All Forum Comments
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 22:24
johnriley wrote:
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.
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.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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 16:06
Argee wrote:
What happened to personal responsibility for your own training and keeping up-to-date? Of course there are "dumb coppers" out there, just as there are less aware people in all walks of life. The police service is a cross-section of society, but the public expect more of them - naturally, given the additional powers they're responsible for undertaking.
In my 30 years - mostly, but not exclusively, in uniform - I took my powers very seriously and I'm pleased to say that I never had a decision I made overturned. I'm obviously not unique in that, but it doesn't come with the uniform - you have to work at it.
The advent of PCSOs has shown how the service has succumbed to a dumbing-down in real terms, providing much less of a service in general and much reduced quality and quantity of worthwhile training. It's all money-related, of course, but "dumb coppers" are - as a result - becoming ever more prevalent.
Rant over!
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 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. PentaxRocks wrote:
That's the problem, most officers only know about any changes in the law when we get our pre-patrol brief .... Being a policeman myself I will say there are some dumb coppers out there.
Amazing! Here's the almost-obligatory, head-in-the-sand attitude of "Not my fault - I didn't get the training" which is so virulent in society today.That's the problem, most officers only know about any changes in the law when we get our pre-patrol brief .... Being a policeman myself I will say there are some dumb coppers out there.
What happened to personal responsibility for your own training and keeping up-to-date? Of course there are "dumb coppers" out there, just as there are less aware people in all walks of life. The police service is a cross-section of society, but the public expect more of them - naturally, given the additional powers they're responsible for undertaking.
In my 30 years - mostly, but not exclusively, in uniform - I took my powers very seriously and I'm pleased to say that I never had a decision I made overturned. I'm obviously not unique in that, but it doesn't come with the uniform - you have to work at it.
The advent of PCSOs has shown how the service has succumbed to a dumbing-down in real terms, providing much less of a service in general and much reduced quality and quantity of worthwhile training. It's all money-related, of course, but "dumb coppers" are - as a result - becoming ever more prevalent.
Rant over!
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 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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 15:55
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 14:33
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.
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 14:05
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 13:21
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 11:21
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.
But I don't know about the ones that only have internal memory, that begs a question.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 11:10
Joe S wrote:
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 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 and still have the pictures stored :blush Explaining this to you you proceed (at this point 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.
I agree there is plenty of opportunities for misuse.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 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 and still have the pictures stored :blush Explaining this to you you proceed (at this point 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.
And where in London will you be, I have got to see these picture of your gf.....
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 10:56
Hardgravity wrote:
That's the problem, most officers only know about any changes in the law when we get our pre-patrol brief.PentaxRocks wrote:
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.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.
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 10:53
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.