Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Ray that is indeed the link I had in my comment, I don't see what your point is, sorry?

John that was not the original topic as I see it.

I believe the OP is trying to come out under some laws that applies to photo cameras by saying that his DSLR is a computer, all we are trying to say is that the law is not focused on the camera but on the photos them self so that it wouldn't matter if your DSLR is classified as a computer or not, since it's the photos that matter not the device.

but it does, I am not familiar with the act in question but my understanding of what the OP said implies that the act creates an offence to do with the destruction of data stored on a computer.

If you could classify a DSLR as a computer for the purpose of that act (TBH I think it would come down to who had the better lawyer as to which way that went) then the photos would be documents stored on a computer and an unlawful attempt to delete them would be in breach of the act.

the logic is flawless, but it hinges on the definition of "computer".

But the data is not stored on the computer or DSLR but on an storage device.

This seems an interesting conversation, and I find myself agreeing with the 'if it computes, it's a computer' camp.

Anything with processors can process anything you ask of it, you could program a DSLR to do spreadsheets if you wanted to as an example.

A better example would be perhaps the PS3, you can install Linux on it, plug in a keyboard and a mouse, removable storage etc. and you have a powerful computer that can go online, surf the web, send e-mails, watch iPlayer, record and watch TV channels play Blu Ray and many other types of media, I can plug my K20 / K-7 into it and import and manipulate my photos and HD videos and anything else that other computers do.

Now just suppose that the next major terrorist act was organised with PS3s via the web, e-mail, instant messaging, heck even chatting whilst playing a game on line, could they get away with saying 'but it's not a computer, it's a games machine!'

In that example you could do all of that without a keyboard, no problem. Does this mean it's not a computer? Does it need a keyboard to be able to misuse it?

Is my iPhone a portable computer with a phone in it, or, is a phone that can surf the web, send and receive e-mails, play games, run spreadsheets and word processors, process image manipulation and run over 85,000 different applications not a computer?

In these 2 examples, most would probably argue that they are computers, some would not, but the question is, how would you define it in these 2 examples, and more importantly, how would they be interpreted under law?

So in my eyes, anything that can compute is a computer, and any computer can be misused, seems simple really.

The same is true of the data on my dad's 2GB eee PC, the internal storage is too small to be useful so it runs off an 8GB SDHC card (which would work equally well in a K10D).

I don't think an arguement that an eeePC is not a computer would hold much water do you?

Also the act refers to the "contents" of a computer. The card is contained within the device being considered as a computer, therefore the entire card constitutes contents.

interestingly, if you can call a DSLR a computer for the purpose of this act then under section 3 subsection 6 (I've always wanted to say that!) destruction of data stored within a DSLR would explicitly NOT be criminal damage.

The computer misuse act came to life in 1990 and it is there to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes.

A DSLR use computer material and there for falls under the act I can not see any reasons why not.

Now secondly for unlocker there is nothing against using a computer or any other device (except nuclear) to support a terrorist act but there is something about supporting terrorist.

But besides all this, I don't think there is a law that allows a police officer to destroy someone property because that is what photos are.

That's because you don't choose to see why not. A DSLR is not a computer for the purpose of, or within the spirit of, the Act. It simply isn't and you just need to accept that.

It doesn't need a test case to establish something generally regarded as fact, but I suspect that this will rumble on until that happens. Until then, it's all just wild speculation.

Ray

True, but the point is that technology moves on at a far greater pace than laws do, and convergence is happening at a constant pace, just look at video in DSLRs, a major bone of contention for many here, yet for some the cheapest way by far to get certain effects.

Will the new 1Dmk4 and D3s be banned from football grounds for example, as photographers will not have the rights to film anything etc. The way we are defining a camera is changing, just as the way we are defining 'computers' is changing

Defining something will definately be the defining thing in the future!

Given the lack of a definition within the act, it is impossible no mater how emphatic people get, to to say whether this could be uesd against a photographer.

Fact - your digital camera contains an application specific processor (probably a complex programmable logic device) with peripherals and embedded firmware. Does that constitute a computer? I would have said yes, but I cannot speak with authority on the legal definition. Having read the act, it does not strike me as being aimed at photographers.

One thought - I suspect American tax law was not put in place with the primary intent of bringing gangsters down.

Worked on Al Capone though.

The law is all about precedent and wording, the danger of legislation that does not properly define the terms involved is vast, and has been used and abused by those on both sides of the law for years.

If such a case came to court, and if a judge could be convinced by counsel for or against the point, then a precendent will be set by that case, regardless of the 'intent' of the law.

Sometimes, this has done to prove a point, resulting in new legislation to define the terms involved.

As said earlier, the big problem is the world moves faster then the law, and terms and definitions designed for a different time can now be applied to the current situation.

As someone who has been involved as a para-legal (researcher) for a large company's legal team involved in Copyright and Intellectual Property law, I can assure you that entire cases have hinged on such definitions, despite whatever the intent of the legslation may have been. It wouldn't have been the intent of IP law to force Copyright and Trademark owners to have to police eBay looking for people using their trademarks on some innoccous auction, but the wording of the law requires it, lest it set a precedent, as the IP owner must be seen to be aggressively protecting their rights or risk losing them.

This means that the OPs question about whether a Camera counts as a Computer or not is not clear cut, and, as stated earlier, will only be decided if such a situation came before a judge, and a legal precedent is set.

It is, to coin a phrase, a legal minefield.

The Civil Contingencies Act permits the police to do pretty much anything they like, without any consequences. They can bulldoze your house (Well, not yours maybe. That would possibly be construed as a hostile act against another country.) But the could, in UK, turn you out of your house with two minutes notice, bulldoze it, thank you for your cooperation, and walk off leaving you looking at the rubble. They would not have to pay a penny in compensation either.

Okay then it is not, I'm very simple with that.
Do you know a law that allows a police officer to destroy your property then?
If no, then does it really matter a DSLR is not a computer?

I don't see the point where we want to be going with this?

Beside that act and without having the situations that act is based on?

But one that started a great conversation

Sdeve, you need to go back and read the Civil contingencies Act 2004 again. Because I'll tell you this for nothing it does not give a police officer the powers you mention. If you have a beef with the police that's you problem, with a comment such as that, thats what I would belive. Because I'll tell you this as fact the Human Rights Act would null and void any act that gave me them powers that you mention!!!!!!