All Forum Comments
Well said Ben. And thats all I have to say on the matter.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Photo Forums...The Gladiators at 28/10/2009 - 16:15
K10D wrote:
Don't worry I did before.......earldavison wrote:
Why all the fuss - comuters/ cameras/ police have rights/ no rights.
If anybody makes you delete photographs from your camera card - OK. Take the card home - run Photorecovery and BINGO photos back. The police, in this case, don't seem to know, that, when a photo is deleted on a card it remains there until such time as the card runs out of space and only then will the next photo taken overwrite a deleted one. I'v had to use Photorecovery a couple of times when I inadvetantly deleted photos. It was scary what Photorecovery got back.
Earl
They do now....Why all the fuss - comuters/ cameras/ police have rights/ no rights.
If anybody makes you delete photographs from your camera card - OK. Take the card home - run Photorecovery and BINGO photos back. The police, in this case, don't seem to know, that, when a photo is deleted on a card it remains there until such time as the card runs out of space and only then will the next photo taken overwrite a deleted one. I'v had to use Photorecovery a couple of times when I inadvetantly deleted photos. It was scary what Photorecovery got back.
Earl
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 24/10/2009 - 14:26
PM Sent
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on For sale - Pentax Accessories at 24/10/2009 - 10:32
I prefer the look of the colour, it just seems to give me a better sense of depth, plus it tells me more of story. If that last bit makes sense.....
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Black and White or Colour at 23/10/2009 - 14:39
I love my Pentax DSLR, but I draw a line. WHY WHY WHY would anyone do that!!!!
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Pentaxian, but are you dedicated? at 22/10/2009 - 21:58
Sdeve wrote:
When you read an act of law you need to read it as a whole and not as a part, because the one part is not what gives you powers. You need to state when an act of law can be used, and this is where your points of example fall down.Argee wrote:
Beautifully put, George, as usual. We didn't get a realistic example, either.
Ray
I did say that the more contentious parts of the act hadn't been used yet. Try and keep up.Beautifully put, George, as usual. We didn't get a realistic example, either.
Ray
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 22/10/2009 - 21:38
Mongoose wrote:
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.
Father Ted wrote:
Anyway......
I still tihnk my camera is a form of computer
as far as any meaningful technical deffinition goes, it undeniably is an example of a programable electronic computer optimised to perform a specific task.Anyway......
I still tihnk my camera is a form of computer
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.
Father Ted wrote:
You are both very welcome.Mongoose wrote:
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 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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 22/10/2009 - 21:19
Father Ted wrote:
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!!!!!Anyway......
I still tihnk my camera is a form of computer
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 22/10/2009 - 10:00
I am very sorry to hear your sad news, I hope life improves for you.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Street Photography & off topic at 21/10/2009 - 23:17
Sdeve wrote:
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.
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.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.
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.
Comment by PentaxRocks posted on Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. at 21/10/2009 - 23:14
