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

On 2009-03-30 19:10:07 -0700, frank said:

On Mar 30, 8:07*pm, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-03-30 16:58:07 -0700, "Stormin Mormon"
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..._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

"J. Clarke" 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

nospam wrote:
In article , Bob
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

In article , Martin Brown
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?

nospam wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
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?

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.

In article ,
lid says...
-:In article , Bob
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
-therwise be needed.

wrong. Ignorance is expensive.

Ron Hunter wrote:
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.

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.

Colin.D wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
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.

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.


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

Neil Jones wrote:
Colin.D wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
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.

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.


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?

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.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:10:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Neil Jones wrote:
Colin.D wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
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.

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.


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?

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.

You're assuming that there's something in the photographs that would
reflect badly on Robby (the officer in question). There's no
indication of that.

A person who was being arrested on a drug charge was manhandled and
that was being photographed. There's no reason to assume that Robby
was involved with that. According to our retired policeman in this
newsgroup, Robby - as a member of a drug task force - would not have
been the arresting officer.

I used the word "manhandled", but this was an arrest of a druggie in
the projects. There's no indication that the arrestee's demeanor did
not require that. It wasn't mentioned if the guy was high, putting up
a fight, or just not getting to the ground quickly enough.

I related this incident as I heard it in a casual conversation. Had I
known that it would have received this much attention, I would have
asked Robby some questions and been able to present a more accurate
picture.

Questions like: Was the person with the camera a bystander who was
just standing by quietly, or was the person pushing into the scene
aggressively? Was the person warned sufficiently that he was not to
take photographs? (Whether or not you think it a warning was
deserved, this would make a difference in Bobby's reaction)

What was the general nature of the situation, and were things getting
out-of-hand or was it a fairly routine bust? Did Bobby, in
retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did he feel
that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his authority.

I didn't ask any of those questions. The conversation was more on the
subject of the difficulty of photographing basking alligators on the
Econolatchee River banks. (They sense you coming and slide into the
water). The arrest incident was a very minor part of the
conversation.

Robby's a big, kind of soft-spoken, guy who doesn't seem to me to be
the cowboy type. However, I have no idea what he's like on the job on
in stress situations.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida