Security

[leja1965]

What constitutes harrasement from security guards when caching. In the ACT we recently had a cahce near an Airport fence. Cachers were harrassed by security guards for being near the fence. Why is this so? Doesn't the fence represent the boundary? Why is it people can do what they want near it. And if not at what distance can you expect to be able to do what you want with out too much hassle?

[Team Piggy]

Security guards or Australian Protective services ? Most Airports have APS doing the rounds for them.
Probably best not to upset them as they have a federal jurisdiction.

Security guards cannot touch you if you aren't on their property, but they "can" call in the Police to move you along if you are annoying them.
Most people "don't " Know their rights when it comes to guards, there was a thread that went into this about a year ago, Lt Sniper posted it if you care to search, no need to bring it back up again here.
Just remember if a Security Guard is asked for their details if they are harrasing you they must comply, or they must supply the details of the person that is the owner of the property they are representing.

(Before the flames, each state does have slighty different rules).

With the way the world is today with terrorist threats your probably better to steer way clear of placing caches near anything that may arouse suspicion. I think you will find there is something in the geo.com rules about it being a certain distance away as well.
By the sounds of it this was quite close ?

[GEK]

The whole issue of "trespassing" is quite loosely defined in most states. A fence does not necessarily indicate the limits of a property. Technically you can be outside a fence but still trespasssing.

However, if a conscientious security guard sees you acting suspiciously in the vicinity of a property they are guarding then they would not be doing their job if they didn't ask you to move along. Of course they have no real power to force you, but they can certainly call the police in, or even just pass your description on to them.

Best course of action is just to be friendly and honest, and if they get shirty with you then you can always report them to their employers.

GEK

[hydroflare]

What constitutes harrasement from security guards when caching. In the ACT we recently had a cahce near an Airport fence. Cachers were harrassed by security guards for being near the fence. Why is this so? Doesn't the fence represent the boundary? Why is it people can do what they want near it. And if not at what distance can you expect to be able to do what you want with out too much hassle?

It's not a question of harrassment, it's a question of security. This is an example of good security. Security should be assessing potential threats as well as preventing actions in progress. This is why bags are searched before going into an aircraft, rather than waiting for something to go off.

The security guard has every right to be suspicious of your presence near his boundary. It is up to you to show him that you are not a potential threat.

Security guards are also people, just doing a job. If you give them an honest and interesting explanation they may even become geocachers themselves!

[EcoTeam]

The whole issue of "trespassing" is quite loosely defined in most states. A fence does not necessarily indicate the limits of a property. Technically you can be outside a fence but still trespasssing.

For sure.
On one of our caching adventures we (and several others) thought we were on public land as there were walking paths in a busy throughfair, people having picnics on the grass etc. But as it turns out it was actually private land being kindly offered for use by the owners. The rent-a-cops threatened to call the cops.

I wouldn't be trying to turn rent-a-cops into Geocachers, they usually aren't the type.

EcoDave

[Geof]

I wouldn't be trying to turn rent-a-cops into Geocachers, they usually aren't the type.

Looks like that rules out Acts2 and Bronze both ex the industry.

{insert teapot here}

For the above quoted thread:
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 76&start=0

[Zytheran]

With regard to security on places like airports, bridges, power stations etc. I would suggest trying to get onto good terms with them and point out the fact that geocachers, of all people, are pretty good eyes and ears for whats happening around a place. Lets place it, in some ways we spend our free time observing places and looking for out of place items that may well be concealed and are on the lookout for muggles watching what we do. Same as them but without being paid. I'm sure there are planty of idiots, the security industry seems to have more than their fair share but I hazard a guess that if you mention you'll keep your eyes open for anything unlawful, hoons, kids with spray cans etc. most will probably be vaguely supportive.

[Diadem]

It's not a question of harrassment, it's a question of security. This is an example of good security. Security should be assessing potential threats as well as preventing actions in progress. This is why bags are searched before going into an aircraft, rather than waiting for something to go off.

The security guard has every right to be suspicious of your presence near his boundary. It is up to you to show him that you are not a potential threat.

Security guards are also people, just doing a job. If you give them an honest and interesting explanation they may even become geocachers themselves!

(possible rant alert ). Reading the above it seems the terrorist are winning. The community is so terrorised that some are accepting that security presumes guilt and puts the onus on the individual to prove innocence. If the community weren't so terrorised maybe we'd be up in arms at the loss of freedom so many died to protect.<P>
I realise security gaurds have a job to do, but unfortunately most of their employers/policy makers don't understand security. Most seem to be using the shotgun approach - ban everything, assume everyone is a terrorist - in the hope that they eventually detect/deter the one or two who actually do mean harm. Some guards I've met realise this and will provide some friendly advice, unfortunately a few seem to enjoy exercising their power.<P>

I agree with the realists at the moment, keep clear, it's just less fuss.
Diadem

[hydroflare]

(possible rant alert ). Reading the above it seems the terrorist are winning. The community is so terrorised that some are accepting that security presumes guilt and puts the onus on the individual to prove innocence. If the community weren't so terrorised maybe we'd be up in arms at the loss of freedom so many died to protect.<P>
I realise security gaurds have a job to do, but unfortunately most of their employers/policy makers don't understand security. Most seem to be using the shotgun approach - ban everything, assume everyone is a terrorist - in the hope that they eventually detect/deter the one or two who actually do mean harm. Some guards I've met realise this and will provide some friendly advice, unfortunately a few seem to enjoy exercising their power.<P>

I agree with the realists at the moment, keep clear, it's just less fuss.
Diadem

Who said anything about terrorism? <P>
We are talking about security here, which has been around a lot longer than the terrorist threats. Security is about protecting assets. This requires a threat model and appropriate measures put into place to mitigate those threats. Security guards have always been around airports and their boundaries, and, rightly so, they should be suspicious of individuals wandering around the boundaries. They may simply keep a watch on you or may actually question your activities. There is no harm in this, and it's nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
<P>
Unfortunately (and I agree with you here) the current situation, and the amount of media attention it receives, has resulted in some poor security policies and decisions being made, which seem to reflect another agenda rather than having anything to do with security.
<P>
A classic example is this recurring 'National Identity Card'. The Brits are pushing it and it's been raised again here. There is a strong argument that these do nothing for security, in fact they can be demonstrated to weaken national security.

[swampgecko]

A classic example is this recurring 'National Identity Card'. The Brits are pushing it and it's been raised again here. There is a strong argument that these do nothing for security, in fact they can be demonstrated to weaken national security.

Hang on a minute... do you have a medicare card? And that is accepted as proof of id, is it not? By my way of thinking then, there is already a National Identity Card....

[hydroflare]

Hang on a minute... do you have a medicare card? And that is accepted as proof of id, is it not? By my way of thinking then, there is already a National Identity Card....

No, it is not accepted as proof of ID. Anyone who does accept it is fooling themselves. A little piece of plastic with a name on it does not prove anything. Neither are you obliged to have one.

[Cached]

funny - to get my passport, I pretty much had to have a medicare card in the appropriate name.

Passport - preferred ID - Drivers License and Medicare Card.

[president & 1st lady]

Hang on a minute... do you have a medicare card? And that is accepted as proof of id, is it not? By my way of thinking then, there is already a National Identity Card....

A medicare card is accepted only as a secondary identification document. You still require a primary identification document eg birth certificate, passport, shooter's licence. And still you will require evidence of you signature, eg key/credit card, and proof of your current address. That consitutes full ID. That is the minimum requirement to obtain a NSW driver's licence.
1st lady

[hydroflare]

funny - to get my passport, I pretty much had to have a medicare card in the appropriate name.

Passport - preferred ID - Drivers License and Medicare Card.

The Medicare card alone is not 'proof of ID' as the previous poster claimed. <p>
Together, with your passport and DL, it provides a degree of authentication of your credentials, to the extent of your name, address, DOB, citizenship and residency status. <p>
A simple piece of plastic with a name on it is not 'proof of ID'. It could have anyone's name on it and it could easily be a fake, a bit like 'student ID' cards.<p>

[president & 1st lady]

I'm with Hydroflare, Medicare cards, as well as student cards, have no security features built in to them and often are issued without any supporting evidence of who you claim to be. They may be issued by a government department, but they are fairly unreliable as a sole means of identification. If only I had a buck for every customer I've agued this point with I'd have a geocopter too.
1st lady