guyser]

Look, it's a public space, so you're allowed to take photos there until you're told otherwise. Since it is private property if you are told otherwise (ie, by mall security, or there's a sign hanging [we don't know if there was or not in this case]), you must stop taking pictures or you will be considered criminally trespassing. What needs to be established is whether 1) the person was told to stop photographing, or 2) there was a sign posted that indicated no photography on mall property. Regardless, the property owner or those acting on the owner's behalf (security) have every right to ask you to stop photographing on their property and you must comply.

Cant argue that, however it would not be criminal trespassing until you left the property and then returned.

[GostHacked]

Please describe or show where this is done legally?

I amended the question slightly...

How long will it be before citizens are videotaped and watched everyday even in their homes and cars.

Not long now, only a couple posts you had cars, and now you cross that out. And for good reason, you are tagged by a whole bunch of cameras as you move from your home to your work. Check out Britain with their extensive CCTV usage, and now that is making headway here in North America.

The devices to monitor you are already there. Got one of those new TVs that has high def cameras and high def mics and connected to the Internet. Some TVs have wifi in them as well. All hackable and all can be tapped in to monitor you. Are they doing it? Quite possibly, you just don't have an idea you are being eavesdropped on. Cell phones, same bit .. even items like the XBOX Kinnect can be tapped into.

I would bet it's already happening, but not to the degree that we see in the movie 1984... well not yet. But we are creeping there.