On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/10/08, ann sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>I think there has been lots more mischief created by the ease with which >>one can use a cell >>phone to clandestinely photo strangers on the street and blast them to >>the world on the web. > > Ann raises a very topical point here - one that still has plenty of > mileage to run - and will become more prevalent in the near future. > > There are plenty of reports from around the world of situations where > passers-by to an incident who have pulled out their camera-phones and > snapped some pics or recorded video, have subsequently had them > confiscated by police who claim that there may be evidence relevant to > [the] investigation of said incident. > > This raises important civil liberty issues that have yet to make it to > court (in the UK) in a defining situation. > > Viz: an air ambulance lands in a town centre where an injured man is > stretchered onto it, the paramedics still working on him with CPR etc. A > couple of dozen bystanders are caught nearby between the police cordon > and a building, effectively in 'no-man's land' for the duration of the > helicopter stay, only about 20 minutes or so. During the patient > evacuation, police announce that anyone caught using phones to picture > the scene will have them confiscated - and indeed several are seized. > Yet two stills photographers and a video news cameraman nearby continue > to record the scene. One police officer attempts to stop one stills > photographer from photographing, and a conversation ensues which results > in the officer from backing down and concentrating on the crowd. > > This scenario actually happened recently in the UK, and I was the video > news cameraman in this case. > > My point is that the time will come when the police will not back down > and censure of legitimate newsgathering operations will result. I > suspect it will proceed to court for a legal definition to be made that > will then inform future police powers (in the UK in this case). > > At what stage do 'legitimate newsgathering operations' merge with > 'bystanders snapping on phones' - are the two actually the same? Is > there a distinction? Do police actually have authority to seize > recording devices by claiming they may contain evidence central to an > ongoing investigation? If so - does that extend to professional > newsgathering organisations? The answer is - it can. > > In the UK, professional newsgathering organisations (defined by UK > standards as a bone fide journalist, licensed by the Association of > Chief Police Officers and provided with a photo-ID card for proof) > cannot be made to hand over recording devices or their recordings > without a court order overseen by a judge. The police could not legally > have demanded my camera tape or camera, even though they possibly may > have arrested me for a public order offense if I had refused any such > demands. My employer's legal department have defined protocols in this > situation - no material is ever to be handed to police in such cases - > even if arrest will be the result. > > For anyone else, you're at the mercy of the police! Obviously your > mileage may vary by country. > > I have as yet to encounter a situation whereby I m off duty but witness > an incident and record it on my own camera-phone......... > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty >
Or, possibly more likely, the confiscated phone will belong to a lawyerly type and the police will be sued over the confiscation (which would be the almost assured result of such an action in Canada or the US, it's happened a number of times lately over normal cameras). -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
