Another Camera Seized

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...


Dudley,
You sound like a person I wouldn't want to know. Your confrontational
attitude, and tendency to do really stupid things (hitting a cop) will
likely keep your life very interesting. I hope that you have learned to
be less pugnacious as you have gotten older.
I suspect that in this area, you would still be sitting in prison,
wondering how you got there.

Without wanting to appear overly dramatic, you might want to keep in mind
that I had been diagnosed at the age of 14 with a condition that would
result in a slow, permanent, and complete loss of vision. I was highly
graphical, and had been taking pictures of top-shelf rock bands since the
age of 18. How many 18 year old photographers do you know who were allowed
backstage to shoot (unsupervised) Supertramp, Trooper, Peter Frampton, Eddie
Money, Heart, etc...??

Also, I was racing my Mustang with only about 10% normal vision without
having an accident.

At the age of 22, my vision deteriorated to the point of no-return, and I
had to give up my license, and I went into a rather hazy stage of drug and
alcohol use in order to cope with the depression. There were a few rather
fuzzy years about that time, and I didn't pull out of it until I met my
wife-to-be at around 28, which is when I started getting my life back on
track.

Did I have a "chip on my shoulder," as has been suggested? Yeah, probably,
but I think most psychologists would think that normal for the
circumstances.

Did I rather tenaciously pursue my rights, more so than Mr. or Ms. Average
Joe(sephine)? Probably, and I still do because able-bodied people
continually trample them. A right is only a right when it is granted by
others, or defended by the claiming party. Hence, I have learned that, if I
want to pursue happiness, as most North Americans like to do, I sometimes
have to beat my way through a rather callused crowd. I think you will find
this sentiment rather wide-spread in any disabled community -- especially
when dealing with the more highly motivated members of those communities.

Take Care,
Dudley

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message gSQCl.21933$PH1.3321@edtnps82, Dudley Hanks
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
...

There is no shortage of video footage / still shots showing the Boys in
Blue
at their worst;

Sadly true

as is there many more instances of their heroic efforts.

Yes but not usually on film. Whilst most of the bad behaviour is caught
often the good side is missed. But that's life.

Coming from a family which has produced a few law enforcement officers and
military servicemen, my sympathies ultimately coincide with the LEO's.

I prefer an objective view despite having served in the military myself
(and in civilian riot situations)

Given the heated nature of most encounters where the imperitives of the
investigation meet the necessity of transparency, one would hope cooler
heads prevail, and quickly.

I hope so but a cover up will only makes things worse.

But, as I've noted before, every now and then
an incident pops up and deliberate, assertive effort must be directed
toward
protecting our hard-won civil liberties, regardless of whether one is from
Canada, the States or Europe.

Why just there? Anywhere in the world.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




Because I think these are the countries that most take their rights for
granted...

Take Care,
Dudley

Chris H wrote:
In message , Chris H
writes
In message , Martin Brown
writes
Chris H wrote:

The police may want to secure the evidence chain in case there are
important images on the camera.

True. On the other hand they may want them so there are no awkward
photos in the press. In the case in this thread they had shot at some
one.

Yes. OTOH he seemed to have been a real threat from the other
descriptions of the events leading up to the shooting.

Digital images are much easier to fake than classical film so there
is good reason for them to want to keep them closely watched until
they are sure there is no important evidence on them.

That is one reason there are others for the more cynical.

And right on cue from the UK counter terrorist NG

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm

A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a
police officer, video footage has shown.

Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside
the Bank of England last Wednesday.

Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a
two-handed push from a police officer.

And according to the slow motion replay a whack from a baton to the back
of his legs too. UK policing by consent seems to be disappearing. They
should be had for that unprovoked attack on an innocent bystander trying
to make his way home. The video of this assault should obtain justice
for him with any luck.

A New York fund manager recorded the footage, saying he came forward
with the video because Mr Tomlinson's family "were not getting any
answers".

No wonder the police don't like to be filmed!

I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names
and other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how
we are made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm

It isn't the first time a visitor to No 10 has had documents captured by
a long lens. And it is one thing for a hapless minister to be caught
out, but quite another for a supposedly highly trained anti-terrorist
officer. Clueless is as clueless does. Accident prone is the kindest
thing that any of the major political parties has said about him so far.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote

I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names and
other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how we are
made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm

Silly man, no bonus for you this year.

OK, hands up all those that followed the link, saved the photo to disk and
tried to manipulate it in an editor to read what was on the paper! Damn near
works, too..

And how about this line from the article:

"Students said they heard police shouting at two suspects as they were
advised over the library loudspeaker to stay away from the windows for their
own safety."

Amazing the building didn't tilt!

Paul

"Chris H" wrote

I like the WiFi idea because you can transmit the pictures back to a
laptop a friend has set up in a cafe. That will be difficult to spot as
most cafes are full of people using laptops... at least in UK cites they
are.


Which also raises the question of mobile phone cameras - increasingly used
by bystanders to snap 'happening' news. While the picture would exist on the
phone SIM card, it could also be transmitted anywhere in the world before
the instrument could be seized.

Technology is making damage control harder to achieve...

Paul

Paul Bartram wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote

I think todays MFU tops that. The UK's police anti-terrorism supremo
photographed carrying a secret document into Downing Street with names and
other key threat details clearly legible. It is hard to imagine how we are
made safer by having someone as careless as that in charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7990719.stm

Silly man, no bonus for you this year.

Very possibly no job either. It will be extremely annoying if they have
arrested the alleged terrorist cell too soon to get a conviction.

OK, hands up all those that followed the link, saved the photo to disk and
tried to manipulate it in an editor to read what was on the paper! Damn near
works, too..

Not enough resolution in that small single frame image.

But given a full sequence of the doctored images I reckon I might be
able to reconstruct it from the TV broadcast video stream given enough
processing power and time. However, there is a D-notice in force.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

Or, maybe it'll take a photog with the guts to say, "Keep your
hands off my camera!" and, do a bit of cell time to prove the
point.

In all cases like these, the first question that comes to my mind
is, why seize the camera? Or are cops too dumb to know that the
images are on a tiny card, not the camera itself?

Some cameras have inbuilt memory storage.


The cops have the right to ask for evidence.

Cops in plural rather than just the individual that's an important point.

If you're a reasonable person then you should be willing to provide it,
after all, somebody is _dead_ and the person responsible needs to be
brought to justice.
Suppose it's the cop that caused or did the actual murder.

That being the case,
anything that you can do to help the investigation is worthwhile. Don't
get so caught up in defending your rights that you lose sight of the big
picture.

yes in that lots of peole should have acces to the evidence picture in this
case.


If you absolutely positively don't want to give up control of the images,
then tell the cop that you're perfectly willing to let the department make
a copy as long as you don't give up control, and if he's not sure of the
procedure for that then ask him to call his supervisor. They should
either be able to make a copy on scene or at the station.

Porbbaly the best idea, do the laws of copyright change if you've
photographed
an illegal act taking place.


Remember also that they have a responsibility to maintain the chain of
evidence--that means that the images have to be under their control from
the time they became aware of them on--that means that if they don't have
the camera in their possession then they need to have you with the camera
in their possession until the copies are made.

Seems reasonable, in that case that should insist that you hand the images
over
to any individual obviously that's not a law just a precaution.


As a working journalist you also have a responsibility to maintain control
of _your_ chain of evidence--put it in those terms and any cop should be
able to understand the problem.

Also note that what the cops can and cannot seize depends on the
applicable statutes which vary from state to state and outside the US from
country to country.

There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
many cameras are about.
Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
authoritive
figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
wants/needs them.

"TonyCooper" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400, jls wrote:


I have to say that I am distressed at how little value some people are
placing on our liberties and rights.

I am also distressed at how little value some people place on common
decency and the feelings of others.

Much is discussed in this forum on the rights of the photographer,

Must be something related to the name of the group

but
little is discussed on the wrongs of the photographer. Not the
professional photographer who is employed to capture news,
So they can do no wrong ?

but the
citizen who carries a camera and feels he has the right to capture
anything he sees.

For me that would depend on why I shouldn;t have the right to photograph
what I see.


Drive by a bad wreck sometime and you will see some bozo with a camera
photographing the scene and the people in it.
Here in the UK I often see billboards from the police asking for witnesses
to an accident.

If I'm a victim in an
accident, I don't want that guy photographing me lying there in a pool
of blood. Whether I'm in a public or private place, I don't feel he
has a right to gawk and photograph. If he isn't there to help, he
should get the hell away.
I guess I agree, but if the pictures can be used as evidence that you
weren't
responsible for the accident or they can be used as proof to back up
an insurance claim, would it be OK if it were a professional photographer
but
not an amateur one.

Same with a slip-and-fall accident. It's one thing to take a
photograph in order to provide the victim with some documentation of
the conditions, but quite different if the photograph goes up on
Flickr as a "funny" image of someone ass-over-teakettle in an awkward
and embarassing position.

Even worse if they send it off and make some money out of it.

I like "street photography" and I do it. But, if anyone sees me
taking a picture of them and objects to me doing so, I'll delete the
image in a heartbeat. I don't feel I have a right not to.

Normally I'd agree but if that person was breaking and entering, or doing
something
else that's I thought they shouldn't I would disagree.

In message grklcd$g8b$1@qmul, whisky-dave
writes
There'as an interesting situation in London during G20 where a 48 year-old
man was pushed to the ground by a policeman and has since died.
What I can't understand is where all the CCTV footage is considering how
many cameras are about.

Now that crossed my mind. As the event took place at an intersection in
an open area there must have been several cameras not to mention
building Security CCTV and other people who captured it.

Now just suppose you had a picture(s) of this incident would you have to
had over the images to the policeman or should you wait until there is an
authoritive
figure on the scene who'll distribute those picture(s) to everyone that
wants/needs them.

When you say "everyone who wants/need them" does that include competing
newspapers, TV and magazines etc...

No. You back up the photos to the lap top or storage device. Many press
people have the laptop in the car/bag or a mobile storage device and
only give the pictures ot the Police for a receipt. As evidence

Many people trip, fall or are pushed (either by accident or intent by
their own side or the ether side) many times in a demonstration so not
all incidents are photographed and no one at the time realised the
significance of the incident. He got up and walked off.


BTW what is significant the, to my mind, somewhat stunned reaction of
the officers colleagues. I think they thought he had overstepped the
mark.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Martin Brown
writes
However, there is a D-notice in force.

Really? Do you know that for a fact?
I thought that system had long since got to be replaced by something
less formal.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/