[Halcyon1]

We recently delivered a yacht from the Netherlands to Northern Ireland. UK Customs intercepted and came aboard. We filmed them as they boarded and then out of courtesy stopped to welcome them and assist with their check.

Luckily everyone on board had a valid passport!

Do you think they would have been upset if we had kept filming?

Pete

 

[killarney_sailor]

I guess you could have asked them if it was OK

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

Yes its illegal in Australia.

The reason is pretty obvious. If you tape someone searching for something you have a good chance of learning where to hide something.

This from an Australian online rag

Recently there have been a number of reports surrounding the issue of small yacht owners being told by Customs staff that the owners were not permitted to video or audio tape the search or conversations or indeed any actions undertaken by the Customs staff.

There are a number of very serious implications to this. Fundamentally - what is it that ACS is trying to hide?

Contact with the ACS resulted in my being advised that sections 234 AA, 234AB of the Customs Act 1901 are the powers upon which they rely to make this order to not record the actions of ACS staff. The sections are reproduced below for your enjoyment. Also sections 234 A and 234 ABA are included which relate to, in part, the ability of ACS staff to direct you to leave the vessel, which may be the next step if you win the argument that their no-videoing direction is unlawful.

For the whole diatribe Customs Searches of Vessels by Andrew Crawford

Checking for USA CBP I couldnt find anything, but for TSA I was surprised!

Photography/Filming

TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might.

Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is. It is recommended that you use the Talk To TSA program on tsa.gov to contact the Customer Support Manager at the airport to determine its specific policy. Or, if you are a member of the press, you should contact the TSA Office of Public Affairs.

But thats not the same as filming an actual search!

 

[rnixon]

Yes its illegal in Australia.

The reason is pretty obvious. If you tape someone searching for something you have a good chance of learning where to hide something.

Given that you're there, wouldn't you see where they're looking anyway?

It does seem odd to be prevented from filming activity on your own property.

 

[MarkofSeaLife]

Given that you're there, wouldn't you see where they're looking anyway?

It does seem odd to be prevented from filming activity on your own property.

Other people seeing the film. Intelligence... Not the brainy type.

If a collection of videos showing how customs officers did searches was available to drug dealers... Get it?



Mark

 

[Skipper Jer]

Or your video just might catch the searchers planting contraband. Hey, I'm just saying with the present forfeiture laws here in the US where the local police share in the seized booty its must be tempting for some of the officials to slip a little surprise in from time to time.

 

[rnixon]

Other people seeing the film. Intelligence... Not the brainy type.

If a collection of videos showing how customs officers did searches was available to drug dealers... Get it?

If you see where they look, then you can tell someone else. Having a video may allow the information to disseminate more quickly, but not having video doesn't stop it.

One could imagine that someone wanting to enter that sort of business would behave oddly to get searched and see where they look. Thankfully, it does appear that most undesirables aren't that bright.

 

[miatapaul]

Yes its illegal in Australia.

The reason is pretty obvious. If you tape someone searching for something you have a good chance of learning where to hide something.

This from an Australian online rag

For the whole diatribe Customs Searches of Vessels by Andrew Crawford

Checking for USA CBP I couldnt find anything, but for TSA I was surprised!

But thats not the same as filming an actual search!

Well I think there real fear is that someone will tape them doing something wrong. Not too hard to figure out where they are going to look for things.

 

[kentobin]

Best to ask. In this Brave New World it may be considered a security breach not just for smugglers but for terrorists. If you're in a designated check-in area even if there are no signs restricting pictures or videos don't assume it's allowed. Some of these custom/security agents just don't have a sense of humor and you could have your equipment confiscated.

 

[Mabinogion]

If you think that filming Customs searches is going to inhibit professional international smugglers in any way you are wrong.
Customs searches (rummages) are a game of cat and mouse and catch up rolled into one in an attempt to keep up with smuggling methodology.
An example would be that nothing you can film on what is a routine search would help those that smuggle by mixing drugs paste with fibreglass, or utilise a void in the keel or hang the drugs underneath the hull or drop them off on a radio controlled sinker buoy.
When it comes to larger amounts then an example would be an ex. UK 72' Ketch called Scott Bader that was intercepted with 7.5 tonnes of baled marijuana back in the late 70's by USCG, or maybe one of the smuggling subs like the one that washed up in NW Spain a few years ago now.
What would obviously give cause for concern in Law Enforcement generlly would be any possibility of facial recording, that is a taboo.
WRT to the TSA approach, try that on arrival in US where you cannot even use a mobile phone and see what happens.
Unlikely however to have to worry about it for much longer in future in the UK at least as rumour has it that 2 of the UK Border Force fleet of Cutters (actually 50%) are scheduled to be mothballed.

 

[underthehumber]

Or your video just might catch the searchers planting contraband. Hey, I'm just saying with the present forfeiture laws here in the US where the local police share in the seized booty its must be tempting for some of the officials to slip a little surprise in from time to time.

UK Customs have no seizure reward system, so even with 10 tons of contraband, they get the same pay each month.

In this day & age, is it necessary to film people doing their legal duty, protecting our country? How many of your would like to be filmed at work & then have it posted on Youtube? There's quite a few folk who would take great delight in punching the lights out of any law enforcement officer in the street, that they'd seen on youtube. Or worse.

 

[Mabinogion]

I didn't think there was such a thing as a Customs Officer left in the UK these days since that Labour prat Gordon Brown split up the old HM Customs & Excise and we ended up witha variety of spawned offshoots that have homogenised into NCIS-SOCA-NCA and then that other obnoxious offshoot that created Allah-U-UKBA and also Border Farce not to mention HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue & Cnuts) that also attempts to police Customs import duties and Excise duties and VAT and Income Tax and Corporation Tax, you really couldn't have dreamed this crap up.

The only people to have benefitted have been organised crime worldwide PLC.

HM Customs & Excise was a relatively worldwide respected organisation tackling everything from drug and commodity smuggling to commercial road fuel laundering, Customs Duty and Excise Duty and VAT frauds. It had been around for a few hundred years and was pretty good at what it did. The rest is history.:hothead

As I said, it would be a no-no to film faces and you don't need to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to work out why. The opposition is better than the Law Enforcement organisations and that will never change.

 

[hellosailor]

Halcyon, you asked if they mind. So let's ignore the various filing laws in various venues and go back to that.

AFAIK no bureaucrat LIKES cameras rolling on him, it can only find some way to show him in a bad light. Generally officials do not want to be filmed, at all, by anyone, at any time. There are exceptions to that--but most of them get upset by cameras.

A number of cops in the US have been prosecuted recently after they literally grabbed away cell phones from drivers they pulled over. And smashed them, to prevent legal filming. And the video was recovered and used to convict them of assault and other crimes.

Don't expect flowers.

The more enlightened ones know that video cuts two ways and it CAN be their friend, but that's not common.

 

[underthehumber]

I didn't think there was such a thing as a Customs Officer left in the UK these days since that Labour prat Gordon Brown split up the old HM Customs & Excise and we ended up with a variety of spawned offshoots that have homogenised into NCIS-SOCA-NCA and then that other obnoxious offshoot that created Allah-U-UKBA and also Border Farce not to mention HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue & Cnuts) that also attempts to police Customs import duties and Excise duties and VAT and Income Tax and Corporation Tax, you really couldn't have dreamed this crap up.

The only people to have benefitted have been organised crime worldwide PLC.

HM Customs & Excise was a relatively worldwide respected organisation tackling everything from drug and commodity smuggling to commercial road fuel laundering, Customs Duty and Excise Duty and VAT frauds. It had been around for a few hundred years and was pretty good at what it did. The rest is history.:hothead

As I said, it would be a no-no to film faces and you don't need to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to work out why. The opposition is better than the Law Enforcement organisations and that will never change.

Yes, that's correct on both counts

 

[scratchee]

I'm happy to say that in the U.S., uniformed authorities are just now, finally, beginning to wake up to the realization that citizens/civilians have a right to record them doing their duties. As a prior poster noted, there have been some court cases that went against the uniforms, and the right to record has been affirmed by at least one higher state court. Some police departments have issued guidance reminding their officers that citizens have a right to record them.

I'm the type who will tend to side with police if there is a grey area of right and wrong, but it's clear to me that there is no legal or moral justification for prohibiting the recording of a uniformed authority performing their duties in a public place. It's no different, in my opinion, than the public nature of court or legislative procedures.

The argument about preserving some sort of security advantage, through secrecy, does not hold water, in my opinion. That argument is in the same category as the idea that police can tell someone not to photograph a bridge because a terrorist might want to have photographs of a bridge. The bubble of secrecy is already shattered when a civilian is standing there watching, and very little further is lost if that civilian happens to hit 'record' on an electronic device. That said, I DO support a prohibition on recording, for security purposes, in areas where authorities control access already. Say, for example, a security checkpoint where one must show ID and pass through a metal detector. If they want to have a sign that says you can't take cameras in there, that's fine with me.

I think a good rule of thumb is to ask before recording someone, unless that person is performing an official government duty, in which case, in the U.S. at least, it's the right of a citizen or other civilian to record so long as he or she is not interfering with the official. In that case, it's still important to be polite, maybe saying something like, "I'd like to record you, but I'll be sure to stay out of your way." Asking permission might seem like a polite way to broach the subject, but if the answer is no then you are already at odds with the official. Best not to ask. In my opinion.

 

[Minnesail]

As Mark already point out, in the US it is explicitly legal to video airport security:
Can I Take Photos at the Checkpoint and Airport?

We don't prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you're not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors.

And the courts have largely established the same for any US law enforcement, that photographing or video recording is legal as long as you're not interfering. The law enforcement officers in question often aren't fond of it though, so you have to decide whether or not you want to be test case....

This reminds me of an incident in my younger and stupider days. I was in the border town of Nogales Mexico and I happened to take a few pictures of the Federales hassling some poor guy on the Mexican side of the border. They weren't happy about being photographed and grabbed me and took my camera. I couldn't really tell what was going on since I hardly speak any Spanish, but didn't seem good. I produced a business card that identified me as the managing editor of a newspaper (sure, the paper in question was a low-rent arts & entertainment weekly freebie, but they didn't know that). After some consultation and much examination of the business card they gave me my camera back and let me go. Whew.

 

[single2coil]

It is just not cool. Yes, we have rights, which of course is paramount, but to video in hopes of seeing a mistake, is low. What motivation do you have in filming other than to harass. I don't get it. Pick a more important battle. Give back to society perhaps.

 

[miatapaul]

It is just not cool. Yes, we have rights, which of course is paramount, but to video in hopes of seeing a mistake, is low. What motivation do you have in filming other than to harass. I don't get it. Pick a more important battle. Give back to society perhaps.

Or it could just be to protect yourself. It is sad but some places it not a mistake but an orchestrated effort and intentional. I was going to set up a dash camera in my wife's car as she got pulled over by the same police officer (granted not a customs officer) several times a week. She had done nothing to initiate the pulling over(as in committed no crimes), but before I had to do it he was re-leaved of his duties. We never found out why he was fired but I am certain we were not the only ones complaining to the town about his obviously racist actions.

Though I don't think that was the intent of the OP, I believe they were already filming for other reasons, just wondered if they could have continued.

 

[rnixon]

It is just not cool. Yes, we have rights, which of course is paramount, but to video in hopes of seeing a mistake, is low. What motivation do you have in filming other than to harass. I don't get it. Pick a more important battle. Give back to society perhaps.

The boat is your property. What if something were damaged during the search? I see it as protecting yourself. That doesn't stop you from informing the officials that you always film and that it's not a comment on their professionalism though.

 

[scratchee]

It is just not cool. Yes, we have rights, which of course is paramount, but to video in hopes of seeing a mistake, is low. What motivation do you have in filming other than to harass. I don't get it. Pick a more important battle. Give back to society perhaps.

I appreciate the sentiment, but do not agree with you in this case. I have never had an unpleasant encounter with a uniformed official, and definitely do not believe in being difficult just to assert my rights. And I have seen videos made by people who are clearly trying to be antagonistic, and I think they are ridiculous. But in the case of my property being searched, I see nothing wrong with filming the proceedings as long as I am not interfering.

Also, I'm curious: how does choosing not to lawfully record a search of my property count as "giving back to society?" What exactly am I giving, and what is society getting?