«

"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting article.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>>
>>NJ
>>
>>Photography
>>
>>is
>>>>>
>>>> a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
>>>> limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
>>>> be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
>>>> assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
>>>> abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
>>>> place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
>>>> case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
>>>> First Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
>>>> the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
>>>> the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.
>>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>> card.(2)
>>>
>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>
>>> Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>>>
>>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>>> around the Menu of any camera.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Having just retired as a Lieutenant after 25 years in Law enforcement,
>>and having been a "photographer" for some 48 years I am always ****ed
>>off when I hear of police infringing of rights under the color of Law.
>>
>>Then regarding your son's "undercover" cop friend, I have my own opinion.
>>
>>For the most part "undercover" cops are not usually directly involved
>>in arrests.
>
> He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
> understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
> make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
> see in the TV shows.
>
>


The Boys in Blue, or out of it, have to walk a tight line between getting
the job done, and respecting the perps' civil rights. With everything on
the line, things can get out of control. It's up to photographers to find
their own line between not getting in the way and exposing obvious abuses
of authority.

Given that those perps could just as easily be targeting my kids, I prefer
to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops. But, if I'd have been there
for Rodney King, my camera would have been pretty busy...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mar 29, 3:28*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. *During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. *My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>
>I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
>from a reformatted SD card?

I have no idea. If the bystander had the same amount of knowledge on
the subject as I do, he shrugged let it go.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Nicko wrote:
> On Mar 29, 3:28 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> card.(2)
>
> I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
> from a reformatted SD card?

It's pretty easy, as long as you haven't taken any new photos since it
was formatted.



--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar 29, 9:23*am, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones <n...@dev.null> wrote:
> >Very interesting article.
>
> >http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...Crime_It_s_a_F...
>
> >NJ
>
> * * * * I have not checked the reference, but photography can be used
> in a way that is a right or is a crime. *It is by itself no more or
> less of a right or crime than carpentry.

It is a right as any form of legal expression is.

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled
>>> onto the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted
>>> the SD card.(2)
>>>
>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>
>>> Both sides have a point.
>>
>> the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>
> That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.
>
>> he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not
>> just photos of himself but everything else that was on it.
>
> The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
> something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
> Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
> Constitutional rights.
>
> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
> police officer.
>
> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>
>> at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>> bystander.
>
> You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
> force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
> exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
> suspect the policemen's version is accurate.
>
>>> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>>> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>>> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>>
>> his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
>
> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
>
>> after
>> that, there is nothing to protect. he's also in public and is
>> subject
>> to being photographed. and rest assured that word gets around what
>> the
>> undercover cops look like, photos or not.
>>
>>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his
>>> way around the Menu of any camera.
>>
>> that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
>
> You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
> What law was broken?

Do the world a favor and move to China. You'll be happier, we'll be
happier, and who knows, maybe the Chinese will be happier.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
> >> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
> >> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
> >> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
> >> card.(2)
> >>
> >> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
> >> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
> >> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
> >>
> >> Both sides have a point.
> >
> >the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>
> That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

based on your description of the events, it's very clear the cop is in
the wrong. of course, there more to the story. i'm sure the
bystander's version is a little different than how you described it.

> >he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
> >photos of himself but everything
> >else that was on it.
>
> The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs.

he absolutely does have a right to take photos, assuming he is legally
where he is standing, i.e., on public or quasi-public property and not
trespassing, with no prohibition posted, which if it's in on a public
street would be the case. nothing you said suggests otherwise.

> A "right" is
> something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
> Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
> Constitutional rights.
>
> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
> police officer.

there is no law prohibiting photography in a public area. anything in
plain view where there's no expectation of privacy (e.g., a bathroom)
is fair game.

and how was he interfering with a police officer? if he ran up to the
cop and stuck the camera in his face, that's one thing but i *highly*
doubt that's what he did. he undoubtedly took a snapshot from across
the street, nowhere near the action. that's not interfering.

> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

i'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, i'm saying the cop
assaulted an innocent bystander and destroyed his property.

> >at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
> >given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> >bystander.
>
> You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
> force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
> exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
> suspect the policemen's version is accurate.

*you* said manhandled. neither of us were there. based on *your*
description of the events, i am speculating that since the cop was
****ed he was being photographed, that he might give the bystander a
rough time too. i doubt he walked over and said 'hi, please let me
reformat your memory card.'

and there are always two sides to every story, with the truth somewhere
in the middle.

> >> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
> >> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
> >> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
> >
> >his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
>
> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

perhaps, but once he makes himself known as a cop, his identity *is*
known. photographs might not be distributed but a description will be,
and if he is seen in the area, thugs will point him out to other thugs.


> >> (1) Love that cop talk!
> >> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
> >> around the Menu of any camera.
> >
> >that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
>
> You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
> What law was broken?

destruction of property, at a minimum. you can argue that the cop
could ask for photos of himself to be deleted (and asking to do so is
fine but the bystander need not comply). anything past that is
illegal, particularly deleting *unrelated* photos that happened to be
on the card.

In article
<480407e9-6665-40c5-912a-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Nicko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
> from a reformatted SD card?

trivial.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:44:15 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>> >> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>> >> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>> >> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>> >> card.(2)
>> >>
>> >> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>> >> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>> >> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>> >>
>> >> Both sides have a point.
>> >
>> >the cop was very clearly in the wrong.
>>
>> That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.
>
>based on your description of the events, it's very clear the cop is in
>the wrong. of course, there more to the story. i'm sure the
>bystander's version is a little different than how you described it.
>
>> >he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
>> >photos of himself but everything
>> >else that was on it.
>>
>> The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs.
>
>he absolutely does have a right to take photos, assuming he is legally
>where he is standing, i.e., on public or quasi-public property and not
>trespassing, with no prohibition posted, which if it's in on a public
>street would be the case. nothing you said suggests otherwise.
>
>> A "right" is
>> something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
>> Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
>> Constitutional rights.
>>
>> There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
>> depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
>> allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
>> police officer.
>
>there is no law prohibiting photography in a public area. anything in
>plain view where there's no expectation of privacy (e.g., a bathroom)
>is fair game.




>and how was he interfering with a police officer? if he ran up to the
>cop and stuck the camera in his face, that's one thing but i *highly*
>doubt that's what he did. he undoubtedly took a snapshot from across
>the street, nowhere near the action. that's not interfering.
>
>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.
>
>i'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, i'm saying the cop
>assaulted an innocent bystander and destroyed his property.
>
>> >at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>> >given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>> >bystander.
>>
>> You say "manhandled the perps" and he'd say "exerted the necessary
>> force". Considering that these were drug buyers and sellers, and not
>> exactly shining examples of our community and upright citizens, I
>> suspect the policemen's version is accurate.
>
>*you* said manhandled. neither of us were there. based on *your*
>description of the events, i am speculating that since the cop was
>****ed he was being photographed, that he might give the bystander a
>rough time too. i doubt he walked over and said 'hi, please let me
>reformat your memory card.'



>and there are always two sides to every story, with the truth somewhere
>in the middle.
>
>> >> Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
>> >> intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
>> >> drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.
>> >
>> >his identity is made known the moment he flashed his badge.
>>
>> That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
>> cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
>> be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
>> undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
>> cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.
>
>perhaps, but once he makes himself known as a cop, his identity *is*
>known. photographs might not be distributed but a description will be,
>and if he is seen in the area, thugs will point him out to other thugs.
>
>
>> >> (1) Love that cop talk!
>> >> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>> >> around the Menu of any camera.
>> >
>> >that's wonderful, but he broke the law.
>>
>> You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
>> What law was broken?
>
>destruction of property, at a minimum. you can argue that the cop
>could ask for photos of himself to be deleted (and asking to do so is
>fine but the bystander need not comply). anything past that is
>illegal, particularly deleting *unrelated* photos that happened to be
>on the card.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:16:26 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 2009-03-29 17:04:52 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:19:48 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-29 13:28:00 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Very interesting article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...mendment_Right
>

I read that article, and the link that it provided, and nowhere did I
read that "Photography...is a First Amendment Right". That's a
headline that Digg seems to have dug up. The articles deal with
police abuse.


>> He's part of a drug task force that does make arrests. As I
>> understand it, they hang out in places where drug deals are made, and
>> make arrests on-the-spot. He's not "planted" in some gang like you
>> see in the TV shows.
>
>For special task forces such as you have described, and other units
>such as tactical units SWAT teams, the idea of ID confidentiality has
>become a stale procedure.
>
>As I said before, if there is any involvement in an arrest the
>protection of ID is a moot issue, due to the arresting officers and
>investigators later role in Court.
>The usual procedure is for such units (drug & vice etc.) to "borrow"
>officers from other divisions, districts, precincts, etc. outside of,
>and not known in the target area, to act in the "undercover" role,
>leaving the arrests to the team members.

I may be using "undercover" incorrectly, but I have no police
background. If an officer is in civilian clothes, with no police ID
showing, I would consider that to be "undercover".

The person in question did not mention - on way or the other - if
non-task force member were present. He did not mention - one way or
the other - if he was the one who actually made the arrest. He
mentioned only that he was present, that he objected to the photograph
being taken, and what he did. It was a rather casual conversation. My
son and I were having lunch, we ran into him and he joined us at the
table, and we talked mostly about photography.

He didn't tell it in "war story" narrative. I see no reason to doubt
him. I've known him - if only peripherally - since he was in high
school with my son. It's not like we're buddies, but he was around
the house quite a bit when he was in high school. He's now nearing
40.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT), Nicko
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I know it's kind of off-topic, but how hard is it to recover the files
>>from a reformatted SD card?

Fairly easy. Formatting doesn't destroy the data, it merely recreates
the adminstrative layers of the file system like free sector list, root
directory, etc. The actual data blocks are not or only minimally
affected unless/until new data is written.

Any decent file recovery program should be able to recover most of the
data. However it is hit-and-miss. If a file is not continuous (i.e. it
is fragmented) then recovery becomes significantly harder, because the
files need to be reassembled from bits and pieces, just like numerous
jigsaw puzzles thrown together into a big bucket and you have to
reassemble them without knowing what they are supposed to look like the
end.

jue