Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
Neil Jones
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
NJ
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
I have not checked the reference, but photography can be used
in a way that is a right or is a crime. It is by itself no more or
less of a right or crime than carpentry.
Matt Clara
news:4fJzl.127109$RJ7.1...@newsfe18.iad...
> Very interesting article.
>
> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>
> NJ
Looks like Digg done dugg the link too deep--service temporarily
unavailable.
ray
> Very interesting article.
>
> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>
> NJ
Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
to photograph any damned thing you want.
C J Campbell
NJ
Photography
>
is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.
In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
tony cooper
My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)
The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
>
> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>
> Both sides have a point.
the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.
> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge. after
that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
undercover cops look like, photos or not.
> (1) Love that cop talk!
> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> around the Menu of any camera.
that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.
Ron Hunter
Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
visually trespass, in my opinion.
Ron Hunter
Founding Fathers had experience with abuses by government, they valued
free press highly, and included that in the first of the 10 amendments
to the Constitution added before the constitution was ratified. Nothing
clarifies the need for a protection like a government that
systematically abuses its people.
Ron Hunter
often. Having their cover blown can be suddenly fatal.
And a certain amount of force is easily justified in the case of drug
dealer arrests.
Ray Fischer
Criminal vandalism.
>The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
Nope. No such right.
>Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
The rights of citizens override the wants of government employees.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
ray
'in the publice eye' is a big restriction there - that's the difference.
Savageduck
NJ
Photography
Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always pissed
off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.
Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.
For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
in arrests.
Once an arrest is made, and the case along with the role of any
"undercover" agents is evaluated. If there is sufficient evidence to go
ahead with prosecution the cop's identity will be revealed.
If he is part of an arrest team (planned or unplanned) he, and his own
report will be included in the complete arrest report, which is
available to all parties, defense and prosecution, as part of
discovery. It will also be part of any Probation report. Protecting ID
is no longer an issue.
If they are involved in ongoing investigations, they will remain
"undercover" until the entire case matures. Again they would normally
not be a part of an arrest team. They will be one of the prosecution
witnesses and their identity will be revealed in Court. At this time
their "undercover" role is over.
Again protecting ID is no longer an issue.
They may continue their careers in drug enforcement, or other roles. In
the future, if they are particularly skilled, they may work
"undercover" again in different areas (drug enforcement is not the only
crime investigated by "undercover" cops.)
I somehow doubt that your son's "undercover" cop friend was doing
anything more than telling a "war story" to a civilian for aaah effect.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
wrote:
>In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>>
>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>
>> Both sides have a point.
>
>the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.
>he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>else that was on it.
The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.
There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.
Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>bystander.
You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
suspect the policemen's version is accurate.
>> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>
>his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
> after
>that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is subject
>to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what the
>undercover cops look like, photos or not.
>
>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>> around the Menu of any camera.
>
>that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
You're throwing shit against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?
tony cooper
wrote:
He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
see in the TV shows.
Nicko
> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
from a reformatted SD card?
--
YOP...
Dudley Hanks
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hp20t4d4i37atib5q...@4ax.com...
The Boys in Blue, or out of it, have to walk a tight line between getting
the job done, and respecting the perps' civil rights. With everything on
the line, things can get out of control. It's up to photographers to find
their own line between not getting in the way and exposing obvious abuses
of authority.
Given that those perps could just as easily be targeting my kids, I prefer
to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops. But, if I'd have been there
for Rodney King, my camera would have been pretty busy...
Take Care,
Dudley
tony cooper
I have no idea. If the bystander had the same amount of knowledge on
the subject as I do, he shrugged let it go.
Ron Hunter
Slamming a perp against a wall may seem abusive, but if it stuns him for
long enough to allow cuffs to be put on, it may save both the cop, and
the perp from further injury. Slamming his head against the wall
several times, after the cuffs were on would be abuse.
Unfortunately perps, especially those who sell drugs, don't always stand
meekly with their hands behind them for the cops to put on the cuffs.
Putting them on the ground is the accepted method of gaining control in
order to prevent either party from being injured further.
Bob Larter
It's pretty easy, as long as you haven't taken any new photos since it
was formatted.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Get lost
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones <n...@dev.null> wrote:
> >Very interesting article.
>
>
> >NJ
>
> I have not checked the reference, but photography can be used
> in a way that is a right or is a crime. It is by itself no more or
> less of a right or crime than carpentry.
It is a right as any form of legal expression is.
Savageduck
NJ
Photography
is
For special task forces such as you have described, and other units
such as tactical units SWAT teams, the idea of ID confidentiality has
become a stale procedure.
As I said before, if there is any involvement in an arrest the
protection of ID is a moot issue, due to the arresting officers and
investigators later role in Court.
The usual procedure is for such units (drug & vice etc.) to "borrow"
officers from other divisions, districts, precincts, etc. outside of,
and not known in the target area, to act in the "undercover" role,
leaving the arrests to the team members.
Local knowledge and intelligence is developed by such task force teams
and most of the players are not surprises to Law enforcement, in that
their crimes are well documented long before any arrest. The use of an
"undercover" operative can be useful if an overt act is needed to make
the case, especially in conspiracy to traffic of deal in narcotics
cases.
Most drug/narcotic arrests are made by accident, incidental to other
encounters with uniformed police other than special task force teams.
Agreed, what is depicted in TV shows is removed from reality.
I still believe your son's "undercover" drug task team member friend,
is embroidering his role as a "war story". I can't think that a
responsible special team member would need the ego stroke of
emphasizing his role and unnecessary behavior.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Yup.
There are all sorts of commercial, shareware and freeware software and
techniques available:
http://www.ultimateslr.com/memory-card-recovery.php
http://www.ssddfj.org/papers/SSDDFJ_V1_1_Breeuwsma_et_al.pdf
http://www.softwarepatch.com/software/smartrecovery.html
http://www.pcstats.com/artvnl.cfm?articleID=1869
http://www.datarescue.com/laboratory/smartflash.htm
http://www.diskinternals.com/flash-recovery/features.shtml
http://www.datadoctor.in/data-recovery-software/memory-card-data-recovery-software.html
--
Regards,
Savageduck
J. Clarke
Do the world a favor and move to China. You'll be happier, we'll be
happier, and who knows, maybe the Chinese will be happier.
nospam
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> >> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> >> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> >> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> >> card.(2)
> >>
> >> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> >> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> >> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
> >>
> >> Both sides have a point.
> >
> >the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>
> That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.
based on your description of the events, it's very clear the cop is in
the wrong. of course, there more to the story. i'm sure the
bystander's version is a little different than how you described it.
> >he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
> >photos of himself but everything
> >else that was on it.
>
> The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs.
he absolutely does have a right to take photos, assuming he is legally
where he is standing, i.e., on public or quasi-public property and not
trespassing, with no prohibition posted, which if it's in on a public
street would be the case. nothing you said suggests otherwise.
> A "right" is
> something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
> Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
> Constitutional rights.
>
> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
> police officer.
there is no law prohibiting photography in a public area. anything in
plain view where there's no expectation of privacy (e.g., a bathroom)
is fair game.
and how was he interfering with a police officer? if he ran up to the
cop and stuck the camera in his face, that's one thing but i *highly*
doubt that's what he did. he undoubtedly took a snapshot from across
the street, nowhere near the action. that's not interfering.
> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
i'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, i'm saying the cop
assaulted an innocent bystander and destroyed his property.
> >at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
> >given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> >bystander.
>
> You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
> force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
> exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
> suspect the policemen's version is accurate.
*you* said manhandled. neither of us were there. based on *your*
description of the events, i am speculating that since the cop was
pissed he was being photographed, that he might give the bystander a
rough time too. i doubt he walked over and said 'hi, please let me
reformat your memory card.'
and there are always two sides to every story, with the truth somewhere
in the middle.
> >> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> >> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> >> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
> >
> >his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
>
> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
perhaps, but once he makes himself known as a cop, his identity *is*
known. photographs might not be distributed but a description will be,
and if he is seen in the area, thugs will point him out to other thugs.
> >> (1) Love that cop talk!
> >> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> >> around the Menu of any camera.
> >
> >that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
>
> You're throwing shit against the wall with a statement like that.
> What law was broken?
destruction of property, at a minimum. you can argue that the cop
could ask for photos of himself to be deleted (and asking to do so is
fine but the bystander need not comply). anything past that is
illegal, particularly deleting *unrelated* photos that happened to be
on the card.
nospam
<480407e9-6665-40c5...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Nicko <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
> from a reformatted SD card?
trivial.
tony cooper
wrote:
--
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 2009-03-29 17:04:52 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
>>>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <n...@dev.null> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very interesting article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>
I read that article, and the link that it provided, and nowhere did I
read that "Photography...is a First Amendment Right". That's a
headline that Digg seems to have dug up. The articles deal with
police abuse.
>> He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
>> understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
>> make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
>> see in the TV shows.
>
>For special task forces such as you have described, and other units
>such as tactical units SWAT teams, the idea of ID confidentiality has
>become a stale procedure.
>
>As I said before, if there is any involvement in an arrest the
>protection of ID is a moot issue, due to the arresting officers and
>investigators later role in Court.
>The usual procedure is for such units (drug & vice etc.) to "borrow"
>officers from other divisions, districts, precincts, etc. outside of,
>and not known in the target area, to act in the "undercover" role,
>leaving the arrests to the team members.
I may be using "undercover" incorrectly, but I have no police
background. If an officer is in civilian clothes, with no police ID
showing, I would consider that to be "undercover".
The person in question did not mention - on way or the other - if
non-task force member were present. He did not mention - one way or
the other - if he was the one who actually made the arrest. He
mentioned only that he was present, that he objected to the photograph
being taken, and what he did. It was a rather casual conversation. My
son and I were having lunch, we ran into him and he joined us at the
table, and we talked mostly about photography.
He didn't tell it in "war story" narrative. I see no reason to doubt
him. I've known him - if only peripherally - since he was in high
school with my son. It's not like we're buddies, but he was around
the house quite a bit when he was in high school. He's now nearing
40.
Savageduck
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:16:26 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-29 17:04:52 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
>>>>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <n...@dev.null> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very interesting article.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
I
>>>>>>>
> read that article, and the link that it provided, and nowhere did I
> read that "Photography...is a First Amendment Right". That's a
> headline that Digg seems to have dug up. The articles deal with
> police abuse.
Agreed. In all cases those NYPD officers were out of line. As for the
Miami Blogster, it seems he has some other agenda.
Well unless the arrestee, has the charges dismissed or accepts a plea
bargain, your friend would certainly appear as a witness. His incident
report should also have included the confrontation with the
photographer, the subsequent confiscation and unauthorized destruction
of his property. Something his department could be liable for.
The action he took, if true was not clearly thought out. He could have
advised a supervisor and the files could have been examined for
"sensitivity" and deal with diplomatically.
I have had to deal with over zealous officers on many occasions where
their actions have been damaging to the department and any of their
cases.
There are times when even those with the best of apparent intentions
try to glorify their place in the World.
This story just does not sound right to me.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Frank ess
It sounds like a good story to me. Every bit of it could be made up,
and have something made of it, if the teller feels like it.
It's a rare person who doesn't feel pressed to submit something that
fits in a conversation, even if that requires making up a story (or a
reaction, or an attitude) on the spot.
Some places it's considered impolite to let a query go unanswered. You
have to be on your guard, as asking for directions is likely to get
you turn-by-turn instructions to nowhere in particular, rather than "I
don't know".
--
Frank ess
Jürgen Exner
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko
><nervou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
>>from a reformatted SD card?
Fairly easy. Formatting doesn't destroy the data, it merely recreates
the adminstrative layers of the file system like free sector list, root
directory, etc. The actual data blocks are not or only minimally
affected unless/until new data is written.
Any decent file recovery program should be able to recover most of the
data. However it is hit-and-miss. If a file is not continuous (i.e. it
is fragmented) then recovery becomes significantly harder, because the
files need to be reassembled from bits and pieces, just like numerous
jigsaw puzzles thrown together into a big bucket and you have to
reassemble them without knowing what they are supposed to look like the
end.
jue
Bob Larter
True, but unlikely to be an issue with a FAT32[0] memory card, as the
file system would be very unlikely to be fragmented. The exception would
be if the user was in the habit of deleting individual photos in-camera,
but not many people do that.
[0] The most common format for 1GB+ memory cards.
tony cooper
wrote:
>> He didn't tell it in "war story" narrative. I see no reason to doubt
>> him. I've known him - if only peripherally - since he was in high
>> school with my son. It's not like we're buddies, but he was around
>> the house quite a bit when he was in high school. He's now nearing
>> 40.
>
>Well unless the arrestee, has the charges dismissed or accepts a plea
>bargain, your friend would certainly appear as a witness. His incident
>report should also have included the confrontation with the
>photographer, the subsequent confiscation and unauthorized destruction
>of his property. Something his department could be liable for.
>The action he took, if true was not clearly thought out. He could have
>advised a supervisor and the files could have been examined for
>"sensitivity" and deal with diplomatically.
>
>I have had to deal with over zealous officers on many occasions where
>their actions have been damaging to the department and any of their
>cases.
>
>There are times when even those with the best of apparent intentions
>try to glorify their place in the World.
>
>This story just does not sound right to me.
Dunno. I related it as I was told. I do know that the incident took
place in one of the "projects" in the area. I don't think the task
force officers would particularly like photos of them circulating in
the area. I would doubt that the incident had any legs past that day.
Just another day there.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>> card.(2)
>>>
>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>
>>> Both sides have a point.
>>
>>the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>
>That's a matter of judgement.
No it's a matter of Law
> I disagree.
Depends on jurisdiction but in most democracies the cop was wrong.
>>he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
>>photos of himself but everything
>>else that was on it.
>
>The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs.
Again in most democracies the bystander does have the right to take
photographs in a public place.
> A "right" is
>something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
>Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
>Constitutional rights.
That would be in Germany. "If it is not Permitted it is forbidden" most
democracies work on "It is permitted unless it is Forbidden"
>There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
>depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
>allow us to do so.
Correct.
> There are laws regarding interference with a
>police officer.
The officer was not being interfered with and at the point of arresting
the perp he had clearly identified himself as a cop.
>Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
Free speech most certainly does apply in most democracies,. It does not
in Police States and dictatorships like China, N.Korea etc
>>at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>>given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>>bystander.
>
>You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
>force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
>exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
>suspect the policemen's version is accurate.
Quite likely. However that does not have any bearing on taking the
photos.
>>> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>>
>>his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
>
>That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
>cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
>be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
>undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
>cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
photos.
I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
were for publication.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Martin Brown
> ray wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting article.
>>>
>> Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>>> NJ
>>
>> Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your
>> right to photograph any damned thing you want.
>
> Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
> intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
> guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
> visually trespass, in my opinion.
Rules vary significantly in other countries. In Belgium there is a
perceived right to privacy even on the public street. I crossed the line
photographing someone moving house. They were upset but not when I
explained that I wasn't press and it wouldn't be published. I wasn't
interested in who they were, but in the insane Heath Robinson semi crane
contraption with a ricketty platform leaning up against a 4 story
building with one window removed and all their worldy goods precariously
balanced on it. I later discovered this was a common way to move house.
I had a close run in with the Greek police when I photographed a
"Keystone cops" moment. An arriving police car at the back of a queue
outside Athens police station failed to use the brakes and concertinad
about 4 other police cars waiting outside. Big bang and then lots of
angry policemen running down the steps to inspect the damage. I was just
far enough away to vanish into the crowds afterwards.
The weirdest one I remember was when some German "plant collectors"
(smugglers) tried to use domestic German law to prevent their pictures
being published internationally after a jail sentence in Mexico. The
reason given was that it would interfere with their human rights to earn
a livelihood as professional plant smugglers.
I had an incident of my own in Germany after photographing a copyright
infringement at an exhibition with the perpetrator shown with the
offending material but without his permission. He claimed this was an
infringement of his right to privacy and wanted the film. He didn't get it.
I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.
It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.
There is one guy, a film-maker now going by the moniker of eyeborg with
a prosthetic eye miniature video camera.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ron Hunter
'journalist integrity', which is almost non-existent these days.
Martin Brown
> In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>>
>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>
>> Both sides have a point.
>
> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> bystander.
No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property. And I
suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.
The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
increase:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>> around the Menu of any camera.
Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on most
cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.
> that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
> good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.
Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should have
asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)
Regards,
Martin Brown
nospam
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
> > reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
> > else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
> > given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> > bystander.
>
> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
erasing photos is destruction of property, particularly *unrelated*
photos. it's the same if it had been film and the camera back opened,
exposing it to light.
> And I
> suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
> quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.
if they could be used as evidence, the cop would not have reformatted
the card it so clearly it was not of any use to them whatsoever.
Chris H
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>> card.(2)
>>>
>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>> Both sides have a point.
>> the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right
>>to
>> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>> else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>> bystander.
>
>No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the
UK
>And I suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they
>could quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.
Yes but not deleted. In fact they should request copies. Without a
court order you can refuse.
>The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
>far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
>they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
>exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
>increase:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
They were doing it before the changes on the 16th Feb 2009
>
>>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>>> around the Menu of any camera.
>
>Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
>shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
>he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on
>most cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.
However the cop can not do that (at least in the UK) as that would be
destruction of property.
>> that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
>> good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.
>
>Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
>was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should
>have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
>(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)
Since when has the average UK cop been that sensible?
They can ask for copies. Most people would be OK about this but you do
not have to give them without a court order.
Chris H
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
>>photos.
>> I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
>>police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
>>were for publication.
>>
>A reasonable request, and should be honored, in the spirit of
>'journalist integrity', which is almost non-existent these days.
The request was honoured. I adjusted the faces in the photos The clear
goggles went dark etc. and the newspaper not realising I had done this
then put blackout patches across the whole face!
In another occasion I was asked to delete the pictures. This was in
Belgium where I was (for fun) photographing an Art Deco building close
to the back of a building that was a concrete monstrosity, no windows, a
couple of doors and a roller shutter.
A couple of Police officers arrived including a very pretty female
officer (all with large guns) They asked to see my photos and wanted any
with them in deleted. They then said could not take photos for the next
10 minutes.
In the next 10 minutes a bullion shipment arrived and wen into the
National Bank. At least I think it was a bullion shipment. Several
armoured security vans and a couple of military armoured cars. It was
all very fast and very slick.
For their own security they did not want detailed photos of them or the
delivery. That I can understand.
Chris Malcolm
> I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
> ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
> photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
> and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.
And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
political demonstrations.
> It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
> very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
> no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.
The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on. They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.
Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!
No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph. But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown
><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
>> ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
>> photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
>> and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.
>
>And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
>there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
>owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
>shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
>public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
>authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
>police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
>requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
>political demonstrations.
On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
else) .
>> It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
>> very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
>> no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.
>
>The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
>ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
>phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
>with knobs on.
This happens often
>They seem to think that people who want to take
>photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
>the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
>most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.
This seems to be a universal trend.
Really they should be monitoring all people in Internet cafes who use
Google Earth etc Remote monitoring from an anonymous computer... Do
Internet cafes have CCTV? Most Libraries don't
>Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
>that!
Poor naive fool :-)
>No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
>on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
>to publish an embarrassing photograph.
I am sorry that is just plain wrong. Our officers work to the highest
standards and never do anything wrong, suspect or not in the public
interest. (That is apart from those that got caught being misunderstood
by the press, public and a judge.)
>But since there are no laws to
>prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
>legislation such as anti-terrorist.
That is an unfair and cynical attack on our wonderful police force that
is based entirely on facts and [photographic/video] evidence
In a recent Jobs-worth /petty-offical attack on a transporter voiding
trains the statement of the railway company as to the behaviour of the
transporter was completely at odds with the video evidence :-) The
local newspaper and TV companies put up the statement and the video side
by side ion their web sites :-)))))
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
...
>
>On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
>malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
>else) .
>
I have been on both sides of that issue in Ohio.
Standing on public easement (a side walk that was required by
law for the property owner to install and maintain as well as to allow
public access) photographing the automatic car wash (which had damaged
several cars) I was told I could not photograph the car wash. My
response was I would photograph the car wash or I would wait until the
police were summoned and abide by their decision. The police informed
the property owner I was legal, and in the end a settlement was made
with the car owners.
On the other hand I was a manager in a store in a mall. Yes,
I could tell people with cameras they could not photograph inside the
store.
The difference was simple. The store or mall and sidewalk are
all privately owned properly. The sidewalk access is controlled by
the local government. The store or mall are privately owned property
and the public is allowed access only with the permission of the
owners. Same thing at public concerts where they may restrict cameras
or beer etc.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:
>
>> Very interesting article.
>>
>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
>Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_Right
>>
>> NJ
>
>Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
>to photograph any damned thing you want.
Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under certain
conditions. (US)
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
...
>
>On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
>malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
>else) .
>
Exactly. The difference is between areas where the public may
have access and publicly owned property.
HEMI-Powered
>>your right to photograph any damned thing you want.
>
> Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under
> certain
> conditions. (US)
>
more general right of freedom of expression. No Bill of Rights
protection including such commonly cited examples such as privacy and
freedom of expression are absolute. Any number of situations may
limit the ability to claim your "right" to take pictures including
the obvious examples of when it violates the rights, protections, or
freedoms or others or when there are private property considerations
or governmental and security situations. But, in the end, in order to
fully determine whether one does or does not have the "right" to take
photographs in a given situation, one must either take the photos and
deal with possible criminal or civil actions brought against them if
applicable or ask for/apply for permission ahead of time. In any
event, only a judge can completely answer the question and even then,
it may take a case brought before a Federal district or appellate
court or even the Supreme Court in order to cite precedent(s) one
claims support their "right".
I should also point out that there are NO absolute rights under the
constitution as one must first look to applicable Federal, state,
and/or local laws, presidential executive orders, rules and
regulations by the many agencies in each level of government, etc.
But, if you want to risk jail time, loss of money, or maybe just a
punch in the nose, why go ahead and assert your "right" after someone
in a believed position of authority has told you to cease and desist.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim
J. Clarke
Forgive my American-ness but what does "transporter voiding trains" mean?
The image that American usage brings up is a large truck (in the sense of a
lorry--I don't know if "truck" has another meaning in the UK) holding a
paper punch punching holes in the train, and I'm pretty sure that can't be
right.
C J Campbell
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>> card.(2)
>>>
>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>
>>> Both sides have a point.
>>
>> the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>
> That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.
>
>> he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
>> photos of himself but everything
>> else that was on it.
>
> The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
> something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
> Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
> Constitutional rights.
>
> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
> police officer.
Absolute rubbish. The photographer was not interfering with a police
officer. He was not trying to prevent the arrest. Further, the officer
broke laws against the destruction of private property. He also
violated the photographer's civil rights -- rights that have been
established and upheld in case law for centuries.
>
> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>
> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
Rubbish. Every drug dealer in town now knows that this guy is a cop,
photograph or not.
>>
>> that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
>
> You're throwing shit against the wall with a statement like that.
> What law was broken?
Destruction of private property. Illegal seizure of private property.
Threatening a photographer. Depriving a photographer of his civil
rights. Assault on a photographer who was breaking no laws.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Ockham's Razor
<2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
> > Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
> > press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
> > are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>
> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
preaditor.
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
ray
>>>Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
>>>to photograph any damned thing you want.
>>
>> Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under certain
>> conditions. (US)
>>
> Sorry, but photography is NOT a right, it is a privilige under the more
> general right of freedom of expression. No Bill of Rights protection
> including such commonly cited examples such as privacy and freedom of
> expression are absolute. Any number of situations may limit the ability
> to claim your "right" to take pictures including the obvious examples of
> when it violates the rights, protections, or freedoms or others or when
> there are private property considerations or governmental and security
> situations. But, in the end, in order to fully determine whether one
> does or does not have the "right" to take photographs in a given
> situation, one must either take the photos and deal with possible
> criminal or civil actions brought against them if applicable or ask
> for/apply for permission ahead of time. In any event, only a judge can
> completely answer the question and even then, it may take a case brought
> before a Federal district or appellate court or even the Supreme Court
> in order to cite precedent(s) one claims support their "right".
There is no constitutional grant of "freedom of expression" - it is
specifically spelled out as "freedom of speech". The framers of the
constitution were intelligetn enough to know the difference between
"expression" and "speech" - if they had intended the former, they would
have explicitly said so.
>
> I should also point out that there are NO absolute rights under the
> constitution as one must first look to applicable Federal, state, and/or
> local laws, presidential executive orders, rules and regulations by the
> many agencies in each level of government, etc. But, if you want to risk
> jail time, loss of money, or maybe just a punch in the nose, why go
> ahead and assert your "right" after someone in a believed position of
> authority has told you to cease and desist.
The oft cited example of limitation of freedom of speech is - crying
"fire" in a crowded theater.
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
a train geek who collects train serial numbers and photographs them
> The image that American usage brings up is a large truck (in the sense
>of a lorry--I don't know if "truck" has another meaning in the UK)
>holding a paper punch punching holes in the train, and I'm pretty sure
>that can't be right.
:-)))))
George Kerby
On 3/30/09 10:15 AM, in article
2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I must agree with you, CJ.
In some instances, the camera works against a rogue cop, as in the case of
Houston Texans running back, Ryan Moats, who last week was bullied by an
a-hole who wouldn't let him see his dying mother-in-law. The dash-cam
provided justice...
<http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6349305.html>
George Kerby
On 3/30/09 10:23 AM, in article Mencken-F66672...@news.dsl,
"Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote:
> In article
> <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>> said:
>
>>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>>
>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>
> Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
> year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
> prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
> preaditor.
Cite please?
Chris H
<Men...@pdx.net> writes
>In article
><2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> > Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>> > press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>> > are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>>
>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>
>Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
>year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
>prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
>preaditor.
There is too little information to make a judgement.
What is the age of consent in that location?
Was the sex in public or private?
Was the house the home of either girl?
Was consent given for the picture
Who published it?
Was the publication intentional?
Photographing a 10 year old girl in the bath may be pedophilia or it may
not depending on context.
Martin Brown
> In message <Qc%zl.177651$xK6.1...@newsfe12.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtd...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>>> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>>> card.(2)
>>>>
>>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>> Both sides have a point.
>>> the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
>>> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>>> else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>>> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>>> bystander.
>>
>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
>
> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the UK
Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete all
seldom does. Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
Regards,
Martin Brown
C J Campbell
> In article
> <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>
>>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>>
>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>
> Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
> year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
> prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
> preaditor.
Free speech does not apply to pornography or things that have been
specifically held to be illegal. This has nothing to do with a cop
having the authority to demand that you reformat your film card any
time he feels like it.
You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a movie theater, either, or
invade privacy, or do any of a number of other things. There are limits
to free speech, but taking pictures of police officer is not one of
them.
tony cooper
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
>> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
>> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
>> police officer.
>
>Absolute rubbish. The photographer was not interfering with a police
>officer. He was not trying to prevent the arrest.
This was an error on my part in constructing the paragraph. I did not
think that taking the photograph was obstructing the officer. I was
thinking along the line of what laws are spelled out, and interference
is one that is.
>>
>> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
>> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
>> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
>> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
>> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
>
>Rubbish. Every drug dealer in town now knows that this guy is a cop,
>photograph or not.
You're making assumptions. If you can, I can. I would doubt that
many in the immediate area, if using drugs, could pass along a
description of their own mother. They could pass along a photograph.
It seems you are using "drug dealer" to describe some kind of kingpin
distributor. Most "dealers" that are arrested are users who sell in
order to supply their own needs.
There's no need to label my responses as "rubbish". Just state your
case and avoid the personal ad hominums. This isn't D-Mac vs Annika.
C J Campbell
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> said:
What the UK does is irrelevant. If we are talking about the First
Amendment, then we are talking about the United States. Last I looked,
people in the UK do not have a Bill of Rights.
Michael Benveniste
> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> card.(2)
>
> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
I'm not going to address the issue of whether the cop's actions
were legal or not. I have my own opinion, but my wife's the first
amendment scholar in the family; I'm not.
What I will say is that _if_ this is a true account, the cop's
on-side reformatting of the card was _stupid_, and a guilty perp
might well walk on that basis.
The cop in question destroyed evidence at the crime scene. The
perp's lawyer could (and should) claim that a) the lost photos
could have contained exculpatory evidence, b) that any and
all concerns of the police could have been addressed by holding
the SD card as evidence, and c) taking such preemptive action
is evidence of the officer's state of mind with regard to their
own potential wrongdoing.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
C J Campbell
> In article <3euvs451k4h3s9b5q...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>>> card.(2)
>>>>
>>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>>
>>>> Both sides have a point.
Actually, your story is third hand and has more holes in it than a
Swiss cheese shot up by a Gatling gun. I don't believe it for an
instant.
Assuming it is true, however, the police officer was clearly acting in
direct violation of the law.
Ockham's Razor
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/explicit-cellphone-photos-could-
land-teenagers-in-prison/?scp=5&sq=Sexting&st=cse
C J Campbell
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:14:45 -0700, Savageduck <savag...@savage.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This story just does not sound right to me.
>
> Dunno. I related it as I was told. I do know that the incident took
> place in one of the "projects" in the area. I don't think the task
> force officers would particularly like photos of them circulating in
> the area. I would doubt that the incident had any legs past that day.
> Just another day there.
What they would like and what they are allowed to do about it are two
different things. People have to put up with all kinds of things they
do not like.
C J Campbell
> Nicko wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>> card.(2)
>>
>> I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
>> from a reformatted SD card?
>
> It's pretty easy, as long as you haven't taken any new photos since it
> was formatted.
And even then you can often recover them.
tony cooper
>Cite please?
There have been several news reports of similar situations. Here's
one:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?id=6730014§ion=news/local
and another:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/5457748/teen-arrested-posting-nude-photos/
and another:
http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry3821.html
Chris H
<2009033009485275249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if
>>there was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop
>>should have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a
>>receipt for it.
>> (at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
>What the UK does is irrelevant.
No it is the only relevant law. What is done in foreign countries like
the USA is irrelevant.
> If we are talking about the First Amendment, then we are talking about
>the United States.
No... It is any country which has a first amendment. Many do
Chris H
<Men...@pdx.net> writes
>In article <C5F651D7.260C2%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/09 10:23 AM, in article Mencken-F66672...@news.dsl,
>> "Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
>> > C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>> >> said:
>> >
>> >>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>> >>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>> >>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>> >>
>> >> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>> >
>> > Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
>> > year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
>> > prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
>> > preaditor.
>> Cite please?
>
>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/explicit-cellphone-photos-could-
>land-teenagers-in-prison/?scp=5&sq=Sexting&st=cse
Just shows how stupid US law is.
Chris H
<2009033009472216807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 2009-03-30 08:23:13 -0700, Ockham's Razor <Men...@pdx.net> said:
>
>> In article
>> <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper
>>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>>>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>>>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>>>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>> Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another 16
>> year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
>> prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
>> preaditor.
>
>Free speech does not apply to pornography
>or things that have been specifically held to be illegal.
Is pornography Illegal?
> This has nothing to do with a cop having the authority to demand that
>you reformat your film card any time he feels like it.
>
>You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a movie theater, either, or
>invade privacy, or do any of a number of other things. There are limits
>to free speech, but taking pictures of police officer is not one of them.
Well, not in a democracy.
Jürgen Exner
>year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15 years in
>prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a sexual
>preaditor.
Taking sexual photos of a minor is child pornography by the letter and
the indent of the law. What did she expect?
jue
George Kerby
On 3/30/09 12:00 PM, in article ueu1t49f94kmrdlcu...@4ax.com,
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wow. Simply unbelievable...
<shakes head in disbelief>
But who wulda thunk that the President of the United States would be
warranting my new car?
These are the daze...
Pboud
>>
>> and another:
>>
>> http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry3821.html
>>
> Wow. Simply unbelievable...
>
> <shakes head in disbelief>
>
> But who wulda thunk that the President of the United States would be
> warranting my new car?
>
> These are the daze...
>
>
and firing the GM's CEO, to the tune of 20 mil in 'retirement'
benefits.. don't forget that part
J. Clarke
To the politicians _anything_ is acceptable if it's "for the children", even
throwing some kid in jail for showing some other kid something that the
other kid apparently doesn't want to see.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>>>Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to
>>>your right to photograph any damned thing you want.
>>
>> Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under
>> certain
>> conditions. (US)
>>
>Sorry, but photography is NOT a right, it is a privilige under the
>more general right of freedom of expression.
Could you sight a reference for that? Let's face it, in the
US everything is a right unless it is otherwise restricted.
Let's see, I don't recall any specific reference in law that
gives me a right to blink my right eye in private. So then if I need
a constitutional authority to take a photography, then I guess I need
one to blink my eye.
Think of it like this, my right to swing my arm, ends at your
nose.
Also photography may be a form of expression, but it is also a
method or recording information etc.
Frank ess
You left out "that", I believe; here, let me help you:
"Just shows how stupid /that/ US law is."
I agree with that, with the "that".
If I'm wrong, the statement has more value in assessing you and your
attitudes than in any useful evaluation of US law. None (or very few)
of which seem to be perfect, and in some instances, absolutely
irrational.
--
Frank ess
Bob
@earthlink.net says...
-:On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
-:wrote:
-:The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
-:something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
-:Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
-:Constitutional rights.
dear invalid:
you actually should do research into the bill of rights,
and in the context in which it was written.
( very interesting ideas )
it does not grant anything.
it explicitly enumerates existing rights of free men.
It recognizes that they exist. It was created
because some of the founding fathers were afraid
that in the future there would be 'governors'
who would not understand this,
and who would take away these rights,
so they explicitly described some of them.
'the pursuit of happiness' recognizes that we are allowed
to do many things which are not explicitly allowed by law.
it is the other way around, we are allowed to do anything
which is not explicitly restricted by law.
think about the difference.
do you need a law passed to allow you to go to a football game?
has any such law been passed?
is there a law that allows you to shop for food?
do you want to live in a place where you can not do something
until the legislature passes a law that allows you to do it?
nospam
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
> >
> > As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the UK
>
> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete all
> seldom does.
it rarely fails.
> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
> recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
destruction.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >What the UK does is irrelevant.
>
> No it is the only relevant law. What is done in foreign countries like
> the USA is irrelevant.
this took place in the usa, so the only relevant laws in this case are
those of the usa. period.
had it taken place in london then the laws of the uk would be relevant.
but it didn't take place there so they're not.
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
They have an equivalent. BTW, US law regarding property, and most other
legal issues is quite similar to UK law, since it is derived from the UK
tradition.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
> >> recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
> >
> > perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
> > he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
> > destruction.
> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.
it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
of time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
people aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
any idea where to find the tools to do it. it's clearly destruction of
property.
if someone smashes your car with a baseball bat and you have it
repaired, does that mean he didn't destroy your property?
Dave Platt
Bob <Crown...@verizon.net> wrote:
>you actually should do research into the bill of rights,
>and in the context in which it was written.
>( very interesting ideas )
>it does not grant anything.
>
>it explicitly enumerates existing rights of free men.
>It recognizes that they exist. It was created
>because some of the founding fathers were afraid
>that in the future there would be 'governors'
>who would not understand this,
>and who would take away these rights,
>so they explicitly described some of them.
And, they explicitly included wording to the effect of "The fact that
we've specifically listed a bunch of rights here as being worthy of
notice and explicit protection, should not be taken to mean that these
are *all* of the rights that people possess, or that those other
rights are somehow less valuable."
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Bob
nos...@nospam.invalid says...
-:In article <ofWdnam4s8D6qEzU...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
-:<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
-:
-:
-:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
not so.
the data clusters are released but not damaged.
the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
anyone can recover it.
it is not hard.
it is not expensive.
-:
-:the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
-:of time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
-:people aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
-:any idea where to find the tools to do it.
google, people. people, google.
problem solved.
nospam
<Crown...@verizon.net> wrote:
> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
>
> not so.
> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.
> anyone can recover it.
> it is not hard.
> it is not expensive.
no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
otherwise be needed.
Stormin Mormon
Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
infringe those rights.
That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
ammendment to the US Constitution.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:3euvs451k4h3s9b5q...@4ax.com...
The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A
"right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from
the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment
with our
Constitutional rights.
There is no extant law that gives you a right to take
photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of
photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference
with a
police officer.
Ockham's Razor
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand the USA, rights are granted by God. The
> Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
> infringe those rights.
You understand wrong.
You are confusing so called "natural rights" that every person born in a
state of nature seems to have no matter which god they choose, or even
if they choose no god. The range of these natural rights are NOT
protected by US law (even the BoR).
The Constitution limits the United States, and by incorporation, the
several states, from encroaching upon or limiting the rights listed in
the body of the document (ie, habeas corpus) and the BoR.
Interestingly, none of those rights are the so called "natural rights".
Although, several of them have been incorporated by USSC decisions, such
as the right to an abortion.
Your horizon is limited by your religion based myopia and prejudices.
>
> That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
> ammendment to the US Constitution.
Never except by interpretation. Of course, the Constitution does not
allow marriage, internal combustion engines, education of children or
thong panties.
Savageduck
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> said:
> As I understand the USA, rights are granted by God.
Morm.
Take a powder.
> The
> Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
> infringe those rights.
>
> That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
> ammendment to the US Constitution.
Photography is a non-speech expression protected under the 1st
Amendment. Educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ist_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jürgen Exner
>it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
Actually no. A (standard) format only rewrites the administrative file
system information like e.g. free/used sector list, root directory, etc.
but it doesn't touch the data blocks at all. Just imagine how long a
format would take if the format would actually rewrite some 64GB of
data.
jue
frank
> On 2009-03-30 16:58:07 -0700, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> > As I understand the USA, rights are granted by God.
>
> Morm.
> Take a powder.
>
> > The
> > Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
> > infringe those rights.
>
> > That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
> > ammendment to the US Constitution.
>
> Photography is a non-speech expression protected under the 1st
> Amendment. Educate yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ist_Amendment
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
Not quite. There's a big difference between new photography which is
press and everything else. Shoot for a paper or freelance and able to
prove it, much different that guy on the street.
Now, you can shoot what you want unless there are laws against it, but
what you do with an image may get you in a lot of hot water, invasion
of privacy, libel, all that.
I'd argue this article is a bit of a misnomer.
There used to be a good book , Photography and the Law. Don't know if
its updated or still in print, worth a read.
There is a reason ethics and law are taught in journalism schools. Its
not absolute. But, there are always lots of people with way too much
power and egos that think they can break the law.
nospam
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
none of that matters to the typical user. one minute the photos are
there and moments later they're gone. that is the very definition of
erase. the images no longer show up in the camera or when put into a
card reader on a computer. they're *gone*.
the fact that someone with the appropriate skills, tools and time can
recover it is nice, but that only reinforces the fact that the card has
been erased.
Savageduck
> On Mar 30, 8:07 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-03-30 16:58:07 -0700, "Stormin Mormon"
>> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> As I understand the USA, rights are granted by God.
>>
>> Morm.
>> Take a powder.
>>
>>> The
>>> Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
>>> infringe those rights.
>>
>>> That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
>>> ammendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> Photography is a non-speech expression protected under the 1st
>> Amendment. Educate yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ist_Amendment
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>
> Not quite. There's a big difference between new photography which is
> press and everything else. Shoot for a paper or freelance and able to
> prove it, much different that guy on the street.
>
> Now, you can shoot what you want unless there are laws against it, but
> what you do with an image may get you in a lot of hot water, invasion
> of privacy, libel, all that.
Agreed.
All of the above applies to written and spoken expression. Strangely
enough when the statement or expression is rendered as a recognizable
work of art such as a painting of piece of sculpture it seems to get a
pass no matter how offensive it might be. Try that with an editorial
cartoon. If the photograph is published in context as a piece of
truthful reportage, photo essay or artistic expression, without
intentional malice, there should be no problem with the right to make
that expression.
The problem in this case is, some officers have made the assumption,
the act of taking a photograph is weighed with malice against them,
when they have no evidence of that intent. They have then acted under
the color of Law to violate the right of the photographer, amateur or
professional to go about taking photographs where they are not
prohibited by Law, local statute or private property notice to do so.
The confrontations in most of these cases have been provoked by the
officers acting unprofessionally in anger. The charges are invariably
related to Obstruction of a Peace Office or resisting arrest,
photography is nearly never an issue because there is no related
photographic crime. The subsequent arrests nearly always prove
embarrassing to the department involved.
>
> I'd argue this article is a bit of a misnomer.
>
> There used to be a good book , Photography and the Law. Don't know if
> its updated or still in print, worth a read.
Try: http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm
http://www.photolawnews.com/
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
>
> There is a reason ethics and law are taught in journalism schools. Its
> not absolute. But, there are always lots of people with way too much
> power and egos that think they can break the law.
...and many of them include Peace Officers. There have been many times
I have had to confront an officer I supervised (I am a retired
Lieutenant), because a report was patently fabricated. There is nothing
more embarrassing that to have testimony impeached in Court due to bad
reporting, written to justify an arrest and obtain a conviction at all
costs.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Bartram
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote
> Forgive my American-ness but what does "transporter voiding trains" mean?
A typo, maybe? As in "a train-spotter avoiding trains". Mind you, that would
be rather pointless when you think of it..
Paul
Bob Larter
"videoing" trains, I think.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Brown
> In article <MPG.243b12a43...@news.verizon.net>, Bob
> <Crown...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
It is almost never the case that delete all or reformat completely
removes all stored information. It may remove the structures that say
what files are where but that is about all. Any of the various well
advertised image rescue programs can get it back.
>>
>> not so.
>> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
>> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
>
> to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.
Only if the user is terminally stupid and ignorant. That is why I said
the policeman who claimed to have deleted all the images for security
reasons had failed. Delete all just hides the file entries and marks the
media unused. It is trivial to retrieve all the data with basic tools.
Apart from one letter of the filename everything else survives. One well
known high street brand sometimes cocks up on digital image media, but
any of the others will work OK.
Specific delete of specific images and then overwriting the freed media
with new files is needed for terminal and permanent data loss.
>> anyone can recover it.
>> it is not hard.
>> it is not expensive.
>
> no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
> can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
> otherwise be needed.
OK people who have absolutely no understanding of digital cameras or
computers cannot. But compared with a film camera where taking the film
out and pulling the tab in bright sunlight there is no contest.
From a press photographers point of view some jerk deleting all the
images is neither here nor there. Yes you could file a complaint about
it, but provided you take the media out of the camera immediately you
can easily get back everything that has been lost.
Regards,
Martin Brown
nospam
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
>
> It is almost never the case that delete all or reformat completely
> removes all stored information. It may remove the structures that say
> what files are where but that is about all. Any of the various well
> advertised image rescue programs can get it back.
that's technically true, but until the person obtains the tools and
takes the time to run the software, the images are *gone*.
why don't you go to a camera store and erase people's memory cards and
then explain to them that you aren't really erasing anything and that
it's trivial to get the images back. see how well that works out.
> >> not so.
> >> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
> >> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
> >
> > to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.
>
> Only if the user is terminally stupid and ignorant.
oh please. the vast majority of users are neither terminally stupid
nor ignorant and they are probably not aware of how to recover a
deleted card. and even if they are aware, they are denied use of the
card until they have an opportunity to get the tools and recover it.
what if they're on vacation and without a computer or network access?
J. Clarke
The major and most useful feature of the original Norton Utilities, released
almost 30 years ago, was the ability to unerase erased files, and that
remains one of its key features. There's nothing new or exotic about this
and quite frankly anybody in this day and age who doesn't know that simple
file erasure leaves the data recoverable is pretty poorly informed.
Google "unerase" and "unformat" and "recover files" and "recover data" and
you're presented with a huge array of options.
Bob
nos...@nospam.invalid says...
-:In article <MPG.243b12a43...@news.verizon.net>, Bob
-:<Crown...@verizon.net> wrote:
-:
-:> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
-:>
-:> not so.
-:> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
-:> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
-:
-:to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.
wrong. Ignorance is expensive.
-:
-:> anyone can recover it.
-:> it is not hard.
-:> it is not expensive.
-:
-:no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
-:can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
-:otherwise be needed.
wrong. Ignorance is expensive.
Colin.D
But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they might
be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well have
physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did* destroy property.
Colin D.
Neil Jones
I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with you
and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the question
becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk everyone and
delete all images on all cameras?
NJ
J. Clarke
The kid in me would want to deal with Officr Hostile by just letting him do
his deletion, going home, recovering the images, putting them up on
fotoomsk.ru or somewhere else that's going to laugh in Officer Hostile's
face when he complains, then emailing the police chief, the mayor, and the
local newspapers and TV stations with the story and the link, preferably
including HD video of Officer Hostile's little tirade.