2012 Olympics: Police to enter private homes to remove posters
uk.news.yahoo.com
uk.news.yahoo.com
Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events."
Wow. That's ridiculous.
We were once told that we couldn't bring in the chocolate bars we had stashed in my girlfriend's purse because they weren't sponsor products, even though there's no official chocolate sponsor of the 2010 Olympics (I suspect it was just a general 'no outside food or drink' rule). The Minute Maid cranberry juice I had, was ok, since it was a coke product. Her Dr. Pepper was not.
That said, the security guy was just doing his job, and was human - after a half-hearted plea ('Seriously? Come on man, we'll be done it all in like two minutes.') he let us through regardless.
I guess what it comes down to is what kind of people they hire: helpful, courteous people, or power-hungry rule jockeys.
The problem is that reality suggests a distribution of the two, not a dichotomy of one or the other.
If you want to be a helpful, courteous person, please don't cajole them into doing something that might get them fired just so you can eat a snack.
It sucks all around, but put yourself in their shoes.
Amazing.
I really don't get how people see that as a concession though. Sneaking 'unapproved' products into the Olympics isn't taking any sort of stand against their ridiculous policies. Why? Because it's under the radar. You can't encourage change by secretly resisting the policies you hate in the dark where no one can see you. The purpose of change would be better served by boycotting the Olympics altogether, or loudly and visibly protesting their policies.
I get that some people might feel that when people take a job, they willingly buy into what they are asked to do, and should be held accountable for it. I don't completely disagree, but I wish that life so clear and simple.
I spent many years working in the security field. Typically, it attracts low-skill workers, often recent immigrants. You can end up spending a lot of time on your feet, often in shit weather. But it pays the bills and feeds your family. I imagine some guy who had steady work watching a warehouse or a train yard, putting in his time, keeping to himself, and planning to make a better life for himself. Then one day he's told they need people over at the Olympics, time and a half OT, let's get going.
What's he supposed to do? Raise a fuss? Quit? Get fired?
Have a heart.
As you say, if you want to fight this, keep your money away from the event and its sponsors. Choose your battles and pick your targets.
And get a clue: Making a stink over a confiscated Snickers bar is not speaking truth to power. If you're so concerned over the stupid rules, what the fuck are you dong there? Go demand a refund and leave. Don't leave it to the other guy to make the hard choices.
Because they couldn't release people actually doing any day-day work they had to use managers - including my boss and his boss. So a lot of the security guards, helpers and people on the street have $100K salaries.
Wow. If they didn't have an appreciation for what sort of work that is, I hope they do now.
"Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events." The second part is just as scary in my opinion
It's just a small step from suddenly "needing" to question what constitutes "really necessary". We should be resisting tyranny as it creeps up on us, not remain complacent until after it becomes a true crisis.
EDIT: On further thought, it's worse. The article implies that police will have the power to remove items from people on the way to an event. That would be hideous if true. I want a corroborative source before I get too worked up about this, though.
What made Vancouver such a success is the low key policing. 6000 police + RCMP + army and they made 93 arrests (mostly drunk+disorderly), one policeman was slightly hurt when he broke a window stopping a fight. The result is the best press for the VPD in living memory.
Now picture the Met's response to any sort of demo in London.
I also think people are waking up to SCAM that is the olympics. The IOC is private organization that profits from the games, by stealing taxpayer money to fund their events. I don't know why anyone would want to host the olympics anymore.
Likewise with Vancouver; one of our major downtown streets, Granville, got a complete overhaul. Gone were the old, broken stones, the cracked sidewalks, the run-down streets and sickly trees. It's now a much better place to walk around and explore.
We also have a new mass-transit line connecting our downtown core with South Vancouver and Richmond, as well as the airport. Catching a flight used to be $25-35 by taxi, or god knows how much in parking. Now, it's about $4 per person, and that gets you there and back if you're dropping someone off. The project was a public-private partnership that was within budget and opened fifteen weeks early, and has made Richmond far easier to travel to and from (making everyone's life easier). The project was a no-brainer improvement to the region, but I doubt we would have had as much support and funding if we hadn't had the olympics coming to town.
Whether the other renovations to the city will prove useful, it's hard to tell yet, but I'm cautiously optimistic that they will.
However, similar arguments are made all the time in support of building new sports stadiums. And at least in those cases, the arguments simply don't hold water: the beneficiary is the team ownership, NOT the taxpayers.
See http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-339es.html : The economic facts, however, do not support the position that professional sports teams should receive taxpayer subsidies. The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players. ... Indeed, the results of studies on changes in the economy resulting from the presence of stadiums, arenas, and sports teams show no positive economic impact from professional sports -- or a possible negative effect.
When your spending on beautification to show the world your city for 3 weeks, major infrastructure projects like sewer systems aren't high on the list.
I do feel Atlanta did a good job hosting the '96 Olympics. However, your perspective that "Atlanta was a total ghetto before the Olympics" is far off. The "ghettos" can be restated as "poor black communities". These did not go away. They just relocated. This gentrification process was in place prior to the Olympic prep. The prep simply added more money to accelerate the process.
We shouldn't have to beg to have our rights (back). Just remember how you got those rights in the first place.
(Remember fascism means the union of the corporate and the state. Egomaniacs in funny uniforms and goose stepping is optional.)
[grammar]
There's a similar but less extreme generalisation to be made about its effect on cultural inheritance.
I understand organizers of sporting events and people who have paid a lot of money for broadcast rights (public money, in the case of the BBC) don't want to give free advertising to other brands surfing on the popularity of the Olympics...but surely the way to approach this is to hold the brand owners responsible, and agree that organized displays outside normal commercial channels (front gardens vs. billboards along a marathon route, say) are the commercial equivalent of graffiti.
Letting police come into people's houses because they can see objectionable material from the outside will end in tears. Sure, it's inappropriate if someone decks their house with ads for candy or cheap beer, but between poorly-drafted rules and over-enthusiastic police officers, I feel pretty certain that non-commercial displays of everything from political views to portraits of people who look overly sad or gloomy will become grounds for police censorship.
I lived in the UK for about a decade and loved it. But between the plethora of security cameras and things like this, I just can't imagine living there now. Neither Labor and Conservative governments over the years have shown any real respect for civil liberties.
-- http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th1st/1st_read/gov13-1.htm --
“specified municipality” means any of the following: (a) the City of Richmond; (b) the City of Vancouver; (c) the Resort Municipality of Whistler.
32 (1) Subject to this section and section 34, an officer or employee of a specified municipality or a person authorized by the council of a specified municipality has the authority to enter on property, and to enter into property, without the consent of the owner or occupier for the purpose of enforcing, in accordance with subsection (4), the specified municipality’s bylaws in relation to signs.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Council may make by-laws for the purposes of enforcing its by-laws, including establishing one or more of the following penalties to which a person convicted of an offence in a prosecution under the Offence Act is liable:
(a) a minimum fine; (b) a maximum fine of up to $10 000; (c) in the case of a continuing offence, for each day that the offence continues either or both of (i) a minimum fine under paragraph (a), or (ii) a maximum fine under paragraph (b); (d) imprisonment for not more than 6 months.
---
This conversation occurred despite the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fundamental Freedoms section 2b: "Everyone has the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."
My understanding is that said conditions were removed in the revision of the bill.
The conversation occurred until a lawyer looked at it and said, "Folks this is going to cost a crapload of money".
Nonetheless, the tendency of governments to violate civil liberties to prevent "ambush marketing" at big sporting events is quite disturbing.
(Even the most ardent defender of the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence -- which is in my mind largely mistaken -- would have a hard, hard time finding against a private citizen for political commentary of that nature.)
Huh?
The commercial speech argument is that folks who gather together for commercial activity have the same free speech rights as other folks in other circumstances. That argument doesn't imply anything about stopping other people from saying things.
Here's the difference. The commercial speech argument says that any company can say "nike sucks", that the govt can not impose anti-disparagment rules. It doesn't say that Nike can insist that other folks not say "nike sucks".
I'd like to say that I don't understand how anyone can confuse the two, but we do have lots of folks who think that their free speech rights are being violated when someone else criticizes them. (If you're one of those folks, you're wrong. Your right to speak does not restrict my right to speak.)
However, it is unlikely that that action would be in the mainstream of constitutional interpretation in the US, and it is vanishingly unlikely it would be upheld if the commercial speech was also political, such as if the speech self-referentially criticized the government.
This is a statement of opinion: non-withstanding the well-established body of case law, I believe that the Supreme Court is wrong and that commercial speech has and deserves full protection under the First Amendment.
I did misstate your position, but I still don't see how that position was in what you wrote.
I think the argument is simpler, it is that "Congress shall make no law" actually means Congress shall make no law.
If people don't like what the 1st says, they should propose a new amendment, not try to pretend they can ignore what it currently says.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
One interesting thing about 1st amendment interpretation is that actual political speech (which pretty much everyone agrees was the point of the 1st amendment) is significantly more restricted than pornography even though pornography's"lack of restrictions" is justified on the basis that it is political speech....
I'd support them if the proposal was to take people using their properties for commercial advertising to court to find out is they were allowed to remove it (I suspect they would be told they cant... but you never know).
But unilateral rights? jeez.
Edit: sorry, clicked wrong story.
o <---- your head
However, it was near the top of the HN front page, and the ~10 comments on the article all discussed the the article as if it was interesting (which I presume it was for the commenters). This made me feel sad, because I don't know of another place that I can find thoughtful discussion of news that appeals to people like me. I generally find it sort of irritating when people post comments saying "This is not hacker news," because it's just a complaint.
Instead, I thought that pretending to praise the story for its valuable content (I chose to pretend it mentioned Ruby, a popular programming language) would be a funny way to lament the situation while also amusing the other folks who were reading the comments and thinking, "What the hell is going on here? Is mainstream media coverage of future British law enforcement policies interesting for some reason that I don't see?"
But, I wanted it still to seem like a plausible comment to the readers who were having a great time discussing the 2012 Olympics, Britain, and media projections of the state of their civil liberties (particularly in regard to posters) in the future. For this reason, I added the "edit."
—Mark Twain
Biggest. Dissection. Ever. (as a ratio to the size of the original joke, including the edit and at least 2 comments). You win ;)
At the same time, it is a HUGE civil liberties issue, and I with there was another way to handle this. Nobody should really have the right to take down a massive pepsi flag if I feel compelled to cover my building with it.
As far as 'non-sponsored items', I don't recall that being a discussion at Vancouver or Sydney, but you couldn't bring food or drinks into a venue, so that pretty much took care of that 90% of the time. If Omega is the timing sponsor, and I'm wearing a Timex, I can't imagine security is going to take my watch.
Where I'd have a problem with this is if you had a LEGAL advertisement space in the Olympic area and they prohibited you from showing whatever advertisement would be permitted in your space regardless. If Pepsi were willing to pay your normal rate for a billboard that you legally have on your building, the city should not be able to remove it under any circumstances.
It's worth noting that cities DO occasionally enforce outdoor advertising regulations and that some folks (e.g., http://illegalsigns.ca/) think it's a good thing. I happen to agree.
EDIT: Added link to the Illegal Signs blog.
That's a dangerous argument for any political party in the UK to make, given that they run huge campaigns before every election to get supporters to put up posters advertising their party in home windows or on boards outside supporters' private property. Hypocrisy, much?
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I see no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.What are they going to do? Strip down! You are wearing a non-Nike pair of undies! REMOVE THEM AT ONCE! Your shoes are staying with us! They are NOT NIKE!
And then comes the other hilllarious part. The mobile phone. Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Apple, Motorola and such are probably always sponsors everywhere. What if I get some obscure brand of mobile phone - Alcatel and Sagem are two easy examples, but think REALLY obscure:
BenQ, Sharp, NEC, Sendo, Pantech, Innostream, VK Mobile, Xcute, Haier, Bird, Eten, Qtek, iMate, WND or Mitac...
Actually, I think people will make a purpose out of going there with the wrong items. Saying loud and clear that people are supposed to "preserve the monopoly" and "stop people carrying non-sponsor items" will really top people's bull!@#$ meters. They might organize groups of such people.
After all, no matter how private it is and how much money sponsors put into it, the audience paid for the ticket. That means they have the same rights before the check-in gate and after it.
This is probably long past the old purpose of the Olympics. It's probably about luring people into forceful submission to corporate fascism. I might be wrong, though. I mean maybe the police won't "police" people into obedience toward corporate interests. I wouldn't know.
I'm hoping that this is just there in case the powers are needed to shut down criminal activity related to the Olympics. Having a law is one thing, how it is enacted is another.
If it were criminal activity, though, whats to stop the police getting a warrant?
It's not clear what the criminal activity would be, the law is often made to allow the police to act quickly. Say the Olympic brand were used in some sort of con, the police would have powers to disassociate that activity from the Olympics.
To assume this is to be used to create a monopoly could be cynical at this point.
Otherwise they should go to court the proper way
My guesses are
- people posting agitating messages online
- unlicensed posters on people's walls
- posters or banners hung out of people's windows
Whatever it is, I'm sure one would not want the police to enter the house and perform a removal.
Because much of the funding comes from the tax payers, hundreds of millions of dollars as it turns out, the people are subsidizing the erosion of their freedoms.
BTW: Non-police search for IP infringement has long been allowed, as an Anton Piller order. I am guessing that the test may also have been lowered - and this is cause for concern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order
At most (non-sporting) events in Vancouver, you didn't even get a pat down. Dump your change in a bin, go through a metal detector, get your stuff and leave. Anything non-ferrous in your pockets went unnoticed.
I somehow doubt the UK will be similar.
Advertising on houses and buildings is not a matter of free speech; it is a matter of neighbourhood amenity and dominated by local by-laws. I am not allowed to put huge advertising posters on my balcony right now, of course. To do so would enrich me while depriving my neighbours, be an eyesore, push down property values, etc. I can't play super loud music at 3am, either, which doesn't really seem like a breach of my right to free speech either.
My guess is that the planning committee in London thinks that during the Olympics certain people might consider the fines they get for illegal advertising insufficient to deter the act, so they're temporarily allowing the cops to tear them down, and if that requires property access, fine. Probably accompanied by a temporary regulation adjusting the aforementioned advertising controls.
Free speech? Give me a break. Either you consider all anti-eyesore visual appearance regulations to be "against free speech", or you are probably able to concede that a temporary upgrade of enforcement is pretty reasonable considering the stakes.
And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government. Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area?
There's legitimate criticism and then there's just whining. For me, the attitude you're describing falls pretty squarely into the second column. The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh?
Why are you sure of that? It seems like every time another country wins an Olympic bid, the vocal local voices are those who don't want it at all, not those who are welcoming it with open arms for the benefits it will bring. Maybe that's because those who live in the typically downtrodden regions chosen for Olympic "regeneration" are frequently displaced afterwards, as more wealthy folk move into the newly updated area post-Olympics.
> It's a numbers game - the greatest good for the greatest number.
Sure, and in surveys, nearly everyone wants a reduction to 20mph speed limits by the parks their kids play in, yet when observed, the majority will happily drive at well over that speed through residential neighbourhoods other than their own.
> And the simple fact is that the appearance of your home, especially regarding commercial advertising, is and always has been regulated by local government.
You're playing games. There is no law, under normal circumstances, that prevents me from putting a poster in my window advertising a product or making a political statement.
> Why would anyone think the rules have suddenly changed, just when the media of the world is focussed on the area?
Because the rules have suddenly changed. Indeed, IIRC it is now a condition of winning an Olympic bid, imposed by the IOC, that the appropriate government take steps to prevent ambush marketing, including legislation if necessary. Yes, you read that right: an external, commercial organisation is dictating to an elected government what laws it must pass.
> The Powers That Be have decided that the Olympics will be great for London, a decision with which I tend to agree, so stiff upper lip, eh?
Our Powers That Be don't exactly have a great track record of doing things that will be great for London, or anywhere else, just lately -- unless you count bailing out those who pursued failing business models.
Ok, so change the title to "may", not "will". And the article discusses a number of things, one of which happens to be what the rest of us are talking about here.
I think this qualifies as gratuitous editorial spin. Perhaps not if you changed it to "may", though it's still borderline.
As to your second point... If this article instead contained a brief mention of how a tech company had shared personal information of anti-Olympic protesters with the London police, would you still flag it because that was not the main point of the article?
I'd flag anything that has a title that I feel is baiting.
If you think someone won't use (or abuse) this power, you are extremely optimistic.