Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right

On 2009-03-29 19:44:15 -0700, nospam said:

In article , tony cooper
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.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2009-03-29 23:38:05 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:14:45 -0700, Savageduck
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.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2009-03-29 18:56:11 -0700, Bob Larter said:

Nicko wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, tony cooper 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.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In message
2009033009485275249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, C J
Campbell writes
On 2009-03-30 01:16:28 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper
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. 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

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

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 Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

George Kerby wrote:


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

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:29:46 -0500, "HEMI-Powered"
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.

In article , tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says...
-:On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
-: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?

In article , Martin Brown
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.

In article , Chris H
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.

nospam wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
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.
ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.