PC World - rude and threatening

marleyboy

UK2010 wrote: »

Err, no they couldn't! What I'm saying is people can't go round private property saying they can photo what they like. Also there are times unlike what Biscit suggests when it's not wrong to be paranoid. When it's private property people can be as paranoid as they like, they own the place!

This is true bar one tiny flaw, PCWorld is a large shop chain, that promotes exclusively; "Open to the general public", I cannot imagine a store getting many customers if they advertise with the sign "This is Private Property"

Technically speaking, PCWorld Sales assistants or Security Guards are in no position to say "this is private property" or "we own this place", as clearly it is open to the public and owned by the company they represent.

Assuming PCWorld also sell cameras to the general public, it limits a member of staff to saying "The taking of photograph's is strictly forbidden within these premises".

Personally I think jamesb1239 covered it perfectly well, as to why a shopping store such as PCWorld, reserves the right to "forbid" the use of cameras within the premises.

UK2010

marleyboy wrote: »

Technically speaking, PCWorld Sales assistants or Security Guardsare in no position to say "this is private property" or "we own this place", as clearly it is open to the public and owned by the company they represent.

I think you'll find the managers (recruited on merit) tend to have a little more clout than that!

Unless there's a photobucket pic you have to suggest otherwise lol

UK2010

vickyj wrote: »

i know it is a cliche but the old saying of "two sides to every story" is springing to mind here

That sprung to mind on post 1!

jacktyler

i've always found the staff friendly and knowledgeable

vyle

marleyboy wrote: »

Assuming PCWorld also sell cameras to the general public, it limits a member of staff to saying "The taking of photograph's is strictly forbidden within these premises".

Except the cameras they have on display for demo don't have memory cards in and can't be taken out and connected to somebody else's computer.

That's like saying "Well tesco sell barbecues, so why can't I set up a barbie in store?"

solodanceparty

Ivory_Tinkler wrote: »

I don't understand why you needed to take a photo - surely writing down the model number would have been enough because you then could have seen the image on their website? Maybe the manager thought you were up to no good by taking photos. However, this doesn't give him licence to be rude and for that reason, you should get in touch with PC World and bring this to their attention.

Not everyone carries a pen and paper around... But everyone carries a phone. Get with the times, man!

marleyboy

vyle wrote: »

Except the cameras they have on display for demo don't have memory cards in and can't be taken out and connected to somebody else's computer.

That's like saying "Well tesco sell barbecues, so why can't I set up a barbie in store?"

Hmmmm, I would imagine the setting up of a barbie is just as forbidden as taking photo's. Of course this does not stop anyone from checking out the display demo

In the same token, It is not forbidden to test a Hi Fi in Curry's, however it may be forbidden to bring in your own music compilation and turn the store into a Disco.

Your forgetting how easy it is to insert a memory card into any display camera, "click" and simply take back out, where you can then go home to find it relatively easy to replug into any other computer aren't you?

It is not "forbidden" to bring your own camera or mobile phone into a store, but the taking of photographs I can imagine "is"

biscit

UK2010 wrote: »

Do you think the relatives of the deceased on the planes of 9/11 will agree with you? Ok not on the same level but surely the understanding of what might seem to one as perfectly innocent might not really be the case for several reasons for people in the know, Marleyboy now has new knowledge of how to register Windows 7 from just a photo without paying! . Why should the public demand what should be photo'd and what shouldn't given the above examples?

What nasty emotive point scoring, and precisely my point.

All this stopping of people taking photographs in public and as-public places is a bad thing. The chances of catching someone preparing for terrorist acts this way is laughably minimal. We must not look on tourists as potential terrorists, not least because the chances they are terrorists are so negligible that the threat does not outweigh the unpleasantness and restrictions.

There are reasonable reasons for shop staff to have mild concerns about people taking photos on their premises, and to politely approach people taking photos. Mild concern is a world away from paranoia and the sort of actions described here. Shops have the rights to deny permission to take photographs on their premises, but the thing is, unless that permission is explicitly (but politely) denied there is nothing wrong with taking photographs.

Paranoia is not, by definition, exercising reasonable, level headed caution.

The irrational and emotive should be shown sympathy but their views must carry no weight. Emotional intelligence has value but only when paired with good old fashioned reason and intelligent intelligence within the same brain.

biscit

UK2010 wrote: »

Just out of interest if you raised this complaint about taking photos and they took your advice and freely allowed them, then you bought a PC tried to register the software and found due to a photo being taken in the store you purchased from following your opinion on the matter that someone else has now registered it what would you do?

I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I did not say that shops should freely allow the taking of photos, just that they should not be paranoid and uptight about it. Paranoia as I explain above is not the same as reasonable and rational concern.

Sure they have the right to politely request that photos are not taken, but until that happens the person taking photos has, in all probability, done nothing wrong and should be approached with that in mind. The problem I have (and the OP had) is treating people taking photos as if that in itself is behaving suspiciously, rather than just doing something that could be, but probably isn't problematic.

While people taking photos could be up to no good, the probability that the person you've witnessed is doing such a thing is incredibly low. So the approach to the person taking photos must be very gentle and polite indeed.

ClareEmily

Good job you didn't try to take photos in a bridal shop, omg you would have been lined against the wall and shot...