«

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> 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.

True, but unlikely to be an issue with a FAT32[0] memory card, as the
file system would be very unlikely to be fragmented. The exception would
be if the user was in the habit of deleting individual photos in-camera,
but not many people do that.

[0] The most common format for 1GB+ memory cards.

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

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:14:45 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Well unless the arrestee, has the charges dismissed or accepts a plea
>bargain, your friend would certainly appear as a witness. His incident
>report should also have included the confrontation with the
>photographer, the subsequent confiscation and unauthorized destruction
>of his property. Something his department could be liable for.
>The action he took, if true was not clearly thought out. He could have
>advised a supervisor and the files could have been examined for
>"sensitivity" and deal with diplomatically.
>
>I have had to deal with over zealous officers on many occasions where
>their actions have been damaging to the department and any of their
>cases.
>
>There are times when even those with the best of apparent intentions
>try to glorify their place in the World.
>
>This story just does not sound right to me.

Dunno. I related it as I was told. I do know that the incident took
place in one of the "projects" in the area. I don't think the task
force officers would particularly like photos of them circulating in
the area. I would doubt that the incident had any legs past that day.
Just another day there.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>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.

No it's a matter of Law

> I disagree.

Depends on jurisdiction but in most democracies the cop was wrong.


>>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.

Again in most democracies the bystander does have the right to take
photographs in a public place.

> 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.

That would be in Germany. "If it is not Permitted it is forbidden" most
democracies work on "It is permitted unless it is Forbidden"

>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.

Correct.

> There are laws regarding interference with a
>police officer.

The officer was not being interfered with and at the point of arresting
the perp he had clearly identified himself as a cop.

>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.

Free speech most certainly does apply in most democracies,. It does not
in Police States and dictatorships like China, N.Korea etc

>>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.

Quite likely. However that does not have any bearing on taking the
photos.

>>> 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.

I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
photos.

I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
were for publication.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Ron Hunter wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:48:59 -0400, Neil Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting article.
>>>
>>> http://digg.com/political_opinion/
>> Photography_is_Not_a_Crime_It_s_a_First_Amendment_ Right
>>> NJ
>>
>> Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your
>> right to photograph any damned thing you want.
>
> Freedom of the press has been interpreted to allow news photographers to
> intrude on the privacy of any person who is 'in the public eye', so I
> guess it does. Frankly, a press card shouldn't give one a right to
> visually trespass, in my opinion.

Rules vary significantly in other countries. In Belgium there is a
perceived right to privacy even on the public street. I crossed the line
photographing someone moving house. They were upset but not when I
explained that I wasn't press and it wouldn't be published. I wasn't
interested in who they were, but in the insane Heath Robinson semi crane
contraption with a ricketty platform leaning up against a 4 story
building with one window removed and all their worldy goods precariously
balanced on it. I later discovered this was a common way to move house.

I had a close run in with the Greek police when I photographed a
"Keystone cops" moment. An arriving police car at the back of a queue
outside Athens police station failed to use the brakes and concertinad
about 4 other police cars waiting outside. Big bang and then lots of
angry policemen running down the steps to inspect the damage. I was just
far enough away to vanish into the crowds afterwards.

The weirdest one I remember was when some German "plant collectors"
(smugglers) tried to use domestic German law to prevent their pictures
being published internationally after a jail sentence in Mexico. The
reason given was that it would interfere with their human rights to earn
a livelihood as professional plant smugglers.

I had an incident of my own in Germany after photographing a copyright
infringement at an exhibition with the perpetrator shown with the
offending material but without his permission. He claimed this was an
infringement of his right to privacy and wanted the film. He didn't get it.

I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.

It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.

There is one guy, a film-maker now going by the moniker of eyeborg with
a prosthetic eye miniature video camera.

http://eyeborg.blogspot.com/

Regards,
Martin Brown

nospam 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. he does *not* have the right to
> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
> else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property. And I
suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
increase:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

>> (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.

Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on most
cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.

> that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
> good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should have
asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)

Regards,
Martin Brown

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ron Hunter
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> I agree. It still does not make it right for the cop to delete the
>>photos.
>> I have taken photos in a similar circumstance and was asked by the
>>police not to used the ones that clearly identified them if the photos
>>were for publication.
>>
>A reasonable request, and should be honored, in the spirit of
>'journalist integrity', which is almost non-existent these days.

The request was honoured. I adjusted the faces in the photos The clear
goggles went dark etc. and the newspaper not realising I had done this
then put blackout patches across the whole face!

In another occasion I was asked to delete the pictures. This was in
Belgium where I was (for fun) photographing an Art Deco building close
to the back of a building that was a concrete monstrosity, no windows, a
couple of doors and a roller shutter.

A couple of Police officers arrived including a very pretty female
officer (all with large guns) They asked to see my photos and wanted any
with them in deleted. They then said could not take photos for the next
10 minutes.

In the next 10 minutes a bullion shipment arrived and wen into the
National Bank. At least I think it was a bullion shipment. Several
armoured security vans and a couple of military armoured cars. It was
all very fast and very slick.

For their own security they did not want detailed photos of them or the
delivery. That I can understand.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <Qc%zl.177651$(E-Mail Removed)>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
> > reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
> > else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
> > given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
> > bystander.
>
> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.

erasing photos is destruction of property, particularly *unrelated*
photos. it's the same if it had been film and the camera back opened,
exposing it to light.

> And I
> suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
> quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

if they could be used as evidence, the cop would not have reformatted
the card it so clearly it was not of any use to them whatsoever.

In message <Qc%zl.177651$(E-Mail Removed)>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>nospam 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. he does *not* have the right
>>to
>> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>> else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>> bystander.
>
>No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.

As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the
UK

>And I suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they
>could quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

Yes but not deleted. In fact they should request copies. Without a
court order you can refuse.

>The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
>far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
>they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
>exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
>increase:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

They were doing it before the changes on the 16th Feb 2009

>
>>> (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.
>
>Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
>shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
>he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on
>most cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.

However the cop can not do that (at least in the UK) as that would be
destruction of property.

>> that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
>> good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.
>
>Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
>was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should
>have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
>(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)

Since when has the average UK cop been that sensible?
They can ask for copies. Most people would be OK about this but you do
not have to give them without a court order.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
> ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
> photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
> and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.

And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
political demonstrations.

> It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
> very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
> no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.

The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on. They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!

No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph. But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.

--
Chris Malcolm

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown
><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the private
>> ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely but
>> photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls, large stores
>> and supermarkets often fall into this category in Europe.
>
>And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
>there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to the
>owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having bothered to
>shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is often some
>public service organisation such as railways, post office, local
>authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little spots where the
>police can't move you on unless the property owner specifically
>requests them to do so, so are often used as the gathering places for
>political demonstrations.

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost anything
else) .

>> It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones and
>> very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or video in a
>> no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without being noticed.
>
>The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
>ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
>phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
>with knobs on.

This happens often

>They seem to think that people who want to take
>photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to use
>the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion, and be
>most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

This seems to be a universal trend.
Really they should be monitoring all people in Internet cafes who use
Google Earth etc Remote monitoring from an anonymous computer... Do
Internet cafes have CCTV? Most Libraries don't

>Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
>that!

Poor naive fool :-)

>No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
>on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
>to publish an embarrassing photograph.

I am sorry that is just plain wrong. Our officers work to the highest
standards and never do anything wrong, suspect or not in the public
interest. (That is apart from those that got caught being misunderstood
by the press, public and a judge.)

>But since there are no laws to
>prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
>legislation such as anti-terrorist.

That is an unfair and cynical attack on our wonderful police force that
is based entirely on facts and [photographic/video] evidence

In a recent Jobs-worth /petty-offical attack on a transporter voiding
trains the statement of the railway company as to the behaviour of the
transporter was completely at odds with the video evidence :-) The
local newspaper and TV companies put up the statement and the video side
by side ion their web sites :-)))))

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/