Slashdot Mirror
Mich. State Campus Cops Seize HDs With Riot Photos
Spintronic writes "This is old news here but others might be interested. There was a small riot here a few weeks ago due to the early exit of a certain basketball team. Because of riots years ago of a much larger magnitude and the black eye this is giving the university, the cops (local and campus I believe) are out looking to make examples. In their zeal they tried to get all the unaired footage and photos from the local media, who refused to comply. Not to let it go, they went on to seize hard drives from students who took digital photos that night. Here's info from the student nespaper, and here's an editorial."
As I understand it, when you are taking pictures for use anywhere other than for personal use, you have to have the permission of the subject... IF these photos were taken of the "alleged" rioters and they were posted on the internet in any form (i.e. published) without the consent of the subjects.. then they could cry foul in the photos use in the investigation... NOW.. if the photographers in question were legitimate members of the press...and the photos were then used in those individuals "news" websites.. First Amendment rules would apply, right? I haven't slept in about 48 hours does it show?
I had a sig, but
IANAL BIWWT (but I work with them) ... unless the students who took the pictures were shown rioting also then it would be illegal under self incrimination.
Sounds like a violation of the students rights by a long shot. While I am not a big fan of them, this is a good reason the aclu exists. NOw if they had a court order for seizure of evidence that would be legitimate
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
They were doing good up to this point:
But the student's willingness to cooperate with officer's unorthodox demands is understandable. Perhaps he was frightened as to what punishment could fall upon him if he wasn't helpful,
I'm not a journalism major, but even I know you shouldn't say something like "Perhaps he was frightened..." when writing an article. It makes you look biased. And when your bias detector goes off, you start to quetstion the source... and the whole thing has much less impact.
Good thing I live in a country that specifically outlaws this sort of thing!
Here in the USA, a citizen--
what?
IT DID?
FUCK!!!
Once again it looks like the /. is misleading:
Last week, police obtained a warrant to confiscate a computer from an on-campus student. But the warrant wasn't necessary because the student handed over the computer without resistance.
Warrant: Yes. Seized: No. I read the article and it sounded like police stormed some guys house to hide evidence, implying that the evidence was some form of coverup. Jeez, they are looking for the identities of law breakers, and they had a warrant AND the person gave it to them freely.
There is nothing wrong with the police collecting evidence showing a crime, if they know that evidence exists and the crime occured, IMO. What is the problem?
If you had the gun that shot someone, they are allowed to get a warrant to collect that for fingerprinting. How is a video different than a fingerprint. It's still evidence.
-Sean
Can you use the copyright laws against the police? Once you shoot the camera, you become the owner of the copyright of that shot/movie (unless you give it up to someone else). Also can you use DCMA law against them if it was a digital picture/movie?
Even though they enforce the laws, they are not above them.
Also does not the first amendment give you the right to freedom to the press/speech, so they did not have to give it over because it was `speech' to have this picture/movie?
Also if they were only going after the photos, they should not have taken the who hard disk.
Yes the photos will help the police to catch the rioters but now it is about freedom to the press and speech.
What is the `press' anyway, now with the internet anyone can be part of the `press'?
Those students witnessed a crime and are now in possession of material evidence. Imagine if I took a chance picture of your significant other being fatally wounded. Wouldn't you want the police to have that information to provide evidence to the killer's identity?
Is it different because the students commited a misdeamenor? What if they vandalized your property?
I'm skeptical of anything that goes through a college newspaper and then to slashdot. That sort of centrifuge can generate quite a spin.
The one concession I will make is the police must request the evidence from those in posession. If they refuse to comply they are impeding justice.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
One wonders why this story isn't considered important enough for the main page. Will these seized computers ever be returned to their owners or will they wind up being sold at police auction? Even if the police can prove in court that they (the police) did not doctor the photos, can they prove that the photos weren't doctored before being seized?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
So, I freely give them the pictures I took. While they are rummaging around they find my records for the side business I'm running, and my income tax records for the year. They realize I didn't claim the income from my side business on my income tax, and I get a nice visit from J. Random Suit from the IRS. All because I was helpful and complied with a request from the police department.
Huh. And they wonder why no one trusts public authority figures any more.
It's not "the same thing as being pulled over for speeding and finding a gun on the front seat", it's the same thing as being pulled over and having the police officer search your car. Something equivalent to the "gun in the front seat" analogy would be if the cops showed up, you let them in and handed them the hard drive, and in the process they saw the dead body of the mailman you murdered lying on the living room floor.
In this student's situation, my answer would have been "No, you can't have the hard drive. But if you want to come back in a couple hours, I'll have copies of those photos burned to a CD and you can have that." Multiple copies, even, if they want them. Heck, if they've got a place they want me to drop those CDs off at rather than coming by again, I'll do it. I'm perfecly willing to provide help with an investigation if I can; I'm just not willing to potentially lose an 80G hard drive or potentially incriminate myself in the process.
This is all the more reason to routinely encrypt all your personal data. The seized HD is not going to do them much good if they can't read the data.