Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

A very pertinent point. (Translates. One I hadn't thought of)

Yes you're right but I think Oggy has cleared that up quite well or does someone disagree with him?
Not that that gives me the freedom to go off topic though.

Although the OP also talked about removing photos from a camera and I reacted on that.

I don't think you'd get very far in a court of law with that argument.

G

The logical fallacy here is easily demonstrated.

We can agree, I think, that "A computer is something that computes". Likewise, a horse is an animal that breathes. However, I doubt if you would argue that every animal that breathes is a horse.

From this, it follows that not everything that computes is a computer.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Next, please.

G

"Affirmative, Will Robinson....."

Ihave 2 mobile computers that i take out regulerly, both can "crunch numbers", e-mail and take photos.

One is my mobile phone, the other a Nintendo DSi.

I don't get stopped by the police for using my phone when shopping, so why should I get stopped with a camera?

After all the camera has the image there, my phone can send it, via the internet to my home address.

Computers? terrorist act?

My brain hurts...

I prefer the definition that a computer is a machine which manipulates data according to a programmed set of instructions. A programmable computer is one in which those instructions can be determined ( programmed ) by an operator.

After all, the Babbage machine ( Difference engine ), is said to be the first analytical computer, as it could analyse an input and give an output. Although it could never send emails or surf the net and was a mechanical device.

Surely that is what a camera does? The input method is a CCD chip. The processor inside the camera ( which is more powerful than the processors in the computers I used to do my City & Guilds), then processes the image and the output is saved to a storage device.

I definitely think the term computer has a much wider meaning than the PC or Laptop. What about the computers in our cars to keep the engine going ( bring back the good old days of points and carburettors! )
The computers in our homes to record TV or playback Digital Versatile Discs?


I agree the act was probably written with PCs etc in mind, but if they are not defined in the act (yet another example of bad legislation), then I think it could stand up in court...it would be an interesting one.

Aren't we messing up in not making a distinction between a function of the thing (taking pictures) and the means by which that function is carried out (processing of digital numbers)? Only somebody slightly autistic would begin explaining a digital camera to an Aboriginal who had never seen one before by explaining what goes on in the electrical circuits and so on.

Absolutely Joe! Most Judges (in an English court anyway) would likely take a very dim view if someone tried to argue that their camera is actually a computer. In the higher courts especially considerable weight is given to the intent of a statute rather than quibbling about its grammar.

But, surely the law has to be clearly defined?
Otherwise you'd end up with councils using laws which claim to be about anti-terrorism, to (let's say) spy on people applying for a good school.

Oh..that already happened

Also, how do you define the function of a modern computer? They have so many functions, the only common factor is that they "number crunch" in order to achieve their function.

All this idle speculation about what might or might not be a computer in terms of this act is pointless - only a Court of Law can determine that question, if there is no definition in the act.

I wonder if there have there been any cases prosecuted under this act, in which the question has been considered?

As a police officer, I can state I have no legal right to demand you to remove any images from you camera.
But I do have the legal right if I belive you actions to be questionable or suspicious to ask if I can inspect you images under the PACE, I would then have to provided you with a form that states I have carried out a search and my reasons for doing it.
But the only way I can seize any photographic equipment is if I'm arresting you, and need the said photographic equipment as evidence.

It's a shame not all officers of the law are familiar with PACE, it would save a lot of trouble on all sides.

Ted. I'm not from UK so the example you a mentioning doen't ring a bell with me.

What a computer is is hard to define. For instance in my country a (personal) computer is now a media that requires a media tax (replacing an original tax for watching national tv - point is, money goes into one box so tv stations etc. are independent from the mercy of politicians). So in some uses a computer is a media. In others it is still a tool - that would be computers running at universities with no Windows/Linux installed but a basic operating system allowing for number crunching of the movement of planets.

PentaxRocks. Pretend I'm visiting London and you approach me while I'm taking pictures at some photographic hotspot. Say, earlier that day I were doing some shooting involving me and my GF in certain situations and still have the pictures stored :blush Explaining this to you you proceed (at this point mostly intersted in what my gf looks like naked) and insist on watching my pictures. There's not really any legitimate reason I could give to you in order to protect me and my gf from your violation of my right to privacy?!

You know the law, but it seems to me there's still plenty of opportunities for misuse.

That's the problem, most officers only know about any changes in the law when we get our pre-patrol brief.
Even under anti-terror laws, I still have to use PACE as my prime means of evidence collation.
I never understand these officers who do seize stuff without arresting the person(because they don't understand the law and what they can and can't do.). What's to say the person hasn't given me false details. They have all the evidence they need, but the person will get away with it as you don't know who he is, and you let him go.
Being a policeman myself I will say there are some dumb coppers out there.