

2012 Olympics: Police to enter private homes to remove posters - mootothemax
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100303/tts-uk-olympics-london-ca02f96.html

======
billybob
Quote: "Moves to safeguard company trademarks and stamp out ambush marketing,
to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers and the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) logo, are raising concerns among civil liberty groups.

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.

~~~
conover
I wonder how far _non-sponsor items_ goes. If I bring a Pepsi to the games and
Coca Cola is an official sponsor, are they going to make me throw it away?
What about clothing?

~~~
danudey
If the Vancouver olympics are any indication (and I suspect they are), then
you won't be allowed to bring competing products (e.g. pepsi vs. coke), though
they can't/shouldn't do anything about clothes (turning you away because
you're wearing the wrong shirt seems excessive).

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.

~~~
pyre
> _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.

~~~
jamesbritt
And it goes both ways. The rules may be stupid, but asking the security people
to let you slide puts them at risk.

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.

~~~
jamesbritt
Down voted for suggesting empathy?

Amazing.

~~~
pyre
I think that people are interpreting that as you encouraging them to 'concede
to the man.' When you're just trying to get people to realize that the
security guard they are talking to isn't 'the man' and people should realize
that in their interactions with them.

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.

~~~
jamesbritt
Yes, this is exactly right.

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.

~~~
uygtfgh
Ironically in Vancouver it wasn't They couldn't hire enough minimum wage
security guys so a lot of city+provincial workers got seconded.

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.

~~~
jamesbritt
"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.

------
nfnaaron
Why is IP being allowed to take precedence over civil liberties and cultural
inheritance these days? WTF?

~~~
ulf
Because nobody makes any money with civil liberties...

"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

~~~
Quarrelsome
Yea but how many policeman are actually going to do that? They already refused
changes to enable them to possess guns due to the problems it would cause
them. I wonder if they'd refuse to do this or not, or just "pretend" to do it
and not actually bother.

~~~
Periodic
I doubt anyone will be seizing your Pepsi if the games were sponsored by Coke,
but they might have a case for not letting you set up your Pepsi-points gear
under the coke sign.

~~~
awa
This might happen and some sort of the does happen in Cricket. During the
Cricket world cup the TV channel showing the event isn't allowed to show
competitor's ads. Also, the players are not allowed to be part of any kind of
competitor ad for the entire duration of the tournament. And yes, the English
are used to this.

------
bradbeattie
The same type of legislation was discussed for the 2010 Olympics here in
Vancouver.

\-- <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.

~~~
run4yourlives
Section 32(1) is blatantly unconstitutional, not under Section 2 of the
Charter that you quote, But Section 8: "Everyone has the right to be secure
against unreasonable search or seizure."

The conversation occurred until a lawyer looked at it and said, "Folks this is
going to cost a crapload of money".

------
ern
I would assume that the posters in question would be non-sponsor advertising
posters facing sites associated with the games, although the original article
doesn't elaborate.

Nonetheless, the tendency of governments to violate civil liberties to prevent
"ambush marketing" at big sporting events is quite disturbing.

~~~
patio11
While I have immense respect for the United Kingdom, in the United States, you
could almost certainly put up a poster saying "The government says it has the
right to prohibit me from saying 'Go Nike'. The Constitution says I have the
right to say 'go suck eggs'."

(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.)

~~~
anamax
> 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.)

~~~
patio11
You misunderstand what I'm saying. This is a description of fact: the United
States Supreme Court has a well-established body of law which holds that the
Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a commercial nature are less
extensive than the Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a non-
commercial nature. Therefore, there is at least theoretically a risk of the
government being allowed to do something analogous to this in spite of the
First Amendment against speech restrictions, on the theory that the prohibited
speech was commercial in nature.

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.

~~~
anamax
> You misunderstand what I'm saying.

I did misstate your position, but I still don't see how that position was in
what you wrote.

------
pingswept
Upvoted for thoughtful discussion of Ruby.

Edit: sorry, clicked wrong story.

~~~
mcantor
I actually found this comment hilarious without the edit.

~~~
pingswept
I didn't _really_ click the wrong story. But on reflection, I think you're
right-- the edit was a little heavy-handed.

~~~
jessriedel
I also don't get the joke. Care to explain?

~~~
pingswept
Sure. I skimmed the article about the British police and the Olympics in 2012.
It did not mention anything that seemed to me like hacker news: not
programming, not computers, not electronics, but also not anything clever,
like new kind of bicycle or solar panel.

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."

~~~
jwecker
"Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but
the frog dies in the process."

—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 ;)

~~~
pingswept
Well, the edit was technically part of the joke. I may have to wait for 2012
to get my medal, but thank you.

------
pedalpete
This power was also given to police during the Vancouver 2010 games. It isn't
about personal posters, more about large banners hung over buildings which are
promoting competitors or anti-olympic protests. The 'enter private homes'
makes one think they mean 'remove from the interior of private homes', but in
Vancouver it meant 'remove from private buildings'. The wording is of course
vague enough to be used for purposes other than the intention, but I never
actually heard of somebody having a problem in Whistler or Vancouver.

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.

~~~
halostatue
Shouldn't they? If your building isn't supposed to have advertising on it in
the first place, why wouldn't the municipality have the right to remove the
advertising? This is not merely a question related to Olympic powers, but if
your Pepsi banner is an illegal advertisement, it should come down. (Frankly,
not enough of this is done here in Toronto.)

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.

~~~
Silhouette
> If your building isn't supposed to have advertising on it in the first
> place, why wouldn't the municipality have the right to remove the
> advertising?

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?

------
roboneal
Hmmm - sounds like a real-life backdrop for V for Vendetta.

~~~
Sadranyc

        Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
        The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
        I see no reason
        Why the Gunpowder Treason
        Should ever be forgot.

------
alexl
You know what I think is hillarious? Let's say Nike is an official sponsor for
whatever event. Let's say I go there with a different brand of sneakers,
underwear, pants...everything!

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.

------
acg
It seems that the regulations have not been properly set and will be set by
the Secretary of State:
[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_2#pb4...](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060012_en_2#pb4-l1g19)

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.

~~~
ErrantX
Good find on the link.

If it were criminal activity, though, whats to stop the police getting a
warrant?

~~~
acg
Some of these articles are alarmist. It remains to be seen how the police or
the government will enact any of these powers.

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.

~~~
ErrantX
Getting a warrant can be fast under existing laws; there doesn't appear to be
any need for them to remove that requirement as far as I can see.

~~~
acg
Would it be lawful to remove Olympic-related material under a warrant?

~~~
ErrantX
If it breaks a law.

Otherwise they should go to court the proper way

------
Mankhool
The comments about Vancouver 2010 are all valid. I had to laugh during the
closing ceremonies when I noticed that one of the bands had been forced to
cover the logos on their Marshall amps with black tape. Marshall obviously did
not pay any money to have their brand seen by 3 billion viewers.

------
jcromartie
What do they mean by "posters?" The article doesn't really expound.

~~~
code_duck
Exactly what I was wondering.

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.

------
fnid2
In Vancouver, people "associated" with the olympics and such could not bring
Pepsi products to the office, only the officially sponsored drinks. They had
to put tape on gear to hide logos from nonsponsoring companies -- including
laptops from HP, IBM, or Dell.

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.

------
brown9-2
Talk about burying the lead - I can't understand how this part of the story
doesn't merit it's own article.

------
10ren
As written, one thinks of a poster on a person's wall; but it might be about a
person with a stock of bootleg posters for sale. Such rules tend to be
specific, but we can't know without seeing them. _EDIT_ or they could even be
non-sponsor posters, the commercial concern being an organized attempt to cash
in on the free publicity of the games.

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>

------
ErrantX
Dear god. Whoever came up with that idea and thought it _good_ :(

------
mmphosis
<http://no2010.com/>

------
callahad
I'm starting to wonder if it would be prudent to pursue a law degree in the
interest of defending my own civil liberties.

------
scorciapino
And the news website reports this abuse as if it was an acceptable and
respectable decision! Is there any doubt that mass media's role is just social
control?

~~~
chaosmachine
"The atmosphere at the Olympics is gonna be great, a big party, just like
Vancouver. Oh, did we mention the police will be enforcing Corporate Fascism?
And there will be a really neat stadium, too!"

~~~
danudey
Well in a sense the security at events in Vancouver were supposed to enforce
that. They did, with a thankfully human touch (you could persuade them to let
you bring in things like chocolate bars, etc., but nothing overt like a bottle
of Dr. Pepper).

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.

------
sailormoon
I love a good freedom of speech rant as much as anyone else, but I think the
reaction here is completely overblown. The idea is not, of course, to remove
posters from inside walls of people's homes. It is to remove advertising on
the outside of those homes, and presumably the only reason the police would go
inside is to effect the removal of that advertising upon the owner's refusal
or absence.

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.

~~~
Silhouette
Given that to many locals, the entire Olympics is causing vast amounts of
disruption, inconvenience, eyesores and so on, I have absolutely no sympathy
if the organisers of the Olympics don't like people putting up whatever the
hell they want on their own property for the duration of the games. If you
don't like it, go hold your Games somewhere where the people do not have such
freedoms, and see how much advertising revenue you can bring in there.

~~~
sailormoon
Bah. I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a
clear majority would favour the games going ahead. There will always be some
who are inconvenienced but that's just a fact of life. It's a numbers game -
the greatest good for the greatest number.

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?

~~~
Silhouette
> I'm sure if you held a fair vote over the whole affected population, a clear
> majority would favour the games going ahead.

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.

------
mattmaroon
Flagging this for altered title, both in words and spirit. IT says police will
have that power, not that they will do it, and that's not even remotely what
the article is about.

~~~
mortenjorck
You are of the opinion that the granting of a police power does not
necessarily mean it will be used? I would like to suggest you familiarize
yourself with the history of how police powers generally work.

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?

~~~
mattmaroon
This is a straw man. I wasn't commenting on whether the power is right or
wrong or will or will not be used. I was commenting on the editorialized and
misleading title. It says "Police to..." as if they have announced plans to or
something. More appropriate would be "Police granted right to..." One's
accurate, one is linkbait (or here, commentbait).

I'd flag anything that has a title that I feel is baiting.

