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 ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- 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.
