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: Ben on 23 Jul 2010 16:40 Richard Miller wrote: > In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386202(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > Stovell <phil(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.
From: Ben on 23 Jul 2010 16:42 Phil Stovell wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:07:34 +0100, Trev wrote: > >> Is there any proof that any where deleted > > They returned the camera, without photos and a disk with the photos he'd > taken on, so I wonder how they could be on the disk without being on the > camera? > > Perhaps there was a fault with the camera So they broke it, causing criminal damage. > and the police aided the > photographer by taking a backup in case the camera fault deleted the pics, > which it did. The photographer should pay the police for their helpful > backup. Anyway, they had no right to have been looking in the first place
From: Richard Miller on 23 Jul 2010 16:08 In message <MPG.26b3ce42ef9e853c989687(a)news.individual.net>, John Bean <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> writes >In article <E2H$GxnM5ZSMFwp+(a)obviously.invalid>, Les(a)nowhere.com says... >> >> John Bean <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> posted >> >In article <hZSGdYha2XSMFwvs(a)obviously.invalid>, Les(a)nowhere.com says... >> >> >> >> John Bean <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> posted >> >> >Perhaps I misread, but I was under the impression that not all images >> >> >that were deleted were returned. If they were, then I don't see how >> >> >moving (rather than copying) them from camera to disk constitutes >> >> >damage. >> >> >> >> When returned to its owner the camera's memory chip was unable to >> >> function in theway it had before - that is, it was unable to display >> >> certain images that it had been able to display before the police >> >> modified it. Therefore they damaged the chip. >> > >> >No, they "damaged" its contents; there is no damage to the chip at all. >> >> Of course there is damage to the chip. The chip consists of a piece of >> silicon whose internal electronic circuits were configured by its owner >> so that the chip could perform a specific purpose of value to him - >> namely to display a record of a certain event. If some of those circuits >> are then reconfigured so that the chip can no longer perform that >> specific purpose, then the chip has been damaged. > >Angels on the head of a pin. There's no "of course" except in your head; >I don't agree, nor do I think a court would. We'll have to wait and see >who is right if/when it comes to court. > > It already has. Les is right. You are wrong. See my other post for the citation of the specific case. -- Richard Miller
From: spacecadet on 24 Jul 2010 05:36 Ben wrote: > Richard Miller wrote: >> In message <pan.2010.07.22.15.50.20.386202(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, >> Phil Stovell <phil(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. Sorry to get technical but robbery requires the use or threat of unlawful violence.
From: Phil Stovell on 24 Jul 2010 06:06
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:04:58 +0100, Richard Miller wrote: > In message <pan.2010.07.23.11.56.49.239008(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil > Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:31:38 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote: >> >>> When returned to its owner the camera's memory chip was unable to >>> function in theway it had before - that is, it was unable to display >>> certain images that it had been able to display before the police >>> modified it. Therefore they damaged the chip. >> >>Delete is a normal function of the chip. I don't see how invoking a >>normal function is damage. > > It is damage, in law, but it would now come under the Computer Misuse Act. > The case below is the one I was thinking of when I said that this would > amount to criminal damage. I was not aware that the CMA had superseded the > use of a criminal damage charge. > > Http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Criminal_damage > > (Note: even though this is a wiki site, I know the page owner Andrew Keogh > personally, and he is extremely reliable.) > > As regards the offence of criminal damage, you should note that by Section > 3(6) Computer Misuse Act, a modification of the contents of a computer > will not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium > unless its effect on the computer or computer storage medium impairs its > physical condition. Damage or changes to software etc. are now to be dealt > with under the Computer misuse act. > > In R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25; 93 Cr. App R. 25, CA (Archbold 23-6) > (Blackstone's B8.5 and B8.6) Lord Lane CJ dismissing the appeal, stated > that: > > "the Act required that tangible property had been damaged, not that > the damage itself should be tangible." > > He added that: > > "there could be no doubt that the magnetic particles upon the metal > discs were a part of the discs and if the defendant was proved to have > altered the particles in such a way as to cause an impairment of the value > and usefulness of the disc to the owner, there would be damage within the > meaning of section 1." > > Lord Lane CJ then referred specifically to the judgment in Morphitis v > Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48, where Auld J said: > > "damage should be interpreted so as to include not only permanent or > temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary, impairment of > value or usefulness." > > Lord Lane CJ's conclusion was that: > > "any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may > amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so or > not will depend upon the effect that the alteration has had upon the > legitimate….owner" > > After a comprehensive examination of the authorities, Lord Lane CJ > summarised their effect. > > "Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may > amount to damage within the meaning of the section. Whether it does so or > not will depend on the effect that the alteration has had upon the > legitimate operator (who for convenience may be referred to as the owner) > ... where ... the interference ... amounts to an impairment of the value > or usefulness of the [property] to the owner, then the necessary damage is > established." Thanks, Richard. Very thorough! |