One for the dads

[SF Klein]

Wonder what this security guard would do if he worked at Disney World where people are constantly taking pictures of their kids. My guess is that his head would explode not knowing who to confront first. I'm sorry that I don't agree with your point because taking pictures is NOT a crime. There was no "situation".

 

[uno-speedo]

Wonder what this security guard would do if he worked at Disney World where people are constantly taking pictures of their kids. My guess is that his head would explode not knowing who to confront first.

Thats a ridiculous comment and not valid to the point I am making and you know it.

I'm sorry that I don't agree with your point because taking pictures is NOT a crime.

Don't be sorry. And it is a crime if the person being photographed is a police officer in the UK. Go figure.

There was no "situation".

But there COULD have been and the guard addressed it. In the article they said they have a problem with pedo's in that area. Good on him for saying something.

 

[BerthaPog]

And it is a crime if the person being photographed is a police officer in the UK. Go figure.

No it isn't (well at least not in a simple sense). If it was, they'd be hundreds of tourists charged in London every day.

Having said that there are a number of issues/cases etc. surrounding use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act. See here: http://photographernotaterrorist.org/ for more info.

Also in the UK photography can be prohibited on private property (and most shopping centres fall into this category) without any specific reason. Depending on the shopping centres rules the security guard was potentially fully within his rights to request that they stop taking photographs, without having to bring any "tabloid" language into it.

If the picture is taken from public property/right of way and providing it is not for "reward" you can take pictures of anybody you like, but as in many walks of life, a sensible balance when exercising ones rights is advised.