Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

I agree there is plenty of opportunities for misuse.
And where in London will you be, I have got to see these picture of your gf.....

He he. No worries. I appreciate your interest in my (hypothetical) photos .

Just done some checking, because a camera use a portable storage device(SD card, CF card e.c.t.) it would come under a computer. Hope that clears that up.
But I don't know about the ones that only have internal memory, that begs a question.

Where does the new information leave film cameras. Are films a "portable storage device"? If not that's a mess!

That's where I'm getting confused, I'm trying to find the defined answer on that. But when I'm going through all my law stuff, film doesn't seem to get mentioned, except under the child protection act. And then it's only under the powers to seize and collect evidence, which is a subsection.

But instead of film the word photo or even better record can be used and that applies to every type of recording even those that needs to be made or that are on USb-stick, DVD's, blu-rays, holographic discs, printed, painted you named it.

So I don't see the point of arguing that a camera is a computer will change that fact?
Sorry if I miss the point

Surely the issue here is not what constitutes a computer, rather is it going to be possible to use this legislation against us. With it's vagueries, I suspect it could.

It doesn't matter what classifaction it comes under, they can't force you to remove the images. It isn't up to you as a photographer to prove your doing nothing wrong, it up to me as a professional police officer to prove your breaking the law.

Here is a copy of the Terrorism Act that covers photographers,
58.
Collection of information.
— (1) A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(5) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order the forfeiture of any document or record containing information of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(6) Before making an order under subsection (5) a court must give an opportunity to be heard to any person, other than the convicted person, who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested in anything which can be forfeited under that subsection.
(7) An order under subsection (5) shall not come into force until there is no further possibility of it being varied, or set aside, on appeal (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time).

And this is the 2006 act,
The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.

As you can see, at no point does it give me the power to make you remove the image.The only power it gives me is under Section 44 of the stop and search act the power to ask to view your photos if I belive you to be in the process of carry out an offence, or planning to carry out an offence.

No but I already have said that.
And if the police officer force you to remove them he is guilty of destroying evidence, if it truly is a terrorism act.

btw do you have a link to your act since I couldn't find anything you have in the one I had
I used www.opsi.gov.uk or isn't that the official one?

That information was taken from my paperwork from work, I'll see if I can find a link for you, as we have a web service that provides us with all the same information but in an on-line format.

The whole issue of cameras being computers is a non-starter, BTW. The Misuse of Computers Act was never designed for the application suggested, nor will it ever be used or interpreted in that way.

Anvh here's your link.

Ray

I think this is starting to stray from the point, so to get back to what is a computer.

Surely if your computer is stolen and you say to a friend "my computer has been stolen" then they are not going to think you mean your camera. They know full well what your computer is.

They might ask "desktop or laptop?" but they will know what we all mean by a computer.

I take my powers seriously as well, thats why if a training course comes up I go on it. But I would also like to think of myself as fair as well. So I hope your not counting me in those figures of dumb coppers.
I also think alot of the new breed of officer are what I call power mad, common sense tends to go out of the window now. In 17 years I have seen standards slip.

Sorry John, I was just trying to show that you don't need to use the Computer Misuse Act 1990. to protect yourself, and show that you don't need to remove images under any of the acts if asked to do so, because your not breaking the law. And if you was breaking the Law the pictures would be needed for evidence, so you still wouldn't need to remove but keep.