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.

A very pertinent point. (Translates. One I hadn't thought of)

Well, that shouldn't be too difficult. A computer is something that computes. Has to be. And my digital cameras, all of them, compute.

As part of a rather sad hobby, I collect old Apple Macs. The older ones will not send emails, or surf the web. On the other hand, I have a lap top computer that will quite happily take photographs. They are still computers. The term computer is not defined under the act. Modern cameras definitely compute.

An internet server will not be set up to send emails, only store and forward them. It is also unlikely to be set up to surf the net. It will have a very specific, and in some ways quite limited function, but is it still very much a computer.

I was recently reviewing reported incidents where police officers have demanded that a photographer should erase images taken in a city centre (usually) under the Terrorism Act.

A digital camera would, IMO, fit the description of a computer. It operates by means of hardware and software (or firmware if you prefer) which are capable of modifcation and programming. It processes digital data. It has digital storage media.

In view of this, if an unlawful requirement to erase images on the media card was made by an officer, rather than the somewhat doubtful (in my mind) suggestion of criminal damage, would an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 be more appropriate?

To further expand upon the digital camera as a computer.

You use a computer to input data. The data you input into the camera is a picture, and on some cameras, an audio narrative.

You use a computer to amend data. Most modern cameras will have some facility to amend the images taken.

You use a computer to store data. Cameras have a solid state hard drive, commonly referred to as a memory card.

You use a computer to output data, perhaps to a printer, to another computer, or to the internet. Most modern digital cameras will do this too.

Quality cameras can update their firmware, much the same way as computers can.

Computers have a screen, keys to input, and programs to run. So do modern cameras.

My digital SLR (K20D, among others), like most, has more bloody options, settings, switches, and other gubbins than some computers.

I reckon it's a goer.

I have a picture I am particulary pleased with. I'm not sure it has any great artistic merit, but I liked it enough to want a big print. I should mention the reason I'm posting it here, rather than on another section is that it was taken with a Fuji S9600. I took it to the local 'Staples' store and had it printed at 24"x32" and I have to say, it looks great. I had my doubts about what quality to expect from such an enlargement, but I'm blown away by it. Just wished I had had the K20 on that shoot. I just never thought you could blow up a picture to such a size from such a small sensor, and still get good results.

I've found very little wrong with a Metz hammerhead flash, other than the size. The flash auto setting gives good results in just about every circumstance, and with a CT60 you can always use it to weld up minor car repairs.

So, your fanatical, unevidenced opinions and your other rantings should be taken notice of because ....... ?[/quote]After 22 years service as a police officer, watching it happen, hearing officers from other forces talking about it as if it were routine and right, helping friends who have been victimised in such a fashion, spending 8 years still in law enforcement in association with the police and still seeing it happen, discussing with police officers on other forums who acknowledge it happens, reading numerous newspaper reports about it happening, writing articles for police publications, visiting police forces in the USA at my own expense to study police related issues, I'm beginning to get the gist of it. And, of course, reading the law, understanding it, and quoting it as part of my fanatical rantings.

Apart from that, I suppose no reason at all really. What about you?

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=866379


Well, that's really added to my knowledge of crime detection methods. The police now can tell if an offence has been committed or not, just by knowing your name and address. Damn but they're good. A confirmation, if one were needed, that the Wesayso Act has been ratified.

You perhaps indicate the difference between our countries by this.

There, the police need to have a reason to ask to see ID.

As an example, because we do not yet have ID cards, consider the current powers of arrest the police have here.

A component part of the arrest power is that it it 'necessary' to arrest. The act goes on to giver acceptable reasons, such as name and address not known etc., and one in particular, 'for the prompt and efficient investigation of the allegation'.

This was discussed in parliament, where it was recorded in Hansard that the new powers were meant to place a greater restriction on the powers of arrest, as officers would have to show that an arrest was necessary.

What has happened here, and in a very short time scale since the new powers were introduced, weeks I would suggest, is that officer will use the 'prompt and efficient' reason because arresting someone means that it is administratively so much easier for the officer. This abuse is happening every single day somewhere in this country.

The police, as an organisation, here are administratively, and IMO, morally, corrupt. They will routinely abuse any law to suit their purpose. This is why it is necessary to stand up to any new power that our current government will introduce.