Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash
in [UK Photography]
|
Prev: Home Secretary announces review of ant-terror legislation
Next: Compact Digital with Viewfinder.
From: Chris H on 26 Jul 2010 03:36 In message <DgJ2o.233971$aS3.9486(a)hurricane>, nonanon <none(a)invalid.com> writes >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:20:29 +0100, Chris H wrote: > >[snip] > >> The criminal damage is the deletion of the files. There is no damage to >> the system. >> >> If you shred the paper files from a filing cabinet you are not damaging >> the filing cabinet. > >But there is a criminal damage to the filing cabinet, because it no >longer has the files in it. (I don't know if there actually is a >criminal damage to the filing cabinet, I'm just sticking with your >clumsy analogy). > >Can you see how "criminal damage" is a legal term, with a carefully >defined legal meaning, which sometimes feels unintuitive? > >Placing a leaflet under a car's windscreen wiper, even if there is no >damage to the car, is a criminal damage. (This is not an analogy, it >went to court in front of real judges and everything.) > > >The memory card had images on it. Some images were deleted. The memory >card no longer (not counting undelete software) has those images on it. >Something has changed on the memory card. This might be a few bytes in a >filesystem; that might be "some" charge on a transistor base; it does not >matter how small it is - it is damage. This, again, is something that >has been before the courts. > >Really, I don't know why there's any argument about that point. We are arguing because you are WRONG. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 26 Jul 2010 03:38 In message <58J2o.233968$aS3.151115(a)hurricane>, nonanon <none(a)invalid.com> writes >On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:15:57 +0100, Chris H wrote: > >[snip] > >> The circuits are NOT reconfigured. > >How is the information stored if nothing changes? Perhaps you can >describe tunnel injection and tunnel release? What is NAND Flash if it is >not a version of EEPROM? The physical circuits are not changed. They are behaving as intended. There is no damage to the circuits. Delete files is part of the correct behaviour. However removing the information may be a crime, but it is not damaging the camera or the memory card. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Jethro on 26 Jul 2010 04:19 On 25 July, 07:48, Mike Scott <usenet...(a)spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote: > On 24/07/2010 13:10, Chris H wrote: > > > > > In message<i2cadb$nr...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, Mike Scott<usenet.12(a)spam. > > stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> writes > >> On 23/07/10 12:02, Jethro wrote: > >> .... > > >>> I'm mildly surprised that some camera manufacturers haven't devised a > >>> PIN-based security system for cameras. No problem taking pics. But you > >>> could require a PIN to view them and (maybe a separate PIN) to delete > >>> them. > > >>> Given the extensibility available to most smartphones today, this > >>> would be fairly trivial to implement... > > >> But possibly pointless. If a PIN is needed to view, it's going to be > >> short, so exhaustive search on a computer becomes practicable for > >> someone with a keen interest. And if needed to delete, just take the > >> card out and zap it on your PC OS of choice. (Or have an accident with > >> a shredder). > > > It is also pointless... If you have an encrypted file you HAVE TO give > > the Police the password. (RIP Act I think?) > > I think that's what another poster (Jethro?? I'm losing track!) was > getting at - if the police want to go that route, they need an order of > some sort, with associated trackable paperwork. But it's probably > quicker if they were to obtain one of the inevitable hacking programs > ("I've forgotten my PIN how do I get my pictures back" for the pleb) and > bypass all that :-{ And deletion/destruction could never require a PIN > anyway, short of having the memory card itself secured. Maybe that's an > inevitable route. Yes it was my suggestion. Not for industrial-strength encryption or anything (although you can get USB sticks with hardware encryption which would be practically unbreakable in the scenario discussed). The idea was that should plod sieze your camera they would find themselves unable to view or delete the files, without a PIN. By forcing them to demand the PIN from you, hopefully the case would get escalated to a more senior officer - hopefully one who has read the Home Office guidelines - leaving a documented audit trail.
From: Michael McGrath, Portraitist . on 28 Jul 2010 03:39
On 23 July, 21:40, Ben <"[MySigninName]_"@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Richard Miller wrote: > > In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > > Stovell <p...(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes > >> It didn't take long. > > >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 > > >> Police wrongly seize photographer's camera after crash > > >> An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's camera > >> and images were later deleted from it. > > > Deleting the photographs amounts to criminal damage, and the officer who > > did it should be prosecuted. > > Not only that, but forcibly removing property from someone without > authority or permission is called robbery, which is a fairly serious crime. The BAJ would drag them into Court screaming , the NUJ has never done anything else but mouth about it , press releases and shagall else , always posturing ! And this is why the Police can do what they like with photographers in the UK ! Photogs especially should now cop on - and join the BAJ . |