Discussion:
Japanese tourist Flinders Station staff deleted photos
(too old to reply)
Max Bialystock
2006-06-02 00:47:43 UTC
Permalink
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders Station
not only told him to stop photographing on one of the platforms, but they
deleted all the photos he had taken there.
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
Heretic
2006-06-02 00:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders Station
not only told him to stop photographing on one of the platforms, but they
deleted all the photos he had taken there.
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
No. It must have been that saren gas cylinder he was waving about that was
causing the problem.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 00:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.

Sylvia.
Max Bialystock
2006-06-02 01:38:50 UTC
Permalink
This from the Connex web site:
Rail Enthusiast Permits

Connex welcomes the interest of rail enthusiasts and has introduced a new
permit system to allow them to photograph trains from our stations.

This system represents a compromise between the need for enthusiasts to
pursue their hobby in an easy manner, while allowing Connex to exercise some
control over photography at and around train stations.

Effectively, the new system allows an amateur photographer to apply for a
three-month Rail Enthusiasts Photography Permit - Suburban Stations which
will allow him or her to take photographs of trains at any Connex station.

However, the permit does not apply at a number of nominated major stations.
These stations are: Flinders Street, North Melbourne, Richmond, South Yarra,
Caulfield, Camberwell, Footscray, Clifton Hill, Box Hill, Dandenong and
Ringwood.

Please note that Connex has no authority over photography at Southern Cross
(Spencer St) Station. Photography requests should be directed to the
Southern Cross Station Authority on (03) 9619 1600.

A specific permit is required for each station with this Rail Enthusiasts
Photography Permit - Major Stations valid for one week at a time.

Scroll down for PDF versions of the permit applications, which include the
terms and conditions for each.

For further information, please call Andrea Schade on (03) 9610 2610.


How is security at your stations enhanced by these regulations?

There is no way we can stop a determined individual from getting around
these regulations, either by posing as a rail enthusiast, using a mobile
phone camera or otherwise taking photographs surreptitiously.

However, by making photography a controlled activity, we make it something
that stands out for our staff and our customers.

Our objective is to create a situation in which someone taking photographs
is noticed, remembered and reported.

Our staff are aware that anyone taking a photograph needs a permit so they
will approach that person and ask to see it.

This creates a situation in which the photographer has to interact with our
staff (in addition to the requirement that he or she 'sign-on' when arriving
at the station).

It increases the likelihood that the person will be remembered. A staff
member may also suspect that someone is only posing as a rail enthusiast,
based on their actions or a conversation when the permit is being checked.
(Our staff meet a lot of rail enthusiasts and have a good chance of
detecting a fraud.)

Using a mobile phone camera or otherwise taking photographs surreptitiously
obviously makes it harder to take the photos and take them in such a way
that they provide useful information.

Again, our objective is to make it a little harder and increase, even
slightly, the opportunity for this person to be noticed, remembered and
reported.

We feel the new permit system strikes a good balance between the needs of
rail enthusiasts and our need to set a minimum level of security.

Why do rail enthusiast have to apply for a specific permit for major
stations which is only valid for one week?

Major stations are key locations on the rail network, where two or more
train lines meet and which are used by many passengers.

On that basis, we feel they require a higher level of security with greater
control of amateur photography at these locations.

Why is there an outright ban on photography at Flagstaff, Melbourne Central
and Parliament?

As busy, underground stations, passed by virtually every train that runs on
the network, these stations require some unique security measures.

This is the basis for the ban on photography at these stations.
http://www.connexmelbourne.com.au/help_film/index.asp
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 01:48:38 UTC
Permalink
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 02:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
expect to find it here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/

And it's not there.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 03:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
And it's not there.
Reading those previously posted regulations, I wonder how they can support
them. Flinders street station is not only arcetectually beautiful, it is
one of the most photographed stations in Victoria. It is a tourist
attraction.

Now my understanding is that the station is considered a public place for
the purpose of law enforcement. Eg you cant walk around naked, pitch a tent
or any of the other things that are forbidden on public land. So one would
expect other laws about things like photography are also enforced as if it
is public land.

Now if connex owned the land they might be able to ask people to leave if
they are taking photos, just like a Gym. But they do not have the power to
confiscate property from people.

I would bet money there is a FEE to be paid to get permission to take
photos, and this whole thing is just a money making scam.

Those gung ho station staff should also try to remember that Al'kida is not
made up of Asians!
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Rod Speed
2006-06-02 03:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
Only if you're a pig ignorant fool.

It doesnt have to be in the legislation, fuckwit.
Post by Sylvia Else
And it's not there.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist pommy fuckwits ?
Seppo Renfors
2006-06-05 08:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
And it's not there.
Of course not. Again you didn't think it through!

Connex are the owners, managers and operators of the various transport
vehicles, stations and the systems. They get to say what takes place
in their house!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Else
2006-06-05 10:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
And it's not there.
Of course not. Again you didn't think it through!
Connex are the owners, managers and operators of the various transport
vehicles, stations and the systems. They get to say what takes place
in their house!
As usual, you didn't even bother to read the rest of the thread.

Connex do not own Flinders station. It's still owned by the Government.

Sylvia.
Seppo Renfors
2006-06-06 05:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
And it's not there.
Of course not. Again you didn't think it through!
Connex are the owners, managers and operators of the various transport
vehicles, stations and the systems. They get to say what takes place
in their house!
As usual, you didn't even bother to read the rest of the thread.
Does it matter, you still suffer from foot in mouth syndrome!
Post by Sylvia Else
Connex do not own Flinders station. It's still owned by the Government.
If you lease a house, it isn't owned by you, is it! That doesn't mean
any Tom, Dick or Harry can wander in and start taking photos inside
it, does it.

You REALLY must learn to THINK things through before opening mouth to
insert foot!
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Else
2006-06-06 06:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
Certainly, if there were to be a rule against photography, one would
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tarfr1994493/
And it's not there.
Of course not. Again you didn't think it through!
Connex are the owners, managers and operators of the various transport
vehicles, stations and the systems. They get to say what takes place
in their house!
As usual, you didn't even bother to read the rest of the thread.
Does it matter, you still suffer from foot in mouth syndrome!
Post by Sylvia Else
Connex do not own Flinders station. It's still owned by the Government.
If you lease a house, it isn't owned by you, is it! That doesn't mean
any Tom, Dick or Harry can wander in and start taking photos inside
it, does it.
Connex do not lease Flinders station either.

Sylvia.
Post by Seppo Renfors
You REALLY must learn to THINK things through before opening mouth to
insert foot!
Craig Welch
2006-06-02 02:35:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:48:38 +1000, Heretic
Post by Heretic
This from the Connex web site: <snipped>
Legally, the technical term for this material is "bullshit".
There's a non-legal, non-technical term for it also.

That term is 'bullshit'.

Yet another example of CYA bureaucrats stampeding into meaningless
action in the name of 'security'.

Irresponsible hysterical goons.
--
Craig
Mal
2006-06-02 04:02:02 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mals.net/auscap/pages/DSC00274.htm

Love to see them come and delete my shot of the train station at Parramatta.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 03:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun I have emailed the following to Connex. I doubt they will
respond, but if they do I will post their reply here.

*****

There has been some discussion in my legal group this week about the law
surrounding taking photographs at public train stations.

I would like to know what Victorian legislation governs the taking of
photos, and the disposal of photos already taken at public train stations.

We are not looking for comment from Connex, just the legislation that Connex
is enforcing. We wish to debate the legislation and draw our own
conclusions.

Thus far we have been unable to find any Victorian legislation governing
photography in public places. Please help us locate the legislation.

Thank you.

*****


I deliberately tried to give the impression that the email was coming from a
Legal Student so they will not feel threatened. I assume the media have
asked them for comment already, so they might not respond if they think the
email came from the media.

If they are unable to provide any legislation and start quoting company
policy I would like to organise a bunch of people with cameras to go down
there and take photos together. Then refuse to let them have the cameras to
delete the photos. As a camera can have "private" content, I think it is
reasonable to refuse to let station staff look. They should call the police
if there is a law to be enforced.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Heretic
2006-06-02 04:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.

Anyone contravening their wishes might be asked to desist, or to leave the
property. Or they might call the cops for the purposes of removing the
contravenor who is trespassing.

They have no power whatsoever to seize anything belonging to a private
person, of course. Nor do the cops, if called. Of course.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 05:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument

Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.

Sylvia.
Rod Speed
2006-06-02 05:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation.
They might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free
to control what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of
photographs without their permission. That would be within their
rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not
inconsistent with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation that would have
to be laid before parliament) that restricted photography,
More fool you. No wonder you're completely unemployable.

Have a look at what applys in parliaments for example.

Inside police stations in spades.
Post by Sylvia Else
so an agent cannot do so either.
Pathetic, really.
Heretic
2006-06-02 05:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 05:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 06:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 06:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
I don't think that's the situation. Look at

http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/transport.nsf/AllDocs/19D8E6C7F444848DCA256E3E00162879?OpenDocument#agree

I've been trying to find the contract itself, but without success. Maybe
it's not in the public domain.

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 06:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
I don't think that's the situation. Look at
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/transport.nsf/AllDocs/19D8E6C7F444848DCA256E3E00162879?OpenDocument#agree
I've been trying to find the contract itself, but without success. Maybe
it's not in the public domain.
Are you kidding? It will be stamped "Commercial - In Confidence" or
suchlike.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 06:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
I don't think that's the situation. Look at
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/transport.nsf/AllDocs/19D8E6C7F444848DCA256E3E00162879?OpenDocument#agree
I've been trying to find the contract itself, but without success. Maybe
it's not in the public domain.
Are you kidding? It will be stamped "Commercial - In Confidence" or
suchlike.
Usually, but sometimes there's political strife, and these documents, or
parts of them at least, get made public. Think Cross City Tunnel.

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 06:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway
property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
I don't think that's the situation. Look at
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/DOI/Internet/transport.nsf/AllDocs/19D8E6C7F444848DCA256E3E00162879?OpenDocument#agree
I've been trying to find the contract itself, but without success. Maybe
it's not in the public domain.
Are you kidding? It will be stamped "Commercial - In Confidence" or
suchlike.
Usually, but sometimes there's political strife, and these documents, or
parts of them at least, get made public. Think Cross City Tunnel.
How long do you imagine is the attention span of the Victorian
voter? He/she would have difficulty recalling who played at the
MCG last week. And the Cross City Tunnel concerns another country
altogether, and they deserve everything they get.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 06:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
Is it? A cursory search of Victorian law hasn't revealed any such
requirement.
Just for fun <snipped>
If they respond, they may accept that there is no such legislation. They
might say that, as the occupier of the property, they are free to control
what goes on there eg they are free to ban the taking of photographs
without their permission. That would be within their rights.
If they were the occupier, then I suppose they would have the power to
introduce any requirement they liked as long as it waw not inconsistent
with the law. But, according to this page
http://www.doi.vic.gov.au/Doi/Internet/transport.nsf/0/AB47B5F09BEEAB39CA256C37000EE083?OpenDocument
Connex is only the manager, not the occupier. They are therefore only
acting as an agent of the Government. I cannot see that anything would
empower the Government to create a simple rule (rather than a regulation
that would have to be laid before parliament) that restricted
photography, so an agent cannot do so either.
My guess is that Connex is rather more than a bare agent of the State of
Victoria, and that it is free to manage the facility as it likes,
including controlling photography on the site.
That still doesn't explain how the Government could grant Connex powers
that it does not itself have.
Full powers to run the facility as it chooses ie to make money. That would
include the power to allow or deny access to whomever it chooses, and that
includes access on condition, whether known or not known to a punter.
With the exception of selling post cards and charging a fee to take photos,
how is taking photos part of connex's powers to run the facility for
(alleged) profit? I'm sure they didn't negotiate a photography clause with
the government. That is something they have dreamed up themselves recently.
Probably in response to paranoia.

I have to agree with Sylvia, who I believe is suggesting that they
overstepped their powers. Even a private homeowner does not have the right
to confiscate a camera or delete photos from it. Connex are operating a
public facility!

Asian tourists and photography as got to be the most non-suspicious
behaviour you will ever see at a train station. FFS They take photos of
themselves taking photos!
With the number of people using mobile photos (camera phones) it seems
pointless to single out someone who is using a dedicated camera for security
reasons. It is futile!
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Wishful Thinking
2006-06-02 07:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have to agree with Sylvia
There's the kiss of death. I'll bet that you are also an Essendon
supporter.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 07:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wishful Thinking
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have to agree with Sylvia
There's the kiss of death. I'll bet that you are also an Essendon
supporter.
I'm pretty sure that more people who have disagreed with me are dead,
than are people who have agreed with me.

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 07:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wishful Thinking
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have to agree with Sylvia
There's the kiss of death. I'll bet that you are also an Essendon
supporter.
I'm pretty sure that more people who have disagreed with me are dead,
than are people who have agreed with me.
I meant that any proposition supported by ED conferred on the proposition
a vanishingly low probability of it being correct. If he said that night
followed day, one might have legitimate fears for the continued existence
of the Sun.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 08:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wishful Thinking
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have to agree with Sylvia
There's the kiss of death. I'll bet that you are also an Essendon
supporter.
I'm pretty sure that more people who have disagreed with me are dead,
than are people who have agreed with me.
I meant that any proposition supported by ED conferred on the proposition
a vanishingly low probability of it being correct. If he said that night
followed day, one might have legitimate fears for the continued existence
of the Sun.
How would the ceasing of the Sun's existence prevent night from
following day? I can see that day following night could be a problem.

The idea that ED will agree with a proposition only if it is false
implies that he has an accurate way of determining its truth value, but
then applies that determination inappropriately. Somehow, I doubt that's
what you intended.

Sylvia.
Wishful Thinking
2006-06-02 08:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wishful Thinking
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have to agree with Sylvia
There's the kiss of death. I'll bet that you are also an Essendon
supporter.
I'm pretty sure that more people who have disagreed with me are dead,
than are people who have agreed with me.
I meant that any proposition supported by ED conferred on the proposition
a vanishingly low probability of it being correct. If he said that night
followed day, one might have legitimate fears for the continued existence
of the Sun.
How would the ceasing of the Sun's existence prevent night from
following day? I can see that day following night could be a problem.
The idea that ED will agree with a proposition only if it is false
implies that he has an accurate way of determining its truth value, but
then applies that determination inappropriately. Somehow, I doubt that's
what you intended.
I trust his instinct implicitly.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 05:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?

Sylvia.
Rod Speed
2006-06-02 05:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Melburg, stupid.
Kwyjibo
2006-06-02 06:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Free Melbourne newspaper.
--
Kwyj
Max Bialystock
2006-06-02 08:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Sylvia.
It's a free newspaper distributed in the late afternoon at Flinders Street
Station (and other venues). It's published by News Ltd.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 09:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Sylvia.
It's a free newspaper distributed in the late afternoon at Flinders Street
Station (and other venues). It's published by News Ltd.
Thanks.

Oh dear, looks like Rod Bot got it wrong.

Sylvia.
Andy
2006-06-02 09:21:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:17:53 +1000, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Sylvia.
It's a free newspaper distributed in the late afternoon at Flinders Street
Station (and other venues). It's published by News Ltd.
Thanks.
Oh dear, looks like Rod Bot got it wrong.
Sylvia.
You say that as though you're surprised?

Cheers...
--
Yet another display of how pointless the ignorant master of
hypocrisy, really is..

"Ashley, your (Note spelling) in no position"

Copyright © Tony Burns 2006
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 10:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:17:53 +1000, Sylvia Else
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday
What is "MX" ?
Sylvia.
It's a free newspaper distributed in the late afternoon at Flinders Street
Station (and other venues). It's published by News Ltd.
Thanks.
Oh dear, looks like Rod Bot got it wrong.
Sylvia.
You say that as though you're surprised?
Cheers...
No. Just that when it's so unequivocal, I like to rub his nose in it.
Bit like house-training a pet.

Sylvia.
Andy
2006-06-02 10:46:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:09:04 +1000, Sylvia Else
[ ~ ]
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Andy
Post by Sylvia Else
Oh dear, looks like Rod Bot got it wrong.
Sylvia.
You say that as though you're surprised?
Cheers...
No. Just that when it's so unequivocal, I like to rub his nose in it.
Bit like house-training a pet.
Ahh.. fair enough. I can relate to that. :)
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 05:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders Station
not only told him to stop photographing on one of the platforms, but they
deleted all the photos he had taken there.
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
It's clear from other discussion in this thread that they have no power
to delete the photographs.

I've been looking to see what offence they (the staff) might have
committed. This section seems to fit:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s247h.html

The odd thing is that if the staff did not know that they were not
authorised to erase the pictures (and presuambly that's the case), then
they were not committing that offence. Their error was one of law, not
fact, but I cannot see that that changes anything here.

Usually, being mistaken as to the law is no defence.

I wonder why the (b) does not say "does not believe on reasonable
grounds that the impairment is authorised".

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 05:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders
Station not only told him to stop photographing on one of the
platforms, but they deleted all the photos he had taken there. I
understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway
property, but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
It's clear from other discussion in this thread that they have no power
to delete the photographs.
I've been looking to see what offence they (the staff) might have
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s247h.html
The odd thing is that if the staff did not know that they were not
authorised to erase the pictures (and presuambly that's the case), then
they were not committing that offence. Their error was one of law, not
fact, but I cannot see that that changes anything here.
Usually, being mistaken as to the law is no defence.
I wonder why the (b) does not say "does not believe on reasonable
grounds that the impairment is authorised".
What about criminal damage? And what about the criminal liability of the
emplyer?

Then, what about civil liability?
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 05:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
What about criminal damage? And what about the criminal liability of the
emplyer?
I looked at criminal damage, but there is no definition of "damage", and
it's far from clear that the courts would consider that anything had
been damaged. Indeed, if criminal damage were to apply to impairment of
data, when there would be no need for the specific offences relating to
that.
Post by Heretic
Then, what about civil liability?
I imagine the tourist could win a civil action, but what damages could
be awarded? Consider that (back when we used photographic film) if a
film developer lost your film, you could recover the cost of replacing
it, but not the cost of going back to the place where you took the
photographs to take them again.

Sylvia.
Heretic
2006-06-02 06:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
What about criminal damage? And what about the criminal liability of the
emplyer?
I looked at criminal damage, but there is no definition of "damage", and
it's far from clear that the courts would consider that anything had
been damaged. Indeed, if criminal damage were to apply to impairment of
data, when there would be no need for the specific offences relating to
that.
Since when has "need" been a prerequisite for governments to pass new
criminal laws? They have gotta be seen to be doing something, anything.

I would have thought that wiping an electronic memory of data was damage
recognised by the general law, but I could be wrong.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Then, what about civil liability?
I imagine the tourist could win a civil action, but what damages could
be awarded?
Perhaps, exemplary damages. Besides, trespass is actionable per se,
without proof of loss.
Post by Sylvia Else
Consider that (back when we used photographic film) if a
film developer lost your film, you could recover the cost of replacing
it, but not the cost of going back to the place where you took the
photographs to take them again.
Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 06:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
What about criminal damage? And what about the criminal liability of the
emplyer?
I looked at criminal damage, but there is no definition of "damage", and
it's far from clear that the courts would consider that anything had
been damaged. Indeed, if criminal damage were to apply to impairment of
data, when there would be no need for the specific offences relating to
that.
Since when has "need" been a prerequisite for governments to pass new
criminal laws? They have gotta be seen to be doing something, anything.
I would have thought that wiping an electronic memory of data was damage
recognised by the general law, but I could be wrong.
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to access
the data and permission would not have been given freely. (permission under
duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Heretic
Then, what about civil liability?
I imagine the tourist could win a civil action, but what damages could
be awarded?
Perhaps, exemplary damages. Besides, trespass is actionable per se,
without proof of loss.
How do you value photos of your overseas holiday? The photos are priceless,
and the emotional distress of having them deliberatly destroyed would be
terrible.
Post by Heretic
Post by Sylvia Else
Consider that (back when we used photographic film) if a
film developer lost your film, you could recover the cost of replacing
it, but not the cost of going back to the place where you took the
photographs to take them again.
Back then it was accepted that the development of pictures had a risk, and
the customer had to accept it. However it would be different if the film
developer deliberately destroyed your photos in front of you, which is the
case here. The difference being the "intentions" to destroy, rather than a
honest mistake. The staff deliberately destroyed the photos, and I would
hope that management did not tell them to do that.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Wishful Thinking
2006-06-02 07:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
How do you value photos of your overseas holiday? The photos are priceless,
and the emotional distress of having them deliberatly destroyed would be
terrible.
Aren't you just the sneaky devil?

Pretending that you had any idea of what an overseas holiday was like. The
closest you have ever been to overseas is when you fell in the Albert Park
Lake. And you were drunk at the time.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 11:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wishful Thinking
Post by EnjoyDialup
How do you value photos of your overseas holiday? The photos are priceless,
and the emotional distress of having them deliberatly destroyed would be
terrible.
Aren't you just the sneaky devil?
Pretending that you had any idea of what an overseas holiday was like. The
closest you have ever been to overseas is when you fell in the Albert Park
Lake. And you were drunk at the time.
Now if you had done your research properly you would have seen me state on
several occasions that I NEVER drink alcohol. Therefore I am never drunk.

I'm unsure of weather I have been overseas, but I know I have been over
oceans!
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe







Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Wishful Thinking
2006-06-02 11:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
I'm unsure of weather
Cold and wet.
Post by EnjoyDialup
I have been overseas, but I know I have been over
oceans!
Jumping over your Collins Atlas does not count.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 11:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to access
the data and permission would not have been given freely. (permission under
duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections have
the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator has
to know that the action is not authorised.
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Consider that (back when we used photographic film) if a
film developer lost your film, you could recover the cost of replacing
it, but not the cost of going back to the place where you took the
photographs to take them again.
Back then it was accepted that the development of pictures had a risk, and
the customer had to accept it. However it would be different if the film
developer deliberately destroyed your photos in front of you, which is the
case here. The difference being the "intentions" to destroy, rather than a
honest mistake. The staff deliberately destroyed the photos, and I would
hope that management did not tell them to do that.
The customer no doubt accepted the risks inherent in the developing
process, but if the photographs were simply lost, resulting self
evidently from negligence, the customer still could not expect much in
the way of damages.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-02 15:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to
access the data and permission would not have been given freely.
(permission under duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections have
the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator has to
know that the action is not authorised.
If there is no law giving them authority, and the camera's owner clearly
didn't give authorisation, I think that section is met. The fact the
station staff decided they could do it is not authorisation. If it was
regular film they would not have exposed the whole real to delete the
offending shots.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Consider that (back when we used photographic film) if a
film developer lost your film, you could recover the cost of replacing
it, but not the cost of going back to the place where you took the
photographs to take them again.
Back then it was accepted that the development of pictures had a risk,
and the customer had to accept it. However it would be different if the
film developer deliberately destroyed your photos in front of you, which
is the case here. The difference being the "intentions" to destroy,
rather than a honest mistake. The staff deliberately destroyed the
photos, and I would hope that management did not tell them to do that.
The customer no doubt accepted the risks inherent in the developing
process, but if the photographs were simply lost, resulting self evidently
from negligence, the customer still could not expect much in the way of
damages.
I don't think the old rules of photography really apply to digital photos.
They are no longer fragile chemical reactions. They are robust digital
data, just like accounting records or any other computer stored data. The
fact they were still in a camera is irrelevant because a camera is also a
digital storage device.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Sylvia Else
2006-06-02 22:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to
access the data and permission would not have been given freely.
(permission under duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections have
the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator has to
know that the action is not authorised.
If there is no law giving them authority, and the camera's owner clearly
didn't give authorisation, I think that section is met. The fact the
station staff decided they could do it is not authorisation. If it was
regular film they would not have exposed the whole real to delete the
offending shots.
I agree that the staff were not authorised. Unfortunately, the way the
legislation is worded, they were not committing an offence unless they
*knew* that they were not authorised. Their presumed belief that they
were authorised is a sufficient defence.

I don't think it should be that way, but that's the way it is.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-03 03:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to
access the data and permission would not have been given freely.
(permission under duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections have
the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator has to
know that the action is not authorised.
If there is no law giving them authority, and the camera's owner clearly
didn't give authorisation, I think that section is met. The fact the
station staff decided they could do it is not authorisation. If it was
regular film they would not have exposed the whole real to delete the
offending shots.
I agree that the staff were not authorised. Unfortunately, the way the
legislation is worded, they were not committing an offence unless they
*knew* that they were not authorised. Their presumed belief that they were
authorised is a sufficient defence.
I think it is worded that way to protect people from prosecution in
situations where they have been given incorrect instructions by their
superiors. I don't think it was intended to protect those who arrogantly
decide to take the law into their own hands.
Post by Sylvia Else
I don't think it should be that way, but that's the way it is.
I really dont think arragance should be a defence.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Sylvia Else
2006-06-03 03:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to
access the data and permission would not have been given freely.
(permission under duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections have
the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator has to
know that the action is not authorised.
If there is no law giving them authority, and the camera's owner clearly
didn't give authorisation, I think that section is met. The fact the
station staff decided they could do it is not authorisation. If it was
regular film they would not have exposed the whole real to delete the
offending shots.
I agree that the staff were not authorised. Unfortunately, the way the
legislation is worded, they were not committing an offence unless they
*knew* that they were not authorised. Their presumed belief that they were
authorised is a sufficient defence.
I think it is worded that way to protect people from prosecution in
situations where they have been given incorrect instructions by their
superiors. I don't think it was intended to protect those who arrogantly
decide to take the law into their own hands.
Wording along the lines I suggested previously, requiring belief on
reasonable grounds that the action is authorised, would have been
sufficient for that kind of thing.

The current wording seems to protect people even if they are recklessly
indifferent as to whether they have the authority to act.
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
I don't think it should be that way, but that's the way it is.
I really dont think arragance should be a defence.
Clearly, it should not be.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-03 15:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
It could also be covered by the "hacking" laws. Unauthorised access,
destruction of data etc. As the staff member had no legal right to
access the data and permission would not have been given freely.
(permission under duress of being told they MUST do it, is not valid)
s247D is one of the sections that cover hacking. The other sections
have the same issue that for an offence to be committed the perpetrator
has to know that the action is not authorised.
If there is no law giving them authority, and the camera's owner clearly
didn't give authorisation, I think that section is met. The fact the
station staff decided they could do it is not authorisation. If it was
regular film they would not have exposed the whole real to delete the
offending shots.
I agree that the staff were not authorised. Unfortunately, the way the
legislation is worded, they were not committing an offence unless they
*knew* that they were not authorised. Their presumed belief that they
were authorised is a sufficient defence.
I think it is worded that way to protect people from prosecution in
situations where they have been given incorrect instructions by their
superiors. I don't think it was intended to protect those who arrogantly
decide to take the law into their own hands.
Wording along the lines I suggested previously, requiring belief on
reasonable grounds that the action is authorised, would have been
sufficient for that kind of thing.
The current wording seems to protect people even if they are recklessly
indifferent as to whether they have the authority to act.
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
if they were restrained, then assault?

I would still push on with the damage to property myself, and investigate
unauthorised access to a digital storage system.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Sylvia Else
2006-06-03 22:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person is
being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show that
a person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to with
their consent.

Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by
refusing to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The
goons can then accept the situation, state that they are making a
citizen's arrest, or use force (though the latter should really follow
the statement of arrest).

Sylvia.
Post by EnjoyDialup
if they were restrained, then assault?
I would still push on with the damage to property myself, and investigate
unauthorised access to a digital storage system.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-04 05:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person is
being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show that a
person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to with their
consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by refusing
to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The goons can
then accept the situation, state that they are making a citizen's arrest,
or use force (though the latter should really follow the statement of
arrest).
watching the behaviour of train security over recent yours I would suggest
they will use force first and then hope you don't tell the media afterwards.
We have had children jumping from moving trains to avoid them. They as like
the modern days Nazi/Gestapo papers checkers.

I'd be willing to turn up with a camera and take photos as part of a mass
protest. anyone else want to come?
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Heretic
2006-06-04 05:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person is
being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show that a
person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to with their
consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by refusing
to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The goons can
then accept the situation, state that they are making a citizen's arrest,
or use force (though the latter should really follow the statement of
arrest).
watching the behaviour of train security over recent yours I would suggest
they will use force first and then hope you don't tell the media afterwards.
We have had children jumping from moving trains to avoid them. They as like
the modern days Nazi/Gestapo papers checkers.
I'd be willing to turn up with a camera and take photos as part of a mass
protest. anyone else want to come?
Only if you promise to jump.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-04 05:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person is
being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show that a
person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to with their
consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by refusing
to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The goons can
then accept the situation, state that they are making a citizen's arrest,
or use force (though the latter should really follow the statement of
arrest).
watching the behaviour of train security over recent yours I would suggest
they will use force first and then hope you don't tell the media afterwards.
We have had children jumping from moving trains to avoid them. They as like
the modern days Nazi/Gestapo papers checkers.
I'd be willing to turn up with a camera and take photos as part of a mass
protest. anyone else want to come?
I don't use trains much, so I've yet to cross swords with them.

One day.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-04 07:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted under.
if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person is
being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show that a
person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to with their
consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by
refusing to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The
goons can then accept the situation, state that they are making a
citizen's arrest, or use force (though the latter should really follow
the statement of arrest).
watching the behaviour of train security over recent yours I would
suggest they will use force first and then hope you don't tell the media
afterwards. We have had children jumping from moving trains to avoid
them. They as like the modern days Nazi/Gestapo papers checkers.
I'd be willing to turn up with a camera and take photos as part of a mass
protest. anyone else want to come?
I don't use trains much, so I've yet to cross swords with them.
I didn't use them at all for 15 years, but last new years eve they made them
free and ran them all night! We went to the docklands for the fireworks and
then lobbed in on a nearby club until the sun came up. Knowing we didn't
have to rush back to catch the last train made public transport perfect. If
only they would run the trains all night all the time. It would make
Melbourne's nightlife far more interesting. As things stand now people have
to either drive or be home by midnight. If they want to drink they cant
even drive. It really is stupid that a major city like Melbourne shuts down
every night.
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Rod Speed
2006-06-04 07:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted
under. if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person
is being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show
that a person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to
with their consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by
refusing to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The
goons can then accept the situation, state that they are making a
citizen's arrest, or use force (though the latter should really follow
the statement of arrest).
Not a fucking clue, as always.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Post by EnjoyDialup
if they were restrained, then assault?
I would still push on with the damage to property myself, and
investigate unauthorised access to a digital storage system.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-04 12:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be prosecuted
under. if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person
is being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to show
that a person is being detained, as opposed to merely being talked to
with their consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by
refusing to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away. The
goons can then accept the situation, state that they are making a
citizen's arrest, or use force (though the latter should really follow
the statement of arrest).
Not a fucking clue, as always.
Offering the benefit of your wisdom again, Rod?

I don't know why, though. No one pulled your chain.

Sylvia.
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Post by EnjoyDialup
if they were restrained, then assault?
I would still push on with the damage to property myself, and
investigate unauthorised access to a digital storage system.
Rod Speed
2006-06-04 19:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
If that is the case there must be another law they can be
prosecuted under. if they were detained then false imprisonment?
If they were. In the absence of an express statement that the person
is being arrested, or physical detention, it can be difficult to
show that a person is being detained, as opposed to merely being
talked to with their consent.
Clearly, any person in such a situation should force the issue by
refusing to enter into a discussion, and attempting to walk away.
The goons can then accept the situation, state that they are making
a citizen's arrest, or use force (though the latter should really
follow the statement of arrest).
Not a fucking clue, as always.
Offering the benefit of your wisdom again, Rod?
I don't know why, though. No one pulled your chain.
Pathetic, really.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by EnjoyDialup
if they were restrained, then assault?
I would still push on with the damage to property myself, and
investigate unauthorised access to a digital storage system.
Sylvia Else
2006-06-05 01:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders Station
not only told him to stop photographing on one of the platforms, but they
deleted all the photos he had taken there.
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway property,
but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
I got a reply from Connex regarding my query as to the legal basis of
the requirement to have a permit.

The answer I received was that their position is stated on their
website, and it then quotes from the website under the URL you gave
previously

http://www.connexmelbourne.com.au/help_film/index.asp

specifically the section headed "How is security at your stations
enhanced by these regulations?"

At the momemnt, it seems a reasonable inference that they do not
understand the difference between something seeming a good idea, and
something being lawful.

Sylvia.
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-05 01:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Bialystock
In MX yesterday a Japanese tourist complained that staff at Flinders
Station not only told him to stop photographing on one of the platforms,
but they deleted all the photos he had taken there.
I understand that permission is needed to take photos on railway
property, but do they have the right to delete photos already taken?
I got a reply from Connex regarding my query as to the legal basis of the
requirement to have a permit.
The answer I received was that their position is stated on their website,
and it then quotes from the website under the URL you gave previously
http://www.connexmelbourne.com.au/help_film/index.asp
specifically the section headed "How is security at your stations enhanced
by these regulations?"
At the momemnt, it seems a reasonable inference that they do not
understand the difference between something seeming a good idea, and
something being lawful.
Do you mean they don't understand the difference between company policy and
the law? That would describe a lot of businesses in Australia!
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Craig Welch
2006-06-05 01:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
At the momemnt, it seems a reasonable inference that they do not
understand the difference between something seeming a good idea, and
something being lawful.
Do you mean they don't understand the difference between company policy and
the law? That would describe a lot of businesses in Australia!
My experience is that most companies know *exactly* the difference.
--
Craig
EnjoyDialup
2006-06-05 02:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Craig Welch
Post by EnjoyDialup
Post by Sylvia Else
At the momemnt, it seems a reasonable inference that they do not
understand the difference between something seeming a good idea, and
something being lawful.
Do you mean they don't understand the difference between company policy and
the law? That would describe a lot of businesses in Australia!
My experience is that most companies know *exactly* the difference.
You are right. I probably should have said "admit" instead of "understand".
--
***@hyperoz.com - You know you want to...

http://www.HyperOz.com

"Every time he tries to get me he gets himself" - Nigel Howe






Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Loading...