On Cell Phones and Video in the Cabin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Cell Phones and Video in the Cabin
The ubiquitious presence of cell phones with video cameras serves as a check on the aggregation of power. Those holding the power don't want to take this lying down: in a number of USA jurisdictions, police have tried to stop people recording video in public by citing wiretapping laws, or by throwing a bunch of random charges (interfering, loitering, etc.) at the person taping. Inevitably these charges get laughed out of court, and sometimes the police end up paying out settlements.
Across airline and other boardrooms right now, there has to be an ongoing conversation around "what are we going to do about this threat?"
United (surprise!) has been proactive on this front: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures! - Live and Let's Fly
My prediction: expect a significant crackdown, in about 9 months to a year, once the current brouhaha has faded. They'll either cite the privacy of other passengers, or offer some BS post-9/11 operational security excuse.
Across airline and other boardrooms right now, there has to be an ongoing conversation around "what are we going to do about this threat?"
United (surprise!) has been proactive on this front: Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures! - Live and Let's Fly
My prediction: expect a significant crackdown, in about 9 months to a year, once the current brouhaha has faded. They'll either cite the privacy of other passengers, or offer some BS post-9/11 operational security excuse.
Referring to the UK: AFAIK there is no restriction upon photography in a public place. The police may try to tell you there is but they are wrong.
Inside an airport or aircraft is not a public place and the owners may delegate an employee to forbid the taking of pictures. Normally, in a UK airport, no-one will stop you taking pics of your dearest looking like death as they arrive from an overnight but I was once told to desist by some idiot jobsworth. "Oh, sorry, I didn't know." (You stupid ****)
Inside an airport or aircraft is not a public place and the owners may delegate an employee to forbid the taking of pictures. Normally, in a UK airport, no-one will stop you taking pics of your dearest looking like death as they arrive from an overnight but I was once told to desist by some idiot jobsworth. "Oh, sorry, I didn't know." (You stupid ****)
I don't think any airline seriously expects it can stem the tide of bloggers and social media commentators.
And, if an incident occurs, good luck trying to stop passengers pulling out their phones in the heat of the moment.
No, airlines are going to have to get used to the fact that their every action is potentially going to end up on YouTube, and as this week's events have shown, that's no bad thing.
And, if an incident occurs, good luck trying to stop passengers pulling out their phones in the heat of the moment.
No, airlines are going to have to get used to the fact that their every action is potentially going to end up on YouTube, and as this week's events have shown, that's no bad thing.
Yup, if it isn't CCTV* it will be someone with a smartphone.
The MD of a relative recently videoed the build-up to a homophobic assault in London which led to an easy conviction. Strangely enough, the perp was just the sort to scream blue murder over a racist or Islamophobic incident.
* Why, when a smartphone can produce high resolution images, is CCTV so poor?
The MD of a relative recently videoed the build-up to a homophobic assault in London which led to an easy conviction. Strangely enough, the perp was just the sort to scream blue murder over a racist or Islamophobic incident.
* Why, when a smartphone can produce high resolution images, is CCTV so poor?
Paxing All Over The World
I was asked to stop taking a picture in JNB a couple of months ago so they often think it's important. My guess about CCTV quality is that, historically, they had low resolution as that was all that was cheaply available. My guess about now is that the trade still likes to keep prices down and are not selling each product in the quantities that phone companies are.
It maybe that, as new terminals and train stations are built/refurbished, they will realise the importance of putting top quality cameras - set against the cost of the building and a problem person not being identified. Here's hoping.
It maybe that, as new terminals and train stations are built/refurbished, they will realise the importance of putting top quality cameras - set against the cost of the building and a problem person not being identified. Here's hoping.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the baggage hall at JKF they have various "Welcome to New York" posters which, if you are of a certain age, cry out for a "selfie". I watched a group of teenagers do exactly that, and then get bawled out by an officious jobsworth in a "uniform" and forced to delete the photos. Talk about a mixed message.
If you video and are asked to stop cabin crew can't seize your phone.
Since it is a civil matter police have no jurisdiction.
If you continue to film after being asked to stop and are then charged with not obeying crew, then the phone can be seized by police.
However, even after an arrest, you still may publish the video, but this is a grey area.
If the subject of the filming (other passengers) are unlikely to protest then it's you versus the airline, who would have claim you have unfairly affected their reputation by showing them let's say, drag a passenger out of their seat.
There are no circumstances where police in USA UK or Oz, can lawfully demand that you delete your video on the spot.
In general it is not the taking of videos that is a legal issue, it is publishing or distributing them where the law kicks in to protect the subject.
Going live to Periscope or Facebook with images of the public who are in a private place, is new legal territory.
Since it is a civil matter police have no jurisdiction.
If you continue to film after being asked to stop and are then charged with not obeying crew, then the phone can be seized by police.
However, even after an arrest, you still may publish the video, but this is a grey area.
If the subject of the filming (other passengers) are unlikely to protest then it's you versus the airline, who would have claim you have unfairly affected their reputation by showing them let's say, drag a passenger out of their seat.
There are no circumstances where police in USA UK or Oz, can lawfully demand that you delete your video on the spot.
In general it is not the taking of videos that is a legal issue, it is publishing or distributing them where the law kicks in to protect the subject.
Going live to Periscope or Facebook with images of the public who are in a private place, is new legal territory.
Last edited by mickjoebill; 18th Apr 2017 at 15:21.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you may be right that the police cannot compel you to delete the photos and videos, they are able to arrest you and confiscate your camera if you contravene the law that prohibits you from taking the pictures. I view the police demanding you to delete the photo on the spot and then letting you go as equivalent to letting you go with a warning after deciding that you are not a threat.
Having said that, in the specific circumstances discussed in this thread, there are no laws that I know of prohibiting photography in an aircraft. So your statement is true in that instance. You can still get evicted from private property though.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic. There are very well defined laws in the states (and they vary) on exactly when you can record a telephone conversation and who needs to know the recording is taking place - legacy POTS telephones - not sure if the same applies to largely unregulated cellphones. I'm not sure how a federal entity could enforce a ban on videoing (which of course includes voice) in a public place. Maybe the airlines can - it's done all the time in concerts and movie debuts.
No, airlines are going to have to get used to the fact that their every action is potentially going to end up on YouTube, and as this week's events have shown, that's no bad thing.
resolution of the problem, but almost certainly not the attitude/comment/behaviour that triggered it....
If this feeding frenzy ( which seems to be consistently entitled something like "airline employees bad, passengers good") continues maybe for the protection of staff the airlines might have to consider issuing body cameras to customer facing employees......and I'm only half joking.
Police body cameras 'cut complaints against officers' - BBC News
https://www.policemisconduct.net/exp...-body-cameras/
Paxing All Over The World
The great advantage for a bodycam is to the wearer. For the wearer knows that they can stay calm whilst the other person incriminates themselves.
I worked in voice based telecommunications for many years and there was a job I did in my very early days, some 35 years ago, that shows the benefit. We were a company that often received bomb threats and other verbal assults. On one occaision, a woman was berating me for not helping and not doing my job. As soon as she had started, I hit the RECORD button and sat back, speaking quietly and politely.
Later that day I got called to HR (as I had expected the woman would demand it) and took the tape with me. After they listened to the woman screaming (and I mean screaming) at me and that I had done all I could to help her - I was congratulated on being a good member of staff.
Cabin crew might like to think of the benefits of keeping their job.
NOW, the other side of the problem is management demanding ludicrous turnaround times that can upset the staff as much as the pax. But no body cam can tell the Board of Directors about that - because the shareholders come first.
I worked in voice based telecommunications for many years and there was a job I did in my very early days, some 35 years ago, that shows the benefit. We were a company that often received bomb threats and other verbal assults. On one occaision, a woman was berating me for not helping and not doing my job. As soon as she had started, I hit the RECORD button and sat back, speaking quietly and politely.
Later that day I got called to HR (as I had expected the woman would demand it) and took the tape with me. After they listened to the woman screaming (and I mean screaming) at me and that I had done all I could to help her - I was congratulated on being a good member of staff.
Cabin crew might like to think of the benefits of keeping their job.
NOW, the other side of the problem is management demanding ludicrous turnaround times that can upset the staff as much as the pax. But no body cam can tell the Board of Directors about that - because the shareholders come first.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because not too many investigations have be hampered by the lack of video evidence. But airlines might now install cabin sound and vision recorders to make sure they have something to counter the one-sided social media posts of recent days. That would remove the guts from most of these stories.
Because not too many investigations have be hampered by the lack of video evidence. But airlines might now install cabin sound and vision recorders to make sure they have something to counter the one-sided social media posts of recent days. That would remove the guts from most of these stories.
I can see countries like Germany, where people value their privacy more than we in UK appear to, may object and there would be many others around the world that may have similar attitudes.
Something has to be done as otherwise companies and their employees acting entirely reasonably will all too easily be taken to the cleaners by social media warriors and outright opportunists looking to make a fast buck.
On a separate point, many "public" places in UK, in particular shopping centres operated by INTU have prominent signs prohibiting filming, and also I recall MAG operated East Midlands Airport had / have similar signing prominent within airside areas of the terminal.