Well that's sorted then, the police may not confiscate an image without a court order unless they want to, then it's ok.
Just two weeks since they clarified their position on the law regarding photography, the Association of Chief Police Officers last night issued a short note further clarifying its clarification. This follows the recent exposure by The Register of a widening gulf between ACPO and local police forces over the question of when it …
They can confiscate it but not delete it without a court order. So you would have to be able to prove that the image was recorded in the first place and then deleted. I suppose you could do this with undelete software (as I don't think they would be clever enough to shred the image) but then you would have to prove that the police deleted it and not you.
The problem is there is a real need for the police to have this power and more so than ever. It relates to happy-slapping instances. If they go down the street beating up people and nicking cars and capturing it all for posterity on a camera or mobile phone then the police need the right to confiscate the equipment to check for evidence of a crime as they feel the images might be deleted - they could also expect to do this at a station rather than do it by the roadside. However, like many laws this can equally be abused as they can just suspect that anyone might have recorded a crime and use it to hassle photographers and remove their equipment - abusing their power.
Hardly a red herring. The police very rarely witness a happy slapping incident (or almost any incident for that matter). Even the moronic youths aren't stupid enough to do it in front of the local nick. They would be acting on a complaint that someone was beaten up while others stood around filming on their mobile phones.
The film would be needed for evidence and to suggest, as others have, that the youths should forward a copy within 48 hours to their nearest police station is laughable!
once it's seized as evidence*, it suddenly becomes a very real item, subject to all the finest bureaucracy the police have to offer.
The police have to give you a receipt, reasons for seizing it etc. All of this can be held onto and can potentially come back to haunt them if it's frivolous, or if it mysteriously disappears.
*actually seized by the police as evidence, not "voluntarily" handed over to aid in their enquiries.
As someone who works in schools and has, in the past, been required to analyse a pupil's confiscated phone for video footage of happy slapping (with a supervising police officer looking over my shoulder because they required a quick ID), I can tell you that it's a growing problem.
Police can only act on evidence and "he hit me" isn't evidence, even when that occurs in a secure area. The school in question had DOZENS of CCTV cameras, dozens of staff, thousands of pupils, two teachers in the classroom and still "nothing" was seen of quite a serious incident. A phone confiscation was the only way to get those images and instantly the culprit was identified. There may be problems with the way the evidence was gathered (via a phone confiscation) but the alternative was to let someone who was clearly fingered for the offence get away because "nobody" had seen him slap a kid in the face (right on the temple / ear) so hard that he flew off his chair while the class laughed and the teacher was looking the other way.
In the end, the child in question was interviewed by the police (damn right, too) and when it came to the "I didn't do it" part and they told him they had a phone from one of his friends, it was an instant outright confession, apology, sanctions etc. The parents involved did not take criminal action but -hell - that policeman as far as I was concerned did what he could to protect the kids in that school. Without that phone confiscation, he could have done nothing but give them a ticking off.
I agree that confiscating any phone that's pointed at a police officer is doing them no good at all, and that once you're in public you can take a photo of whatever the hell you like so long as it's not harassment. But at some point you have to gather evidence, because that's all that the police can actually act on when something serious does happen. So long as they have to go through a lengthy paperwork process to seize that property, recording, logging and preserving evidence as they go, providing a receipt or other official confiscation notice, and that the vast proportion of confiscations do actually lead to evidence rather than just the police harassing photographers, I think it's fine.
You have to think of it the same way as CCTV. If you have a home CCTV camera and the police notice that it may have recorded a crime, they are quite within their rights to seize your recordings (and maybe even equipment) so long as they do it properly and officially. But you don't want to see your police force confiscating every camera that's outside a police station "just because". As with everything, it's about having a good reason, they don't even need to prove to have found evidence in every device they confiscate - that would be stupid. And if the courts start noticing tons of photographers complaining about lots of confiscations where nothing happen but the seizure, then they will start to clamp down on such things.
Very good post, sums it up well... I would make one point - The reason that the camera in question (or its memory card, I can't recall off hand) was seized as evidence was because it had allegedly filmed an assault of a Police Officer, rather than just because it was pointed at a stroppy Police Officer. That assault was something along the lines of having his foot run over by a mobility scooter, which on the face of it sounds quite comical, however could represent quite a serious assault. Mobility scooters have killed several people who they've run over and the larger ones could easily break your foot due to their weight.
This kind of thing has been happening since before the imprisonment of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 waaaay back before the miner's strike.
The problem always occurs when you put someone in power and expect them to act responsibly without keeping a very close eye on their actions. There'll always be someone who believes they're able to do wtf they want because they are the law. The problem's unlikely to stop until there's some kind of Watchman <-> Policeman feedback loop established. Maybe the loop would involve cabling. Maybe not. That's not important right now.
The Police can and do what they like, when they like. They commit crimes and get and get away with it. You just try to report a policeman and watch how many hoops and arses you have to lick to even see anyone in power. They will ignore or bury any evidence you have against them, then they will tell you that the 'crime' is too old to investigate. So PC plod lives on another day. Personal experience.
Since 1986 and Public Order Act.
Since 1973 and Outraging Public Decency
Since 1974 and Protection of Children Act
Since any other piece of poorly defined catch all legislation.
The definition of all of the above can by summarised as "If we don't like it, or we think that somebody else might not like it, you are guilty." I exaggerate only a little in order to make a point.
NB Protection of Children Act, indecent photographs, is not about child pornography, it is "Anything that we think people will not like".
So, if I understand it rightly...if I'm videoing something (which isn't criminal activity) and a plod who doesn't understand the law comes up to me and demands my camera, and then attempts to seize it, then said plod is committing a criminal activity which means that if the video is still running it now contains evidence of criminal activity which means the plod CAN now seize the camera, but that in itself means that the plod is now acting legally which means that there is no evidence in the camera of anything illegal which means that the plod is now acting illegally again...
...this could go on all day.
Simple solution. Amend PACE so that seizing of cameras or request to delete images is illegal - but if plod has reason to believe that camera contains material that could materially assist in the investigation of a serious crime then plod can present a written request (with details of alleged crime) to owner of camera to provide access to the material to the plods within say 48hrs to allow them to make certified copies. If request is refused then plods ask for court order to make a forcible copy - and the original and any equipment must be returned within 6hrs.
Or they could just ask nicely...
That's the trick isn't it. I can't see many people refusing if they got a "look we think there's evidence on that, can we borrow if for a few hours to make a copy?" You'll always get the odd tog who will instantly pipe up about their rights etc but most of us would oblige I suspect.
Totally agree that asking nicely is the best course of action and I've known times when this has happened. Where footage can't be or isn't volunteered, your PACE amendment idea is excellent and would provide much-needed clarity for all parties involved, hopefully reducing the feelings of mistrust some photographers clearly have.
There's still a risk issue around material being "amended, lost, deleted, etc." in that time period - purposefully or more likely inadvertently (see my previous post re: seizure not equating to police thinking footage will be purposefully changed) - resulting in the chain of custody and integrity of the footage being challenged in court, but perhaps a note on the request form reminding the owner of the importance of this would suffice.
PACE amendments are not unheard of. With a sensible idea like this that would be welcomed by photographers and, in my personal view, provide clarity for police forces too, I wonder how successful joint lobbying by police and media for this to happen would be?
"...hopefully reducing the feelings of mistrust some photographers clearly have."
I very much doubt it, since few of the mistrust engendering issues photographers have involve PACE. The majority of incidents do not involve the recording of an offence, but the taking of pictures of a building or place a PCSO, copper or security guard finds inappropriate and which said copper then tries to stop. Usually some spurious general reference is made to "anti-terror" legislation, but if all else fails a quick on the spot fantasy law or "we don't need a law" (in the case Jules Mattsson) provide popular alternatives.
Forget PACE and stop kidding yourself. Deal with the endless parade of unnecessary, bullying and humiliating incidents - 99.9 percent of which don't involve PACE - and you'll probably find a lot less mistrust all round, making the rare cases that do involve securing evidence from a photographer a great deal easier to deal with and explain.
Try searching El Reg, Amateur photographer, the British Journal of Photography and the BBC and come back and tell us if you still think an amendment to PACE will restore the respect and goodwill the police have lost within the photographic community in the last 5 years.
I think it came up in the previous thread that PACE only gives plod the right to seize a camera if they would not be able to recover it on request at a later date, so the plod's first course of action should always be to politely approach the photographer/filmer, explain the situation and ask for their cooperation and contact details. The fact that sussex police didn't do this in the reported case is what makes their actions illegal and the 'new' advice from ACPO irrelevant.
Of course, rational, clear and fair application of the law would be too much for the british police nowadays so I guess we shouldn't get our hopes up...
Mines the one with the SLR in the pocket...
The trouble is, the police need to maintain a trail of the evidence from the moment it comes into existence to the moment it is used in Court. If they give the photographer 48 hours with the evidence before it is presented to them its value is considerably diminished - to the point of uselessness - by the lack of an evidence-standard audit trail. If they seize the camera at the scene, they can document it correctly and then make appropriately audited copies of the evidence in the device.
They should in my view endeavour to return the device intact and with nothing deleted within 24 hours of seizure; they have their evidence trail, photographer has his photos and camera back.
" If they give the photographer 48 hours with the evidence before it is presented to them its value is considerably diminished - to the point of uselessness - by the lack of an evidence-standard audit trail"
I don't buy this. The video and photos that showed the events in which a newspaper vendor met his death after being struck by a policeman at a demonstration in London were not retrieved within 48 hours. Some of the evidence turned up considerably later but was significant in the events that followed.
For any professional or amateur journalist, having your coverage of a newsworthy event confiscated for 24 hours would mean you have nothing to sell. When attending demonstrations and similar events, why don't the police carry some devices with which to copy a wide range of storage media? Their confiscation would then only last minutes rather than hours.
I'm not sure how police could ever be supposed to know who might be reluctant to provide evidence at a later time against a particular person, whether from friendship or fear.
At least where a suspected offence is one where the suspect isn't a police officer (which presumably is the case most of the time), it seems like the average person would be rather better off if the police *could* demand the pictures (or at least a copy of them) immediately.
If, after having been seen to have been chatted to by the police, the citizen is temporarily left holding the only copy, they could potentially be open to intimidation, as well as the temptation to help a mate by deleting some or all of the images.
If the citizen has to agree to handing over the pictures, they could also potentially be more open to retaliation than a situation where they didn't have any choice.
Personally, while admittedly not having a journalist's potentially quite different set of motives, unless the situation was one where the police were the apparent aggressors, I think in many situations I might prefer to /not/ have a choice about handing the information over if asked, as long as there was a reliable and timely way of getting back copies of any non-relevant images from the storage devices, and being compensated with replacement storage if the confiscation was likely to be be lengthy.
As for having copies of any crime-relevant images, even if giving me copies pretty much immediately didn't prejudice any investigation, I could well be better off without them (though, again, a journalist could very easily be in a different situation).
"But then, why is the ACPO issuing 'guidance' anyway?"
Probably for the same reason that in your company the IP department issue guidance notes and processes for copyright and patents; the finance department issues processes and guidance for expenses; the legal department issues processes on blah blah blah.
The reason is that if they asked every plod to read every act of parliament, firstly they'd have no time to do anything else. Secondly they would all go (more) mad. Thirdly they would all interpret it differently...
However, there does seem to be some contention as to how teh SCPO interprets the laws, but that is a different issue.
That sounds very much as though the Police need only be aware of the general principals of law, but don't to know the details. So for the Police, ignorance of the law is an excuse.
It also means that they can interpret virtually as they like - you only get to be assumed innocent when you get to court. If the Police arrest you under their interpretation of the law, that means they can interpret in a very detrimental way, meaning you may well choose to admit to a lesser crime rather then trust your interpretation of the law against the polices. So, you rely on having legal advice. But that too is flawed.
Case in point - my son was arrested (hence the AC psoting so as not to incriminate him further!),. We had legal advice. He admited the offence but with mitigating circumstances and received a caution. But when it came to writing out the caution, neither the arresting officer nor the solictor could accurately state exactly which clause of the act has been broken. It was left to me, because I had downloaded the act in question and actually read it - cover to goddamn cover. The only one who had read the act was the senior evidence officer, and he was seriously worried when he realised I had as well, he really did expect me to show them why their due process was flawed.
I think it is really scary that our law enforcement officers not only don't know the details of the law that they are appointed to uphold, but can interpret it anyway they like until proven to be wrong.
Many years ago, I got busted with 2 teeny-tiny amounts of mary-joo-anna (of different types) and was charged with both "Possession of Cannabis Resin" and "Possession of Cannabis Leaf". Happily the *magistrate* was actually clued up enough to realise the Law only criminalises "Cannabis". Result : one of the charges dismissed on the spot. >Result !<
Mine's the one with...err...nothing in the pockets, ociffer
The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing-
(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is
investigating or any other offence ; and,
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the
evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.
So the evidence is the recording not the device its recorded on. So how about we just send you a copy over bluetooth rather than you nicking off with my phone. Or is that too technologically advanced for you to process?
>>"So the evidence is the recording not the device its recorded on. So how about we just send you a copy over bluetooth rather than you nicking off with my phone. Or is that too technologically advanced for you to process?"
I'd have thought it may well be rather poorer as evidence. There could be information on a memory card which is forensically useful, but which wouldn't persist if merely copying files off the card.
For example, if there are breaks in a sequence of sequential filenames, there would presumably be zero chance of trying to work out from bluetooth copies when 'missing' files may have been deleted.
(ie did you delete the last few pictures you took at lunch, and then shoot your pictures of a later altercation without deleting any of those pictures, or could the missing pictures be ones of the start of the altercation that you deleted because they showed something you'd rather you hadn't photographed.)
If multiple explanations are possible, various lawyers may well choose the ones they like best and suggest that that's what /really/ happened.
Imagine you'd taken pictures of someone apparently rouging up your mate, but there were 'missing' images from your sequence.
Then later on, it turns out that someone else had pictures which showed your mate started the fight. How do you show that you hadn't done a quick bit of editing?
The original memory card might hold enough information to show which explanation is actually what happened.
Also, if you give copies of files, and some are missing from a sequence, how do you later prove that you actually gave all the files you had at the time?
From copies, it's not even possible to be sure that missing files were actually already deleted at the time of the copying.
I dare say there are various other reasons why an original is better than a copy, but even one or two reasons could be enough for the original to be considered as the only thing worth having.
Would at least make a helmet useful.
May I borrow your camera and record the pictures you have taken, in case they are useful in an enquiry?
Yes officer, of course and if you give it back swiftly, I may record some more useful evidence, like the guy behind you that is stealing your car.
Take the camera = overzealous application of a law, just because the copper thinks it's right.
It used to be that the police were (a) courteous (b) right much more often (c) working for us (d) respected.
Not much of any of those nowadays, save perhaps a glimmer of respect, but that's only ever from us to them nowadays, sadly.
What was that they said about 'we wont misuse these laws"
Did the have their fingers crossed when they said that, again?
"It used to be that the police were (a) courteous (b) right much more often (c) working for us (d) respected."
Really? When? Before PACE? You do KNOW why that was created, right?
I think the public probably used to trust Dixon of Dock Green, but he was a fictional character. And many people probably trusted the police when they were children, and learned better as they grew up.
Other than that, I'm coming up blank.
In most countries governments not only write the rules, but they also direct the police most having some independence.
The courts interpret the legislation to set precedents for other courts AND the police to follow.
So why is this biased bunch of senior Plods allowed to usurp the function of government?
"Get the camera to spit out a 5 digit checksum (could be a compressed longer checksum) of the images on the SD. Make a note, smile pleasantly and hand over the card."
So plod deletes images, how do you prove there were images there as all you have a five digit number? I could write five digits on a piece of paper but it does not prove anything.
What is the copyright position of the images, could you tell them that you charge £xxx for the use of any of your photographs and by taking the camera they are agreeing to a contract to pay that for any that they use including in criminal investigations and prosecutions? By removing the camera from your sight then you will presume that they are used all images stored in it and so will be charging them for such use.
Why is it not possible for the police to copy images they may require and return *Our Lawful Property* to us at the local nick in a matter of minutes? If the copy is made on approved equipment at the Police premises then there is no problem with the chain of evidence surely? It means that law abiding joe public can keep hold of his camera and is more likely to offer "evidence" at any time in the future - even when the Police may not realise it exists.
It seems that over the last 15 years this bullying spiteful country has taken upon itself all sorts of powers to confiscate lawfully held items and keep them for as long as it sees fit. This is something that need reversing.
The Police work by our consent - they also need to be reminded of their duty of care to us to return any property to us within the shortest possible time.
This heavy handed approach we see now is one of the reasons that the public are less inclined to help the Police
AC cos I own a camera I use in public places
>>"Why is it not possible for the police to copy images they may require and return *Our Lawful Property* to us at the local nick in a matter of minutes? "
That might work, as long as the equipment could be totally certified to have taken perfect image copies of every last bit on the storage device.
I don't know how much such equipment would cost, though, what with the need for every machine to keep up with all possible media formats.
Presumably it'd need to have some decent security to avoid unauthorised access, and also very good backup to avoid the possibility of losing many device's worth of data with one crash
I'm sure it could be done, though I'm also sure it'd be a nice little earner for whoever got the contract to supply and update all the machines.
The film that is, not the country, this clip really captures the mood for the whole film:
Note that everyone involved is a bit busy, a bit unsympathetic but never actually evil (with the possible exception of the security guard in the Information Retrieval HQ), some of the officials are tremendously nice people in fact. This film should be required watching for anyone involved in public administration (actually, it should be required watching for anyone wishing to cast a vote).
I understand that using a Wifi equipped SD memory card, or a Wifi enabled DSLR, will enable photographers to send their pictures to a web site or external storage when they are taken. These devices should be usable with a hotspot enabled cellphone. Which means that the police can still take your camera, but not your photos.
Incidentally, Wifi options for DSLRs are expensive, but Wifi SD cards are not. Not sure how well they work though.
>>"Just have every cop in the country to lay off cameras. Completely. 100%. Take no more notice of them than shirt buttons. Forget cameras!"
So you're saying they should forget all kinds of potential evidence sources?
Maybe they should also avoid talking to people who might be witnesses, just in case someone doesn't like talking to the police?
>>"Zero. Squat. De nada."
Not least because the police know that the first time they ignore possible evidence and someone appears to get away with a crime, they'll get the blame.
More than likely with some of the people moaning the loudest being the people who the previous day would have had an entirely different idea about which absolute principles were best.
Some high end DLSRs such as the Nikon D300s can support two memory cards, an SD and a CF. You can set the camera to shoot RAW+JPEG. The raw gets put on the huge CF, the JPEG on the CF...
"Excuse me sir, I need those photographs under S19 PACE"...
"Sure, here you are... Receipt please"
-insert another SD (just in case he requires more photos under S19) and continue shooting.
You have complied with the letter of S19.
If he continually hits you with S19 until you run out of SD cards then you have probably got grounds for a harassment claim.
Just to comment on the question of what ACPO do and why.
The idea is that ACPO issue guidance so that all forces deal with things in the best and most consisten way.
So say some police force has a well polished and efficient system whereby any time a photographer has images that are required the media is seized, the photographer given a receipt, the media copied and returned to them quickly.
And in another force the whole camera is taken, bagged and held until after the court case.
Well clearly the former is preferable and achieves the objective of retrieving evidence with the minimum of disruption to the photographer. Well ACPO is responsible for finding and then disseminating best practice to all the forces.
That's the theory anyway. Laws are always so vague that SOMEONE has to interpret the best way to uphold them.
The police CAN do what they want. The important thing is, though, they have to be able to justify it. I have no problem with the poor police officer who sees a crime taking place, asks a bystander who was filming it if they'd mind letting him having a copy, and then encounters an awkward so-and-so who refuses out of principle, from then confiscating the camera anway. Most people would agree that is justified, but woe betide any officer who decides to abuse that power by attempting to confiscate arbitrary images of his own actions that he wishes hadn't been recorded. At the time, yes, he can do what he wants, but the longer term consequences for such abuse should (and I hope would) be quite severe for the officer concerned. As with everything, context and motive are all important.
" I can't see many people refusing"
You really think so? I'd be willing to bet the majority of the commenters on these last 3 articles would do exactly that out of a sense of mistrust of the police/state/world or just bloody mindedness.
The PACE amendment idea isn't a good one, and isn't needed.
First lets look at what happens to the images we're taking about.
Your (insert media type here) contains (or reasonably MIGHT contain) evidence of an offence. The police need evidence to do their job, I think most people can agree with that at least.
If you're a professional camera man for a national media organisation it's going to be fairly likely that you'll keep the footage and you or it can be found by making enquiries to your employer. So thats what the police do. All the time. Without issue. But if you are an individual, affiliated with a blog/online mag/small newspaper that ability to follow up is less certain. In either case there is the issue of continuity and integrity of the images as someone already mentioned.
So in order to reduce the risk of evidence being lost altered damaged or destroyed the police need it there and then
They can, and should, ask you for it. Variable degrees of politeness involved but be that as it may you could volunteer to provide the (media type) and get the name/number of the officer. Job done, thanks very much.
Of you could refuse, for whatever reasons seem good to you.
This presents the police with a problem as they still need the evidence.
So they have the power to seize it, there and then. Because its not possible to wait for a warrant, which would certainly be granted in the circumstances outlined already, as in the intervening time the evidence could be lost, deliberately or accidentally. You should still get the officers name or number to follow it up.
Here's what happens next: The entire contents from the media are copied intact onto a write once disk. Actually onto 2. This is done by a person who knows what they're doing. One disk is sealed and marked as an exhibit. It is never opened unless ordered by a judge. The second is used for viewing and for making further sub copies if required. The person making these disks then writes a statement to the effect of "I know what I'm doing and I made this copy which contains everything that was on the media."
At that point the media can be returned to you.
How long that takes depends on the circumstances but I seriously doubt its the only media you have and your life will end without it.
Theress nothing strange, unusual, dodgy or "new" about this process and its what happens every time cctv footage from a shop/pub/garage forecourt is used by police as evidence.
What Mz Ozimek is doing is linking this normal procedure with the more odious, seemingly persistent and patently wrong practice of police trying to prevent people taking pictures when they have no right or power to do so.
But this story isn't about that and shouldn't be linked to that. In my opinion.
Its interesting to note that if you're confrontational, difficult and uncooperative from the outset with police they may judge that there's no point in asking as you'd indignantly say no so they just go to option B.
It should be obvious that how the police treat you might be affected by how you treat them but there's a strange mentality round here that you should be able to be as abusive as you like and the police are obliged to wipe your spit off their face and call you "sir".
Given the current crap storm as reported on http://carlosmiller.com/ we are not far off from this.
The police should be told to back off from photographers completely. If they want the evidence, they can ask a copy and no more. Anything else is liable to corruption, and given what New Labour has done to the police, this is a huge risk!
>>"The police should be told to back off from photographers completely. If they want the evidence, they can ask a copy and no more."
Problem is, a copy may well not good enough, and even if it was, at a given scene, forensic-standard copying facilities and people trained to use them may well not be available.
>>"Anything else is liable to corruption, and given what New Labour has done to the police, this is a huge risk!"
Sure it is. It's not as if the police before 1997 would ever have /contemplated/ doing anything dodgy, /especially/ not covering up for a fellow officer.
If that ever happens in the future, you can reliably conclude that it's purely New Labour's fault.
I think the big problem isn't actually the law itself.
Much like the traditional Stop and Search (Section 44 Terrorism Act is no longer enforceable under EU law and constitutes a breach of Human Rights Law in UK and EU) when an officer is polite and gives a genuine reason I have no issues sumbitting to the seach.
Unfortunately, anyone who has taken photos in an urban environment will have come across the officious PC with something to prove. In this case it is very simple: Follow the Letter of the Law. Often I find that the more officious officers very rarely know which power they are using when they try to confiscate equipment or stop and search etc.
If a police officer cannot name the Act and Section under which they are carrying out a search, seizure or other such action, then the end result is simple. They cannot use that power. Likewise if they give an inaccurate reason for an action.
Recently a Police officer in my local area stopped me under Section 44 of the terrorism act and was, perhaps, the most rude and arrogant woman I'd ever met. With no smile, no Sir, and a face like thunder I politely informed her that should she continue I would be filing a private prosecution for breach of the Human Rights Act and EU convention of Human rights. Of course the officer tried the usual convincer of telling me that I was in the wrong. So I then asked for a written record of her name, warrant number and to see her warrant card before the search.
What's interesting is that upon making a complaint later at the police station from which she came, her superior officer had nothing but apologies and she's now been given a formal warning and has had to go and be 're-trained'.
The point of all this?
You can't count on the police to know the law....but if you do it gives you an advantage.
Someone said: "They should in my view endeavour to return the device intact and with nothing deleted within 24 hours of seizure; they have their evidence trail, photographer has his photos and camera back."
Well this is precisely the problem: They are a bunch of lying bastards who can't be trusted as far as you could spit a rat. And they only have themselves to blame for me and others thinking this way.
They used to complain about anyone taking any pictures and illegally harass us with dubious stop and search laws they promised would only be used for counter-terrorism. Now they want the pictures we have taken to help them do their jobs!
After the way they have treated photographers of late, why does this government sponsored, duplicitous, self-serving, power-fetish bunch think we'd be willing to help in any way whatsoever?
I'm spoiling for a fight and they'd have to arrest me to get anything even remotely resembling co-operation.
>>"...Now they want the pictures we have taken to help them do their jobs!"
Though, to be fair, 'their jobs' are really the things we pay them to do and expect them to do, for the benefit of everyone, like investigating crimes and catching criminals.
Even if some of them do act like arseholes the same way that some non-police officers do, that's a pretty lame reason for balking at actually helping /any/ of them do the things that they're supposed to be doing.
There are crooks in the general population, but that's no reason for concluding that the general population is 'a bunch of lying bastards who can't be trusted' and treating everyone accordingly.
>>"I'm spoiling for a fight and they'd have to arrest me to get anything even remotely resembling co-operation."
And then, no doubt, you'd whine loudly about being arrested.
Because the police would be entirely to blame for /that/ as well.
I drive for a living and as recently as yesterday I was parked taking a break when some sort of police raid seemed to be happening at a house right under my very nose. I always carry a very small digital camera but, in view of all the reports of harassing, I thought twice about using it and eventually decided against it. In the past, I always carried a conventional film camera and photographed several local scoops and incidents that afterwards appeared in the local paper (and paid for, I might add!) but those days seem to be gone.
ahem. have these 4 video cameras been temporarily confiscated?
caption: one of the 4 cameras used to photograph UK's second largest MI-5 base
Quoting from today's Belfast Telegraph
"..But well placed sources in Belfast insisted the cameras were discovered and said the find was embarrassing for MI-5 which employs more than 300 people at the base. “There were four cameras hidden in the trees at the back of Palace Barracks which covered all angles of the base,” said an insider. “That is why all the perfectly healthy trees were chopped down instead of just erecting the fence. That measure showed how concerned MI-5 was by what dissidents were doing and by the atrocity they seemed to be planning. “The cameras were battery-powered and had been there for some time, maybe months. “They were also backed-up with memory sticks.”"
Use something like a mobile phone running Android, upload your pics to, say Picasa (for user-ease; of course a savvy geek will upload them where (s)he likes..).
If plod nicks your 'phone - (most of) your pics are safe, being already hosted elsewhere. They can destroy what they like after that, it's too late :)
This technique has been effective for years in undercover/violent/war-zone frontline situations for TV crews (wireless signal to upload-truck).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022