Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right

Discussion in 'Digital Point & Shoot Camera' started by Neil Jones, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. Neil Jones

    J. Clarke Guest

    The major and most useful feature of the original Norton Utilities, released
    almost 30 years ago, was the ability to unerase erased files, and that
    remains one of its key features. There's nothing new or exotic about this
    and quite frankly anybody in this day and age who doesn't know that simple
    file erasure leaves the data recoverable is pretty poorly informed.

    Google "unerase" and "unformat" and "recover files" and "recover data" and
    you're presented with a huge array of options.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 31, 2009
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Neil Jones

    Bob Guest

    -:In article <>, Bob
    -:
    -:> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
    -:>
    -:> not so.
    -:> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
    -:> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.
    -:
    -:to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.

    wrong. Ignorance is expensive.

    -:
    -:> anyone can recover it.
    -:> it is not hard.
    -:> it is not expensive.
    -:
    -:no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
    -:can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
    -:eek:therwise be needed.

    wrong. Ignorance is expensive.
     
    Bob, Mar 31, 2009
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Neil Jones

    Colin.D Guest

    But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they might
    be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well have
    physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did* destroy property.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Mar 31, 2009
    #63
  4. Neil Jones

    Neil Jones Guest

    I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
    delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
    transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with you
    and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the question
    becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk everyone and
    delete all images on all cameras?

    NJ
     
    Neil Jones, Mar 31, 2009
    #64
  5. Neil Jones

    J. Clarke Guest

    The kid in me would want to deal with Officr Hostile by just letting him do
    his deletion, going home, recovering the images, putting them up on
    fotoomsk.ru or somewhere else that's going to laugh in Officer Hostile's
    face when he complains, then emailing the police chief, the mayor, and the
    local newspapers and TV stations with the story and the link, preferably
    including HD video of Officer Hostile's little tirade.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 1, 2009
    #65
  6. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    You're assuming that there's something in the photographs that would
    reflect badly on Robby (the officer in question). There's no
    indication of that.

    A person who was being arrested on a drug charge was manhandled and
    that was being photographed. There's no reason to assume that Robby
    was involved with that. According to our retired policeman in this
    newsgroup, Robby - as a member of a drug task force - would not have
    been the arresting officer.

    I used the word "manhandled", but this was an arrest of a druggie in
    the projects. There's no indication that the arrestee's demeanor did
    not require that. It wasn't mentioned if the guy was high, putting up
    a fight, or just not getting to the ground quickly enough.

    I related this incident as I heard it in a casual conversation. Had I
    known that it would have received this much attention, I would have
    asked Robby some questions and been able to present a more accurate
    picture.

    Questions like: Was the person with the camera a bystander who was
    just standing by quietly, or was the person pushing into the scene
    aggressively? Was the person warned sufficiently that he was not to
    take photographs? (Whether or not you think it a warning was
    deserved, this would make a difference in Bobby's reaction)

    What was the general nature of the situation, and were things getting
    out-of-hand or was it a fairly routine bust? Did Bobby, in
    retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did he feel
    that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his authority.

    I didn't ask any of those questions. The conversation was more on the
    subject of the difficulty of photographing basking alligators on the
    Econolatchee River banks. (They sense you coming and slide into the
    water). The arrest incident was a very minor part of the
    conversation.

    Robby's a big, kind of soft-spoken, guy who doesn't seem to me to be
    the cowboy type. However, I have no idea what he's like on the job on
    in stress situations.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 1, 2009
    #66
  7. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    What assumptions did I make? I said that I wish I would have asked
    those questions.

    The assumptions were made by other people in the newsgroup. Robby
    presented in a bad light by the photographs? An assumption made by
    someone else. Nothing to indicate this is correct. Nothing to
    indicate what Robby was doing when photographed. An assumption
    manhandled means unnecessary force? Nothing to indicate that.
    It certainly is. The behavior of the arrestee is very relevant to the
    word "manhandled".
    There's an assumption that you are making....that Robby believes he
    had a right to act as he did. That was one of my questions: "Did
    Robby, in retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did
    he feel that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his
    authority?"

    We've all done things that seemed the right thing to do at the time,
    but things we later understand to have been the wrong thing to do.
    Had I asked that question, it would give me some insight into Robby's
    character as a policeman.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 1, 2009
    #67
  8. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
    story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
    have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?

    After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
    part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
    being an observer of the arrest.

    His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
    task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
    community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
    well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.

    Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
    done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
    one who would be violent.

    The kangaroo is the elephant in the room.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 1, 2009
    #68
  9. Neil Jones

    J. Clarke Guest

    Neither does a democracy. The United States is not a democracy and was
    never intended to be, despite the rhetoric of the politicians and the
    brainwashing we were given in the schools.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 1, 2009
    #69
  10. What on earth are you talking about?
    What on earth are your talking about?

    Oh, I see, it's the first of April today.
    Oh, you mean things like wire-tapping without court order, torture,
    unlimited imprisonment without judicial review and without possibility
    of appeal at the whim of the governement, kidnapping of foreign citizen
    in foreign countries, violation of the Geneva Convention, etc, etc, etc?

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Apr 1, 2009
    #70
  11. You still have one?

    Oh yeah, that's right -- Obama reclaimed it pro bono.

    Say what?

    Well, consistency is nice, even if it's consistent st00pidity.

    The element of predictability is always so comforting.

    I truly wish you were able to be aware of how you really know, Jer.

    You'd be sadder, but much wiser.


    Yer bud,


    Clint
     
    ClintEastWoodyAllenAlda, Apr 1, 2009
    #71
  12. Neil Jones

    Bob Guest

    -:On 2009-03-31 18:54:23 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    -:
    -:> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:10:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    -:>
    -:>> Neil Jones wrote:
    -:>>> Colin.D wrote:
    -:>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
    -:>>>>> nospam wrote:
    -:>>>>>> In article <uY5Al.46468$>, Martin Brown
    -:>>>>>>
    -:>>>>>>>>> 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
    -:>>>>>>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which
    -:>>>>>>> delete all seldom does.
    -:>>>>>>
    -:>>>>>> it rarely fails.
    -:>>>>>>
    -:>>>>>>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could recover
    -:>>>>>>> deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this
    -:>>>>>>> respect.
    -:>>>>>>
    -:>>>>>> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one
    -:>>>>>> moment he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did
    -:>>>>>> not. that's destruction.
    -:>>>>> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.
    -:>>>>
    -:>>>> But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they
    -:>>>> might
    -:>>>> be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well
    -:>>>> have physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did*
    -:>>>> destroy property.
    -:>>>>
    -:>>>
    -:>>> I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
    -:>>> delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
    -:>>> transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with
    -:>>> you and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the
    -:>>> question becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk
    -:>>> everyone and delete all images on all cameras?
    -:>>
    -:>> The kid in me would want to deal with Officr Hostile by just letting him do
    -:>> his deletion, going home, recovering the images, putting them up on
    -:>> fotoomsk.ru or somewhere else that's going to laugh in Officer Hostile's
    -:>> face when he complains, then emailing the police chief, the mayor, and the
    -:>> local newspapers and TV stations with the story and the link, preferably
    -:>> including HD video of Officer Hostile's little tirade.
    -:>
    -:> You're assuming that there's something in the photographs that would
    -:> reflect badly on Robby (the officer in question). There's no
    -:> indication of that.
    -:>
    -:> A person who was being arrested on a drug charge was manhandled and
    -:> that was being photographed. There's no reason to assume that Robby
    -:> was involved with that. According to our retired policeman in this
    -:> newsgroup, Robby - as a member of a drug task force - would not have
    -:> been the arresting officer.
    -:>
    -:> I used the word "manhandled", but this was an arrest of a druggie in
    -:> the projects. There's no indication that the arrestee's demeanor did
    -:> not require that. It wasn't mentioned if the guy was high, putting up
    -:> a fight, or just not getting to the ground quickly enough.
    -:>
    -:> I related this incident as I heard it in a casual conversation. Had I
    -:> known that it would have received this much attention, I would have
    -:> asked Robby some questions and been able to present a more accurate
    -:> picture.
    -:>
    -:> Questions like: Was the person with the camera a bystander who was
    -:> just standing by quietly, or was the person pushing into the scene
    -:> aggressively? Was the person warned sufficiently that he was not to
    -:> take photographs? (Whether or not you think it a warning was
    -:> deserved, this would make a difference in Bobby's reaction)
    -:>
    -:> What was the general nature of the situation, and were things getting
    -:> out-of-hand or was it a fairly routine bust? Did Bobby, in
    -:> retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did he feel
    -:> that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his authority.
    -:>
    -:> I didn't ask any of those questions. The conversation was more on the
    -:> subject of the difficulty of photographing basking alligators on the
    -:> Econolatchee River banks. (They sense you coming and slide into the
    -:> water). The arrest incident was a very minor part of the
    -:> conversation.
    -:>
    -:> Robby's a big, kind of soft-spoken, guy who doesn't seem to me to be
    -:> the cowboy type. However, I have no idea what he's like on the job on
    -:> in stress situations.
    -:>
    -:>
    -:>
    -:
    -:There are so many elements missing from this story.
    -:I can accept that you are relaying it to us in good faith, in the
    -:context of the OP. Now you are making hearsay assumptions

    he made no assumptions, only poised questions.
    you made the assumptions.

    -: regarding the
    -:possible scenario for the involvement of the photographer during this
    -:arrest, to justify "Bobby's" actions and your trust in his character as
    -:you know it.
    -:
    -:The issue is, the story as you originally told it does not indicate any
    -:eek:bstruction of the officers performing their duty (the arrest) by the
    -:photographer. What actually took place with the actual arrest, and the
    -:behaviour of the arrestee is irrelevant.
    -:This is about the photographer who was just taking photographs. He was
    -:not arrested for obstruction, just accosted by an overzealous officer.
    -:Therefore all of us in this NG have been led to understand "Bobby"
    -:acted irrationally to destroy the photographs (files). This act,
    -:whether, fact or fabrication is at the very least in a US Legal sense,
    -:a violation of Due Process. At worst, if things happened as you
    -:described, is illegal destruction of personal property and possibly
    -:assault/battery by a Peace Officer under the color of authority (or
    -:Law). The latter in California can be a misdemeanor or a felony
    -:depending of the severity, and would provoke an Internal Affairs
    -:investigation. I can't speak for Florida, but I believe he would have
    -:similar problems there if a complaint was made.
    -:
    -:The bottom line is "bobby" was wrong in believing he had the "right"
    -:because of his badge, to act to confiscate and destroy the
    -:photographer's property.
    -:
     
    Bob, Apr 1, 2009
    #72
  13. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    You are probably right.
    Now I'm getting more confused. I thought it was said that undercover
    task force members don't make arrests. I don't know if this was an
    undercover operation or a simple arrest. That didn't come up.

    It's quite possible that I don't know the difference between
    "undercover", "task force", "drug enforcement units", any other jargon
    terms. Robby works drug cases. That's all I know for sure. Robby
    did say that he didn't want his photograph circulated in the druggie
    community, so that sounds like he works undercover. Police
    terminology and procedures are not areas of familiarity to me.
    I agree that he was wrong in that his actions violated the procedures
    the police are supposed to follow. I am not greatly disturbed over
    this, though.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 2, 2009
    #73
  14. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    I apologize for confusing ducks and eagles.
    My comment had to do with the insinuation of police brutality on the
    part of Robbie as the motivation for destroying the images. If he
    was not directly involved in the arrest, there would be no reason for
    him to object on these grounds. His objection was based on his
    identity being recorded, not based on what he was doing at the time.
    Your statement - "If his actions were not police brutality...then he
    should have welcomed the photo" - plants the idea that police
    brutality on his part was a motivation. His motivation was from an
    entirely different reason.

    Like the "beating your wife" cliche, saying "No, I wasn't" doesn't
    remove the impression created when "If you were not beating your wife"
    was made.
    It's a reference to a kangaroo court where unrelated, unsubstantiated,
    charges (police brutality on the part of Robbie) are introduced as a
    part of a sham proceeding.

    If you don't "get" what mean, just ask.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 2, 2009
    #74
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.