Tiger Airways: ‘Air Ways’ TV series premieres on Channel 7 on Tuesday, 14 July

[drewbles]

I am not sure of the legalities but I think they operate on an opt out principle, the signs around SYD seem to indicate that is the situation with border security, I cannot imagine all those people caught by customs are "opting in" so to speak to have their faces shown on TV after being caught! I would have thought we would see more shots with smokey obscured faces otherwise.

Good point. I wouldn't be surprised if they did sign something for being the 'focus' though as they do use names, and background stories (like the people going to CBR to see the "DAY GAR" exhibition ).

I do recall the signs around MEL Int terminal about border security being filmed several times whilst passing through there. I never actually saw them filming though.

Now you've got my interest i'd like to know if the announcement is blanket enough

 

[tuppaware]

Now you've got my interest i'd like to know if the announcement is blanket enough

I believe you only have to indicate with a sign that someone is filming.

 

[anat0l]

I believe you only have to indicate with a sign that someone is filming.

I believe this is it. I have frequently seen the signs in arrival customs saying that filming for "Border Security" may be happening, and those with concerns are asked to take it up with Channel 7.

I had a similar thing in AKL with their local show "Border Patrol". I was actually sent to a "short" bench where filming was taken place. There was a sign, but I simply asked the guy whether I could say no to being filmed, and he said there would be no problem.

 

[Smackbum]

I proudly admit to not being a lawyer, but I thought that written consent needed to be gained to be completely in the clear when broadcasting images of the public. I doubt whether the cosy deal with the airport circumvents this right to privacy, and the producers take a calculated risk showing people's faces where the individual does not "opt in".

 

[ejb]

I proudly admit to not being a lawyer, but I thought that written consent needed to be gained to be completely in the clear when broadcasting images of the public. I doubt whether the cosy deal with the airport circumvents this right to privacy, and the producers take a calculated risk showing people's faces where the individual does not "opt in".

In a public area this is correct however, an airport is only able to be entered once you agree to the terms. One of the terms is that they can film you without your consent. You do however have the right to request you are not identified, hence the occasional hidden face on Border.

ejb

 

[samh004]

Just taking it to the extreme, people in witness protection might occasionally travel, how bad would it be for someone like that to be identified on TV because they couldn’t shake the cameras?

I’d probably ask not to be filmed, or to have my face obscured if I walked into a TV show at the airport. I don’t want to see myself on TV.

 

[Hvr]

I guess one thing I have concerns about with Border Security and programs of that genre is that they get to film private documents such as passports, drivers licences etc.

Whilst they are blurred for screening my concern would be that personnel who have absolutely no reason to view let alone copy these documents have apparently unrestricted access to personal and private documents they would not otherwise be able to view.

I wonder how you would go if you complained about a breach of the Privacy Act?

 

[medhead]

I proudly admit to not being a lawyer, but I thought that written consent needed to be gained to be completely in the clear when broadcasting images of the public. I doubt whether the cosy deal with the airport circumvents this right to privacy,

In a public area this is correct however,

In relation to public areas I'm pretty sure this is totally incorrect (proudly not a lawyer). It is a public area and by entering it give up your right to privacy. This is exactly the reasoning that the paparazzi use to film and photograph celebrities. If there was a right to privacy then all those magazines would fall over.

 

[medhead]

I guess one thing I have concerns about with Border Security and programs of that genre is that they get to film private documents such as passports, drivers licences etc.

Whilst they are blurred for screening my concern would be that personnel who have absolutely no reason to view let alone copy these documents have apparently unrestricted access to personal and private documents they would not otherwise be able to view.

I wonder how you would go if you complained about a breach of the Privacy Act?

That is actually an excellent thing to take up. DIMIA must be reasonable for ensuring that your personal details are not disclosed to a 3rd party.

Now just to get myself and documents filmed

 

[straitman]

In relation to public areas I'm pretty sure this is totally incorrect (proudly not a lawyer). It is a public area and by entering it give up your right to privacy. This is exactly the reasoning that the paparazzi use to film and photograph celebrities. If there was a right to privacy then all those magazines would fall over.

Is the customs/immigration hall really a public area :?:

(I'm referring to the Border Security situation here rather than the TT check-in area)

 

[Hvr]

That is actually an excellent thing to take up. DIMIA must be reasonable for ensuring that your personal details are not disclosed to a 3rd party.

Now just to get myself and documents filmed

Actually Immigration is called DIAC this week. Department of Immigration and Citizenship. There are of course several agencies at the airport with lots of different names.

The police shows being of the same genre are another example of where very personal information is freely shared with television personnel.

 

[Dee Thom]

Is the customs/immigration hall really a public area :?:

Actually Bill, I was of the opinion that all customs/immigration areas were Commonwealth Government territory staffed by Govt personnel to carry out their duties, supose this includes a handful of "cleared" Airport workers, but I could be off track here.

Cheers Dee

 

[straitman]

Actually Bill, I was of the opinion that all customs/immigration areas were Commonwealth Government territory staffed by Govt personnel to carry out their duties, supose this includes a handful of "cleared" Airport workers, but I could be off track here.

Cheers Dee

I think we a re saying a variation of the same thing.

As such it is not, IMHO, strictly a public area due to the fact that access is limited.

 

[medhead]

I think we a re saying a variation of the same thing.

As such it is not, IMHO, strictly a public area due to the fact that access is limited.

But the access limitations don't mean it isnt a public area. The public are totally able to access that area with a valid reason to be there. Just because the staff who work there have to be vetted doesn't mean that it isn't a public area. This is an area that is used by the flying public. Anyone who can access that area do not have the right to privacy on the principle that I mentioned from being filmed by others legimately in that area. say other travellers or authorised tv crews. Also note that BNE departures area can be filmed from up above in the unrestricted area.

 

[straitman]

But the access limitations don't mean it isnt a public area. The public are totally able to access that area with a valid reason to be there. Just because the staff who work there have to be vetted doesn't mean that it isn't a public area. This is an area that is used by the flying public. Anyone who can access that area do not have the right to privacy on the principle that I mentioned from being filmed by others legimately in that area. say other travellers or authorised tv crews. Also note that BNE departures area can be filmed from up above in the unrestricted area.

medhead,

I was using pretty much the same logic in reverse. Only workers with an ASIC are allowed in the area and only a limited group of passengers whose entry and exit is controlled by those workers are allowed in the area.

 

[odysseus]

But the access limitations don't mean it isnt a public area. The public are totally able to access that area with a valid reason to be there.

A public area does not require "a valid reason to be there".

It is a restricted area, and passengers with suitable id are one group of people that are permitted there, but it doesn't make it public.

 

[Dee Thom]

It is a restricted area, and passengers with suitable id are one group of people that are permitted there, but it doesn't make it public.

Agreed! You only need to visit the Arrivals Lounge at any Int'l to see those who can and can't enter.

Cheers Dee

 

[samh004]

In relation to public areas I'm pretty sure this is totally incorrect (proudly not a lawyer). It is a public area and by entering it give up your right to privacy. This is exactly the reasoning that the paparazzi use to film and photograph celebrities. If there was a right to privacy then all those magazines would fall over.

Lets hops someone wakes up one day and changes the law so these is a right to privacy. I’d be quite happy to see all those magazines fall over

 

[medhead]

A public area does not require "a valid reason to be there".

It is a restricted area, and passengers with suitable id are one group of people that are permitted there, but it doesn't make it public.

And passengers are the public. There are restriction of which members of the public can enter, but it is an area that is available for use by the public. It is not a private area belonging to the people who are in that area for their exclusive and private use, i.e. it is not someones home.

I can only suggest that the next time you are in that area you water one of the plants with your in built "hose". I'm pretty sure that the police will charge you with urinating in a public place.

 

[medhead]

Lets hops someone wakes up one day and changes the law so these is a right to privacy. I’d be quite happy to see all those magazines fall over

Totally agree. I think that the action of paparazzi are an absolute disgrace. I rate them as lower that real estate and used car saleman, a bit above pedophiles. SWMBO was highly embrassed when I loudly voiced my opinions in this regard while we were among the papparazzi outside some event in Paris. Luckily they didn't understand english, or ignored me.

Also while I think that technically/legally the TV can film people without permission in the airport shows. I do believe they have a moral responsibility to get people's permission.