Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

PentaxRocks.

I deduce several things from yourt post. First, you are a police officer. Second, you suggest that I have a 'beef' with the police because I might criticise bad behaviour on their part. Being dissatisfied with bad behaviour of the police, whether the entity, or the behaviour of individuals is not a 'beef' with the police, but a legitimate response to that bad behaviour. Thirdly, the act that needs reading by you and not I, is not the Civil contingencies Act 2004, but the Human Rights Act 1998, 2000, and 2004, which allows for extreme measures in emergencies (Including capital punishment). The Civil contingencies Act, being made after the Human Rights Act, will no doubt have been made with the Human Rights Acts in mind.

I think we might be heading a little off topic here guys

If you go back over this topic you will find I have stated I'm a police officer, you will also find that I have stated several times what the powers are, and also what I think of some of my fellow officers who abuse their powers. But you will also find that I have said no police officer can force you to remove images from your camera.
But at the same time I belive if you are going to use acts as a case to prove your points, you need to get your facts straight. Civil contingencies Act 2004 does not give me any of the powers you mention.

Time to calm down this discussion, there's no need for any of us to get annoyed.

Keep it civil please.

No chance of a realistic example of these alleged draconian powers, I suppose?

Ray

Anyway......


I still tihnk my camera is a form of computer

So is your brain!!!!! My internal computer is starting to fail with old age!!!!!

Mine failed some years ago. It must have been running the beta version of Vista as it never successfully made it out of testing

as far as any meaningful technical deffinition goes, it undeniably is an example of a programable electronic computer optimised to perform a specific task.

Whether it would be considered such for legal purposes I still believe would come down to who paid the most for their lawyer.



as an aside, I would like to thank PentaxRocks for having the courage to give us the police officers view of matters pertaining to photography. There is a significant proportion of the public in this country which believes all coppers are nutjobs on a power trip and it's nice to see someone proving that view to be incorrect. It's also nice to know from someone who's job it is to know police powers inside out that those powers do not include the erasure of photographs, no matter what the occasional underinformed beat copper may think.

Couldn't have said it better myself

I THINK terrorist act is only in force when u take photos of govt. institutions/buildings/objects/subjects.
Historic/public/museums/ are all non-terrorists acts and taking photos in Cinema is piracy.... whereby u will be prosecuted.

Since any location could be a terrorist target there is probably a case where you can be stopped by the police pretty much anywhere.

Having said this I have not seen any law that will allow anyone to delete images from your camera. There are many good reasons why listed in the thread already. Not least, without scrubbing the residual memory from the card you can nip home and restore/recover the image. A pointless act to simply delete the image.

Responding in a civil fashion will probably get you a long way.

Having a copy of the photographers rights PDF in your camera case (folded A4) http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ will help you with your informed responses to the police.

BJP is on the case at the moment http://www.not-a-crime.com/

Also http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographing-protests.html

( I have assumed we are in the UK? )

Read the act. The powers I refer to have not yet been used, although I believe that many others have been. This doesn't mean that the act wasn't passed, or that the powers cannot be used.

Still, here's a clue for you. An extract from the act. I've highlighted some of the more jolly ones.

22
Scope of emergency regulations .(1)
Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made. .
(2)
In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of— .
(a) protecting human life, health or safety, .
(b) treating human illness or injury, .
(c) protecting or restoring property, .
(d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, .
(e) protecting or restoring a system of communication, .
(f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport, .
(g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health, .
(h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions, .
(i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air, .
(j) preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life, .
(k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or .
(l) protecting or restoring the performance of public functions. .
(3) Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may— .
(a) confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be— .
(i) a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion; .
(ii)a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral); .
(b) provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation); .
(c) provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation); .
(d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place; .
(e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place; .
(f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times; .
(g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times; .
(h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;

I think a lot of people in Iraq would jump at the chance of a system like that.

All of this by a duly elected government. Welcome to democracy...

I am as concerned as anybody about the erosion of our freedoms, a process that has accelerated in recent years. However, this statement is misleading in several ways:

"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."

First, a policeman does NOT generally have the powers you refer to. Those powers are only given to police in cases of emergency, which you have conveniently omitted to mention.

And they never have powers "to do pretty much anything they like, without any consequences". They are ALWAYS accountable.

It is also untrue to say they would not have to pay you a penny of compensation. The Act says "with OR without compensation", and I should expect that compensation normally would be paid if the owner had not contributed to the problem.

We have big problems in the UK with regard to individual freedom, but it doesn't help anybody (except those trying to remove our freedoms) for people to exaggerate and misrepresent the facts.

G