Police Allegedly Threaten A UK Photographer With Seizure Of All His Computers (wordpress.com)

Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Preferably in a secure location, in a country where it's unlikely that some bully government can get their way.

I suggest Iran.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 03:46 · Score: 1

Somali cloud storage?
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Zocalo · 2017-03-11 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

You've completely missed the point. While the seizure of the images was an issue, the *real* issue was that they threatened to take away his tools of the trade if he didn't comply, and that the threat is still standing even though he *has* complied and provided them with copies. It's the next step down the slippery slope started with "provide your encyption keys, or we'll lock you up" that could be applied to people they suspected of a crime, only now it's "we think you might have some evidence, even though you didn't actually commit the crime, so hand it over or we'll put you out of work."

Andy Smith might have saved himself a lot of pain, and you can't blame him for that, but he's also absolutely right in his final assessment that it wasn't the right thing to do; this tactic needs to be booted up to higher courts and stopped ASAP. Putting a *suspected* criminal on the spot like that is bad enough, but doing so to someone you *know* is innocent of the crime in question is completely and utterely unacceptable for any country that doesn't want to lay claim to being a police state.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by coastwalker · 2017-03-11 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

This just illustrates the fact that the criminal justice system has become a threat to ordinary non criminal non violent citizens. You think that immigrants, criminals or terrorists are the greatest threat to your security, but actually the greatest threat to you personally is your own countries bureaucracy. We used to think that Russia or the Chinese system were bad but basically the illusion of freedom is just that - an illusion. It is bizarre but the only people likely to have any sympathy for you are the 'hated leftists'. Be careful what propaganda you believe in, corrupt systems and corrupt politicians are not your friend.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Hognoxious · 2017-03-11 04:38 · Score: 4, Funny

demonstrate a illiteracy

*golf clap*

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

they threatened to take away his tools of the trade if he didn't comply, and that the threat is still standing even though he *has* complied

this tactic needs to be booted up to higher courts and stopped ASAP
So, you expect the same system that permitted this injustice to correct it? Not only that, you expect that same system to outlaw the injustice it committed? There's a dry laugh in my throat right now, filled with sarcasm.

"we think you might have some evidence, even though you didn't actually commit the crime, so hand it over or we'll put you out of work."

Putting a *suspected* criminal on the spot like that is bad enough, doing so to someone you *know* is innocent of the crime in question is completely and utterely unacceptable for any country that doesn't want to lay claim to being a police state.
A government that makes the above demands, is a police state. If the police wield so much power, that they can end the livelihoods of completely innocent people for no more than failing to comply with their demands, (the forced password handover requirement made this a reality years ago), then it is a police state. You can't expect freedom or democracy to survive in that kind of environment. The only real power is the willingness of the thugs to permit it under such a system.
So no,

You've completely missed the point.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 05:56 · Score: 1

All governments are going this way, it's not going to get better, ever. And it's not a "police" state because it's not the police making the rules, but the State. The State who wields absolute power over its "citizens". We now exist at the whim of our rulers, who do not need us anymore. Once we were useful as cannon fodder, no more now; we were useful as workforce, no more now. It was once impossible for a government to wield absolute control over everyone, but now it's no longer the case. Anyone of us can be destroyed with absolute impunity and there is nothing we can do about it. It's over. The war is lost. WE have lost. Step into the eternal darkness, knowing there you won't see the light of freedom ever again.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Z00L00K · 2017-03-11 06:17 · Score: 1

The only exit is then to commit suicide in a spectacular way with a lot of spectators.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Type44Q · 2017-03-11 07:22 · Score: 1

"RRB: Rothschild-Resistant Banking?"
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine if the slaves had that attitude, we wouldn't have Tubman with the under ground railroad. Or if America had that attitude towards WW 1 and 2. Or if our founding fathers had that attitude. You get the point.
Never give up, always fight. It might not benefit you, but it will benefit your children and their children.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, you expect the same system that permitted this injustice to correct it? Not only that, you expect that same system to outlaw the injustice it committed? There's a dry laugh in my throat right now, filled with sarcasm.
Yes, precisely because the system is supposed to function that way. Not in that an injustice is committed in the first place, of course. But the whole point of courts is to try to resolve injustices and the whole point of higher courts is to deal with injustices that lower courts bring for any number of reasons. If all of that fails, then either (1) you're simply in the wrong and don't realize it or (2) you're in a police state and the whole system of seeking justice is a farce.

A government that makes the above demands, is a police state. If the police wield so much power, that they can end the livelihoods of completely innocent people for no more than failing to comply with their demands, (the forced password handover requirement made this a reality years ago), then it is a police state.
The issue is that a lower court made a very, very bad decision to grant the warrant and should rightly be smacked down hard for it. However, the tools that the court allows (a broad warrant in collecting evidence for a crime) for the police are a necessary aspect of a justice system when dealing with things like criminal organizations. You seem to believe that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater because the system has failed in one instance.

You can't expect freedom or democracy to survive in that kind of environment. The only real power is the willingness of the thugs to permit it under such a system.
You'd be right if this warrant had been challenged and allowed to stand. Instead, we sadly have compliance to a request because the threat was too great to challenge. We need that when the person involved is a criminal and we need to collect evidence. We also need a means for people like this photographer to challenge unjust warrants. That's where there's a failing. It's not enough, though, to simply dismiss any hope of freedom or democracy because of this instance.
PS - Meanwhile if we do have a clear police state, then, yea, perhaps the answer is suicide in a spectacular fashion as the other poster suggests. Although it hasn't done much to stop the Chinese in Tibet. :/
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by gweihir · 2017-03-11 08:26 · Score: 2

Well, in any sane jurisdiction, both prosecutor and judge would go to jail for what they did.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by BlytheBowman · 2017-03-11 09:04 · Score: 1

For real security, you can use one of the "technicals" the local warlord's army uses.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-03-11 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Zocalo · 2017-03-11 10:12 · Score: 1

It would be up to the higher court to decide, but the UK's system definitely allows for judges in the lower court to be sanctioned although I have no idea what constraints there might be on the limits of those, or how they might be applied if they determined that this was a case of overreach or some such. There are also some specific rules and procedures for the legal system in Scotland, so things might be a little different in the first level of appeal than it might be in England and Wales, but do they share the same Supreme Court, so it would also depend on how far it went through the system. Ironically (or is it serendipitously?), given the threat applied to the photographer, loss of job for the judge is definitely an available sanction, but I'm only aware of that being applied is some *really* severe cases of judicial malpractice.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 10:53 · Score: 1

Leftists like, say, Pinochet, Marcos or Franco?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 10:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Could we dig him out? Even as a corpse he's a better president.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 10:57 · Score: 2

I have no beef with Iran. Yes, they're by no means the epitome of freedom, but they also have no reason to prosecute me. Hell, China would work, too. And I guess we all know their track record when it comes to alien concepts like personal freedom.
What matters is that you find a government that isn't interested in cooperating with a government that's out to get you. Like, say, Russia when you're Snowden.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 10:59 · Score: 1

No idea. If I did, I would probably have been able to make a lot of money selling that secret to Saddam Hussein when they asked him about weapons of mass destruction.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-03-11 12:06 · Score: 1

Oh, you mean the 'leftie" police who demanded this info?
Oh, wait....please remove your 1-D-10-T(shirt)
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-03-11 12:07 · Score: 1

And...WHO was in charge of the CIA at the time?
Hint: he would put his Manhood in escrow during the Reagan Admin.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by HiThere · 2017-03-11 14:14 · Score: 1

Sorry, he's already served two terms.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by HiThere · 2017-03-11 14:19 · Score: 1

Please do not so defame the Thuggees.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by HiThere · 2017-03-11 14:22 · Score: 1

IIRC Saddam Hussein *did* have weapons of mass destruction. Just not the ones they accused him of having. (I think he had lots of poison gas...but I don't really remember, that could have been some other bloke. But he certainly had napalm.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Darinbob · 2017-03-11 15:44 · Score: 1

Eisenhower was from an obsolete era when people naively thought that the job of elected officials was to govern instead of campaign.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-03-11 16:40 · Score: 1

Crazy idea, sounds like the Dark Ages or something.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by rtb61 · 2017-03-11 17:43 · Score: 1

No, the smart move in this case was to empty you place of anything they could steal and then carry on like an lunatic pork chop and force them to execute the warrant and then simply bring all the stuff back. Typically forcing the execution of the warrant by triggering the ego of the officers in question and ensuring a system of live streaming cameras were available to witness the trashing and allowing for civil suit for damages. Right now there is still a warrant hanging over their heads and if they did not have what the police wanted, the police would still likely believe they had it and execute the raid anyhow. So ask someone to temporarily store you important digital stuff and force the exercising of the warrant and once done, well, it is done.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 19:59 · Score: 1

The search of the country post-invasion didn't find any recent WMDs, but did find a few stores full of old gas shells from the Iraq-Iran war. Shells past their use-by date.
If Saddam did have WMDs, why didn't he use them when his country was being invaded?
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 22:37 · Score: 1

I suppose the constitution isn't very clear regarding zombie candidates.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-11 23:59 · Score: 1

Enlighten me. So far, asking 10 different people yields 11 definitions of "left" and "right", why not add a 12th?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-12 00:01 · Score: 1

He served 2 times while alive, but being dead is a completely different matter. I don't know about your laws, but in ours a lot changes for you when you die.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-12 00:02 · Score: 1

What happened is that we demanded he turned over something he doesn't have. Which is essentially the same case as described by the GP.
So hand over the prime minister that you hold hostage and we won't shoot you.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by easyTree · 2017-03-12 01:13 · Score: 1

Nope, his golf swing would be awful - how would that look?

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by easyTree · 2017-03-12 01:21 · Score: 1

So, you expect the same system that permitted this injustice to correct it? Not only that, you expect that same system to outlaw the injustice it committed?
What to do when everyone else suffering from the same issue is being used as a tool to persist this same system?

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by doccus · 2017-03-12 05:48 · Score: 1

I can see it now "I Like Dead Ike"...
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by mjwx · 2017-03-13 03:41 · Score: 1

Leftists like, say, Pinochet, Marcos or Franco?
It took me a minute to realise this was sarcasm. I was about to point out that Marcos and Franco were the opposite of socialists.

But it really doesn't matter whether they are left or right wing, what matters is that they went too far to the left or right wing. That's what scares me about western nations, we all seem to be going too far to the right. Australia, my original home (now live in the UK) has traditionally been a little on the conservative side of centre, which is fine but in the last 6 odd years there has been a disturbing and dangerous lurch towards the extreme right. Racists and religious fanatics have been voted for in increasing numbers. Its been the same in the UK (UKIP, Brexit) and the US (Trump).

Its not immigrants or leftists or Muslims, so on and so forth that will destroy our nations, its the people trying to make us hate immigrants, leftists, Muslims, gingers, crazy cat ladies or whatever is the flavour of the day who want to destroy free and fair societies.

it doesn't matter if you're left or right... as long as you aren't too far to the left or right.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by RockDoctor · 2017-03-13 06:50 · Score: 1

No, the smart move in this case was to empty you place of anything they could steal and then carry on like an lunatic pork chop and force them to execute the warrant and then simply bring all the stuff back.
If the warrant has been worded properly, then it would cover seizing the person's goods, chattals and work equipment, wherever it is.
So the situation would work like this - the police force entry to the workplace and home (simultaneously, at 05:00 ; that's standard practice) ; they find nothing that is included on the warrant ; they can safely conclude then that the person named in the warrant is guilty of "attempting to defeat the ends of justice" (that's a big enough charge to proceed direct to being remanded in jail, no bail, no communication except with lawyers) ; the police then continue in hot pursuit of the missing equipment by raiding the neighbours (at 06:00 that same morning) as possible accessories, any known friends and associates. See how many times your friends, neighbours and families put up with that sort of thing happening at intervals of a few months, with all computing or photographic equipment being seized "for investigation" - for up to two years.
They're the police. They're not your friend, and they do not tolerate resistance.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · 2017-03-13 22:07 · Score: 1

Hire a secretary for that.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Coren22 · 2017-03-15 07:31 · Score: 1

Not in the US. The maximum in the US is two terms (actually it can be two and a partial if you were the VP of a P that died).

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Cops = thugs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 03:38 · Score: 1

Cops are thugs. Fuck em!

Re:Cops = thugs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:47 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll just shoot you dead.
Re:Cops = thugs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 05:00 · Score: 1

The cops are regular 99%ers, put in an impossible situation by the ultimate thugs -- the 1%.
Going by the experiences of me & mine, I'd say about 10% of those blue-suited thugs would work gladly do the bidding of the 1% for free
Re:Cops = thugs by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-03-11 05:02 · Score: 2

Ok, I'll just shoot you dead.
In the UK that would be a violation of the criminal's rights, with worse penalties than mugging.
Re:Cops = thugs by Jason1729 · 2017-03-11 05:44 · Score: 1

Like the police do anything to find a mugger? If he does call the police to swear a statement against you he's just wasting his time anyway.
Re:Cops = thugs by tinkerton · 2017-03-11 06:02 · Score: 1

I've heard of another rule. One third "it's a job", one third "I want to do good" and one third "I want to dominate".
That's one reason never to give in to the idea of 'we are here to protect you so give us more power'.
The other reason is that even if they're all good guys, the system can still go bad. Note that in this case the prosecutor has gone bad. The police are just doing their job.
Re:Cops = thugs by jeremyp · 2017-03-11 13:48 · Score: 1

In the UK if you killed somebody who was mugging you, as long as you can demonstrate that the force was proportionate (i.e. you were in fear for your life) you'd get away with it.
You might have trouble explaining why you were carrying a gun, of course, but then you probably wouldn't be because it is pretty much an automatic prison sentence.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe

Couldn't happen in the US by Hognoxious · 2017-03-11 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US constitution (4th am.) would prevent this. So the cops would have taken them using civil forfeiture instead, sold them, and spent the dosh on hookers and blackjack.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Trump's rhetoric, which his followers lap up, is that the USA is now in an unprecedented state of emergency where Constitutional safeguards might have to be temporarily superseded to protect the American public from a vast assortment of Jihadis, bad hombres, and enemies of the American people (mainstream press) peddling lies and fake news. Until we have a better understanding of the the threats we're facing, i.e. as long as Trump wants.
The travel ban was meant to be the start of that. I'm sure Trump is surprised it was blocked, since it was limited to seven countries and was probably designed as a precedent he could use to help justify more sweeping measures later.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by rmdingler · 2017-03-11 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is sad this story could similarly play out in most any Western democracy.
The saddest part of this story is that it will get virtually no play in the free press compared to a police brutality issue, and the offense is equally egregious.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-03-11 04:41 · Score: 2

The US constitution (4th am.) would prevent this.
Really? I think that depends on how you define "unreasonable" - or rather it depends on how a judge defines it and given what the US has been up do in recent years I would not trust a US judge's definition to match with mine.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:57 · Score: 1

One of the requirements of a warrant in the US is that it is limited (place, time, person...) as such the warrant described above would need to be served within a specific period of time. It is why surveillance warrants (GPS, wiretaps ...) are usually for set amounts of time (30 days, 90 days ...)
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by sconeu · 2017-03-11 05:13 · Score: 1

US Warrants (in theory) also need to describe in detail what they're searching for with rationale.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 05:17 · Score: 1

In theory, yes. But police and prosecutors know which judge will be most sympathetic to them, and how to play the game of timings and procedures to make sure their warrant goes up before the right one.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by McFortner · 2017-03-11 05:34 · Score: 1

The US constitution (4th am.) would prevent this. So the cops would have taken them using civil forfeiture instead, sold them, and spent the dosh on hookers and blackjack.
"In fact, forget the blackjack!"

--
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Frank+Burly · 2017-03-11 05:53 · Score: 1

Because this is modded +5 insightful, I'll point out that it is incorrect. If the photographer refused to comply with a subpoena he could be jailed for contempt, and (I am guessing) a search warrant issued. But there is no suggestion that the computers or storage were the instrumentality of the crime, so even assuming corrupt police civil, forfeiture is not the path of least resistance for them to get what they want. Of course, it seems that the police chose not to issue a production order in this case, so the path of least resistance is not always chosen.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by ArchieBunker · 2017-03-11 12:07 · Score: 1

The funny thing is the conservatives were saying the same thing about Clinton in the late 1990s. Especially with the Y2K bug.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Mistakill · 2017-03-11 13:45 · Score: 1

If only the USA paid attention to the Constitution... Currently you have no rights to unreasonable search at a border, or within 200miles of one... (dont see that limitation mentioned in the constitution)... The NSA and CIA actively spy on US Citizens, as well as the DEA apparently... Police and Federal agencies using things such as Stingrays without a warrant... Trump is pissing all over the first amendment, along with things which forbid profiting from his connections as President... and that's just the tip
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by sumdumass · 2017-03-11 15:11 · Score: 1

Exactly, and this kind of general warrant that never expires was a prime reason for the 4th amendment. It was to specifically protect from these kinds of things that were common at the time.
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by ckatko · 2017-03-11 21:34 · Score: 2

Holy shit, you people are insane in your cherry picking. It's no wonder you guys are resorting to burning down your local starbucks and pepper spraying women with "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hats.
The 7 countries list was compiled by THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and approved BY CONGRESS. Which includes... Democrats.
So please explain how Obama and Democrats in Congress were apart of "Trump's plan" to destroy constitutional safeguards.
Meanwhile, while don't we talk about Obama's war on journalists (demanding a journalist reveal their anonymous sources), Obama's wiretapping of journalists, Obama drone striking a US citizen without Due Process, Obama selling guns to Mexican drug dealers and Syrian Rebels (who believe in torture and female genital mutilation) while at the same time trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. (The 2nd amendment is a civil liberty even if you don't like it.)
Goddamn Trump was so evil he managed to corrupt the LAST President. He's super Hitler!
Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Coren22 · 2017-03-15 07:45 · Score: 1

The EO was even implementing a law passed by congress. I still don't get why the courts were able to stop it, it wasn't even unconstitutional in any way.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

This is normal. by FooAtWFU · 2017-03-11 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any time you deal with the cops, you've already lost. Hell, in some places in the US, they send kids to jail and then bill their parents for the jail stay when the kid is found innocent. And inner-city cops have a saying: "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride".

Of course, if this were in the US, the police might just seize everything anyway, hold a trial against the property (instead of against the photographer) and then auction it off for profit.

And the saddest part is, this is still well above average for a justice system.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.

Re:This is normal. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

"We're not as bad as North Korea" - That's your argument? Yipes.
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 04:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Damn son, you really still think America is all that? Nope. There's plenty of decent legal systems in the world. Yours ain't one.
Apparently, the UK isn't one either.
So is the rest of Europe as bad as the UK, or are we to believe that the UK is somehow a big exception in Europe?
And what we're seeing in Turkey isn't looking too hot either, and the Europeans have long been trying to make Turkey out to be a European nation.
Re:This is normal. by harperska · 2017-03-11 04:30 · Score: 2

How bad could Best Korea be? They have 'Democratic' right there in their name.
Re:This is normal. by Nemyst · 2017-03-11 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The UK is leaving the EU because the EU is hindering their ability to turn into a xenophobic police state. Connect the dots?
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 05:23 · Score: 1

Yep, sounds about right.
It seems like the powers-that-be in the UK read "1984" and thought it was a great idea. They're making Trump's vision of America look like a great place.
Re:This is normal. by Teun · 2017-03-11 05:37 · Score: 4, Informative

The UK is peculiar as it doesn't have a constitution, most other European countries do.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:This is normal. by boa · 2017-03-11 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

And what we're seeing in Turkey isn't looking too hot either, and the Europeans have long been trying to make Turkey out to be a European nation.
Actually, the US has pressed on for Turkish membership in EU for decades:

Washington's support for Ankara on the issue of Turkish membership in the EU became part of the agenda of U.S.-Turkish
bilateral relations in the late 1980s. However, it vvas during the course of the next decade that American offcials began to engage in
intensive lobbying efforts among key U.S. allies in Europe to promote Turkey's EU aspirations.
[...]
http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/...
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 05:49 · Score: 1

And the EU has been seriously entertaining the idea. It's not America's fault: this is like one on your friends talking you into marrying some alcoholic loser. Who's fault is it? Your friend's, or yours for doing it? Sorry, but you're responsible for your own decisions and actions.
Re:This is normal. by anarcobra · 2017-03-11 06:20 · Score: 1

It's your own fault of course, but I wouldn't call that person a friend either.
Re:This is normal. by thegarbz · 2017-03-11 06:30 · Score: 1

So is the rest of Europe as bad as the UK, or are we to believe that the UK is somehow a big exception in Europe?
Given how the UK is actively trying to not even be Europe there's a lot going for the exception theory. But there's even more to it than that.
Different government structures around the world ensure there are very different things at play. While I see it as a possibility of every western democracy which has amassed too much power to control their citizens like this, we only ever seem to hear about it happening from members of the 5 eyes (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ).
Re:This is normal. by thegarbz · 2017-03-11 06:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, just like that. Except that your friend is a wealthy and powerful person who could make or completely mess up your life at the drop of a dime, and the alcoholic loser is their sister.
Re:This is normal. by dryeo · 2017-03-11 06:34 · Score: 3, Informative

There is a constitution, it's just that Parliament is supreme and can't be limited by a prior Parliament so the constitution is weak. Basically a Parliament can repeal any law, even those considered part of the Constitution such as the latest treaties and associated enabling acts that turned over some powers to the EU.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:This is normal. by Alumoi · 2017-03-11 07:33 · Score: 1

1984 is not a great idea, it's a manual for the government.
Re:This is normal. by FooAtWFU · 2017-03-11 09:43 · Score: 1

Damn son, you really still think America is all that?
I'm not sure what failure of reading comprehension would make someone believe I'm suggesting "america is all that."
However, let me throw some names out there. First of all, by population: China. India. Our neighbor: Mexico. Then, just some of the worst: Venezuela, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Uganda, Bolivia, Bangladesh, Honduras, Nicaragua, Kenya, Turkey, Myanmar, Guatemala, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uzbekistan, Ecuador, Madagascar, Lebanon, Iran, Tanzania, Belize, Zambia. Albania. Brazil. Colombia. Peru. Vietnam. Senegal. Argentina. Malawi.
All of these have justice systems worse than one where cops policing for profit is a matter of routine. Hell, even Japan will just interrogate you until you confess (99% of arrests in Japan lead to confessions). The world is just that damn sad.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:This is normal. by gatkinso · 2017-03-11 09:45 · Score: 1

Found the guy with no concept of how American checks and balances work.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 10:19 · Score: 1

It's your own fault of course, but I wouldn't call that person a friend either.
If you continue to call that person a friend, and keep them as a friend, even after they talk you into dumb decisions, then yes, they really are your friend, even if they're not good for you. And what does that say about you when you continue to keep them as a friend and follow their advice?
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 10:22 · Score: 1

I guess in that case the best course of action is to try to seem friendly to the "friend", and find a way to secretly poison the sister.
Re:This is normal. by swell · 2017-03-11 11:55 · Score: 1

regarding: " http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/... [ankara.edu.tr] "
If you read about halfway through this article you will find that it's all about the US military presence. Only Turkey will tolerate a US base in that region, and since Bush, American leaders have felt the need to impose our 'authority' there.
Both countries win- We get a military base, and Turkey gets an aura of respectability, plus some possible Euro advantages. (And they still don't have to admit to Armenian genocide.)
Even idiot Republicans know that Turkey is a repressive dictatorship, but then they always seem to favor that kind.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
Re:This is normal. by HiThere · 2017-03-11 14:30 · Score: 1

Considering the story this page is attached to, your comment in indefensible stupidity. It probably would be possible to rephrase it into something that was defensible, but I can't do it for you because I don't understand what your point was.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:This is normal. by Zemran · 2017-03-11 17:27 · Score: 1

Strange, the UK had the first constitution written in 1215, although the French constitution, which the US constitution is a copy of, is better.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:This is normal. by Zemran · 2017-03-11 17:30 · Score: 1

Turkey is not even in Europe so I have never understood why the US is trying to force the EU to admit them. I do wish that the US would teach geography at school.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:This is normal. by Lost+Race · 2017-03-11 19:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Actually, we do. It's formed from a whole lot of laws, some of which have been around longer than those European countries. The only difference is that it isn't all on a single piece of paper.
Yeah, that's exactly what a constitution isn't.
Re:This is normal. by Lost+Race · 2017-03-11 20:02 · Score: 1

the French constitution, which the US constitution is a copy of
What? Time travel?
Re:This is normal. by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 20:10 · Score: 1

The EU was seriously entertaining the idea, but recent political shifts in Turkey have greatly diminished the possibility of achieving EU membership in the foreseeable future.
Re:This is normal. by gatkinso · 2017-03-12 00:59 · Score: 1

Found the guy who thinks Trumps travel ban is in effect.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · 2017-03-12 16:46 · Score: 1

Turkey IS in Europe. Well, a little tiny bit of it is. Even Americans like me know that much.
But I'm under no illusion that most of my countrymen know even this. Apparently there was a poll a while back where Americans were asked if they were in favor of bombing some place (I forget the name now). The place was a fictional location in some Disney movie or something. A majority of Republican voters said yes, and a minority (but still decent number) of Democrat voters agreed. The vast majority of those polled, from both parties, either agreed or disagreed with bombing this place, rather than asking what this place is in the first place, just to find out it's fictional. Another poll asked whether the US should get involved in Ukraine after the Russian involvement there, and found that many Americans thought the Ukraine was in South America!
Re:This is normal. by 91degrees · 2017-03-12 20:36 · Score: 1

The UK is leaving the EU for a whole load of reasons. I seriously doubt that many of the 52% who voted leave wanted a xenophobic police state. In fact, most of the most authoritarian politicians supported remain. Authoritarians like large institutions like the EU.
Re:This is normal. by strikethree · 2017-03-13 02:55 · Score: 1

And what we're seeing in Turkey isn't looking too hot either, and the Europeans have long been trying to make Turkey out to be a European nation.
Ataturk must be rolling his grave right now. WTF is up with religion and power? Anyone can see that Turkey is pretty much going to become a Caliphate... exactly the opposite of what Mr. Ataturk fought for. I could cry.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:This is normal. by rahul6603 · 2017-03-19 02:47 · Score: 1

ya these is Normal Thinks In IT filed http://www.tricksrefresher.com...

Bottom line... by hyades1 · 2017-03-11 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Was there ever a better incentive for a comprehensive off-site backup program?

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Bottom line... by hey! · 2017-03-11 03:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, you know who needs this?
The cops.
If they're going to hold data-containing devices as evidence for up to a year, they'd better back them up. And once they have a disk image backup, there's no reason to hold onto the actual device, except as economic leverage on the suspect.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Bottom line... by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-11 04:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

How would that help? He makes his living taking timely photos that are published in the local paper and then largely worthless. It's not about the loss of data, it's the loss of the equipment he needs to work.
This has long been a problem in the UK. The police can easily get warrants that destroy you life, with no compensation or comeback if they turn out to be bogus, and the judiciary are far too often strongly biases in the police's favour.
It's why we have so much police corruption here. Even when there is video footage of them murdering innocent, unarmed bystanders nothing happens to them, because the system has their backs.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Bottom line... by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-11 05:57 · Score: 3, Informative

In the UK there is no right to a speedy trial. Our legal system moves at glacial pace. There is a massive backlog of electronic equipment that they have taken but not yet examined, so it usually takes them many months or even years to get that far. There is no penalty for them taking a long time, and no way to force them to speed up.
The fact that they just need a few photos relating to one incident is irrelevant. To preserve them as evidence they will have to do a forensic extraction that can't be questioned (e.g. photoshopping) in court. Typically they will also look for evidence of any other crimes, because there is always some. Even if it's just a dodgy banner in the browser cache somewhere, they like to throw a few random child porn or terrorism charges in too, as punishment.
If they did take his stuff, I'd be amazed if he got it back within 2 years. When it does come back, they will probably have wiped it anyway and broken anything delicate like a camera, for which there is no penalty or compensation.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Bottom line... by thegarbz · 2017-03-11 06:33 · Score: 1

Was there ever a better incentive for a comprehensive off-site backup program?
Yes. There are much better incentives given that in this case it wouldn't have made even the slightest bit of difference.
Re:Bottom line... by Threni · 2017-03-11 09:42 · Score: 1

>The fact that they just need a few photos relating to one incident is irrelevant. To preserve them as evidence they will have to do a forensic extraction that can't be questioned (e.g. photoshopping) in court. Typically they will also look for evidence of any other crimes, because there is always some. Even if it's just a dodgy banner in the browser cache somewhere, they like to throw a few random child porn or terrorism charges in too, as punishment.
This has never happened, though. It's just web page comment filler. There are enough problems with the legal system without inventing anything.
Re: Bottom line... by Highdude702 · 2017-03-11 18:30 · Score: 1

Yet most people, Left and Right... Want to give the fucks MORE power.. Brilliant idea..
Re:Bottom line... by hyades1 · 2017-03-11 20:59 · Score: 1

Please, just once, let me encounter somebody here who grasps the concept that one can name something to describe a class of things, not just the narrowest, most atom-for-atom example a literalist can imagine.
Think in terms of a location beyond the reach of the people presenting you with a problem.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Bottom line... by hyades1 · 2017-03-11 21:07 · Score: 1

How would it help?
Well, with a little imagination, it could easily become possible to make the social cost of that kind of harassment by the police both pointless and expensive.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Bottom line... by hyades1 · 2017-03-11 21:15 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be nice if police behaviour was recorded every minute they're on duty, and loss of data under questionable circumstances would lead automatically to a trial...a trial conducted under the presumption that the police were hiding something?

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Bottom line... by thegarbz · 2017-03-11 22:14 · Score: 1

Please just once let me encounter someone here who can read to the second line of the summary. The data was already in a location beyond the reach of the people.
The people presented the problem that they took all his other stuff and said "hand over what we want or else". It doesn't matter if he kept the photos printed out in his pocket when he arrived, or in some basement vault in Antarctica accessible only via the Iris scan of a third party of whom only he knew the name.
The entire point of The Fucking Summary is that the police showed here quite clearly where his backups are stored is completely irrelevant to them being able to screw with you.
Now please go retrieve your brain from backup, your current one is corrupt.
Re:Bottom line... by fisternipply · 2017-03-12 01:48 · Score: 1

Off-site backup doesn't much matter if they take ALL your gear, preventing you from working. Which is what this dude was threatened with, explicitly.

citizens injunctions? by tommyatomic · 2017-03-11 03:54 · Score: 1

In most countries and states police use overbroad warrants to as a sort of pre-emptive retaliation for the likelyhood that they will fail to get court approval for the illegal or unconstitutional nature of their goal. How come citizens cant do the same thing to the police?

What sort of legal bullsh$t can be done to f$ck up their shit?

Some security controls are preventitive which in this instance seems like it would need to be pre-emptive?

That seems like it would equate to an injunctions of some sort? Does anyone know of anyone ever attempting to get an injuction against the police breaking the law?

Violating an injunction would likely result in some sort of contempt of court.

Re:citizens injunctions? by ColdWetDog · 2017-03-11 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

In most countries and states police use overbroad warrants to as a sort of pre-emptive retaliation for the likelyhood that they will fail to get court approval for the illegal or unconstitutional nature of their goal. How come citizens cant do the same thing to the police?
Sure, you can do this. Get a whole raft of lawyers (solicitors), a whole bundle of money and a lot of patience.
That was Mr. Smith's dilemma. Despite having some access to representation (the Journalist's guild), he was heavily outgunned by the Crown. You need to have assets like Kim Dotcom to pull this off.
Lawyers, guns and money.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:citizens injunctions? by PPH · 2017-03-11 05:24 · Score: 1

police use overbroad warrants ... for the likelyhood that they will fail to get court approval
Warrants are issued by courts. So if the police have requested an 'overbroad warrant' and served it, that means they have court approval.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:citizens injunctions? by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 06:02 · Score: 1

One thing seems to hold true in every country, from the strictest police state to the most liberal of democracies: Law enforcement always hate to see their authority challenged, and will take action against anyone they believe is doing so.
In any encounter with the police, unless you have actually done something criminal it's probably better to act subservient and do as they say - because if they decide they want to punish you for speaking back, they will always be able to find something to arrest you for.
Re:citizens injunctions? by gweihir · 2017-03-11 08:30 · Score: 2

And that is why in any place that values freedom and the rule of law, the police needs to be kicked in the nuts hard and regularly to remind them that they serve the people, not the other way round.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:citizens injunctions? by Highdude702 · 2017-03-11 18:33 · Score: 2

Now this is an idea I can get my foot behind..

Dicks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can't beat yourself up for what dick heads do man. Just remember enforcement of law always comes down to someone holding a gun to your head. Its basically like you complied with a robber which is the smart thing to do so don't beat yourself up over your decision.

Another perspective... by namgge · 2017-03-11 04:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

Photographer refuses request to assist police but gives them cause to worry that he'll hide or destroy evidence in the process. Cops get warrant. Photographers' union tells him to stop being an idiot. Photographer posts his version of the story on Slashdot because that'll really teach the cops a lesson and show them whose boss...

Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

How about this perspective: Those are the words of a police state apologist.
There was no warrant from the police, therefore they had no right to his photographs.
Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:40 · Score: 1

Was the journalist able to legally contest the warrant? The story says he was given 24 hours to comply or lose all of his professional equipment.
Re:Another perspective... by angel'o'sphere · 2017-03-11 04:53 · Score: 1

The police does not issue warrants.
Warrants are issued by a judge!

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Another perspective... by namgge · 2017-03-11 05:43 · Score: 1

The police asked for the photographs. The photographer said no. The police went away and asked a judge for a warrant. The judge agreed that a warrant was jusified and issued it. Scotland is not a police state. It's legal system does have some strange names for things though...
Re:Another perspective... by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 05:59 · Score: 1

But police do request warrants, and almost all are granted. Partially because police do know enough law that they make sure everything is in order and the warrant is reasonable on almost every occasion, but also partially because they know enough to play the system on any occasion they do feel the rules need to be bent, how to make sure they get a sympathetic judge, and what key phrases tick the legal boxes.
Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 06:47 · Score: 1

The police didn't get a warrant for the photographs, they got a warrant that would have allowed them to seize all of the equipment in his house, where, the photographs were not present, and used it as a threat to get him to comply. Had they gotten a warrant for the photographs, I would agree with you, but they didn't.
Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, the police did *NOT* ask for a warrant-- They asked to be allowed to seize all of his electronics, crippling his ability to work-- and then didn't SERVE that warrant, they merely said they would if he didn't cooperate.
In other words, this was legalized extortion: "That's an awfully nice career you have there-- would be a shame for something to happen to it. Now how's about you hand over those photos?"
That's not how it should work. The police make an official request for the photos, if the photographer refuses, when the case goes to court, a subpoena is issued, and if the photographer still refuses, he's held in contempt of court.
THAT is a legal process. What actually happened is government assisted extortion.
Re:Another perspective... by haruchai · 2017-03-11 07:08 · Score: 1

The police does not issue warrants.
Warrants are issued by a judge!
at the request of cops or some other official. Judges don't issue warrants if no one requests one

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Another perspective... by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-11 09:35 · Score: 1

Problem is that the warrant wasn't for the photos, it was for all the stuff he needs to earn a living that doesn't contain the photos.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Another perspective... by Dagger2 · 2017-03-11 09:39 · Score: 1

Literally quoting from the article:

Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It's quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police.
Re:Another perspective... by Spamalope · 2017-03-11 15:33 · Score: 1

You cover an event. Participants at the event attack you because your pictures are a risk for them since you are a police photographer in effect. (vs a news source journalists protect)
Re:Another perspective... by 91degrees · 2017-03-12 20:47 · Score: 1

They assumed that the data would be stored somewhere in all that crap. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe this photographer is lying. One way to find out.

The prosecution service needs to build a case. Waiting until court for a photo that may or may not show anything is not a practical way to do this.
Re:Another perspective... by Rastl · 2017-03-13 02:51 · Score: 1

I RTFA and it's not like that. Instead of going through the correct legal channels to request the photographs the police immediately jumped to a warrant to take EVERYTHING the guy had that might have been used to conduct his business. This was the overreaching warrant that was granted.
After he was sufficiently terrified of losing his livelihood they once again asked for the photos. Except now they offered to drop the warrant if he did.
During the hearing he almost wasn't able to even attend. He never got to answer any questions. His solicitor was asked things that couldn't be answered without recourse to him or the NUJ (National Union of Journalists). The NUJ representative wasn't even allowed to observe.
The article has been updated to state that the warrant is no longer in force. Probably. He's justifiably uncertain about that one.
The judge should be severely reprimanded for this one. The police used their position to blackmail him into giving them what they wanted. Pure and simple. They had a proper legal course of action to request the photographs - one that could be challenged - but instead chose to go the jackbooted thug route and the judge upheld it.

Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:06 · Score: 1

Why didn't you assist the investigation by giving them copies of the photos? You are informers of the public, police being among them. There is no way around it and if a suspected criminal wants to cover an identity or an event during an interview, he or she can simply ask for blurring, destruction or avoiding the filming altogether. You are an eyewitness in any case.

Who were the police protecting? by whoever57 · 2017-03-11 04:08 · Score: 2

From TFA:

Two weeks ago a senior police officer at a road accident ordered me to stop recording audio and delete any video that Iâ(TM)d already shot. I didnâ(TM)t delete the video so the officer took my press ID card, recorded my details, and told me that my camera would be seized.

Was this illegal activity that might have been captured on video, or was it some kind of security service activity that the authorities didn't want to see the light of day?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Who were the police protecting? by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 05:29 · Score: 1

The police might just have a policy against letting people film car accidents - it's embarassing when that stuff ends up on youtube, and the number plates and faces are sensitive information. The officer wasn't going to let someone film police at work just because he was a journalist, and when a non-police-person ignored his polite request resorted to the default police tactic of heavy-handed intimidation.
Re:Who were the police protecting? by HiThere · 2017-03-11 14:35 · Score: 1

That's the theory, but if you follow the news stories there are repeated examples where the police act in ways that are grossly beyond their legal rights. Including confiscating and searching cameras (and phones).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Who were the police protecting? by Zemran · 2017-03-11 17:38 · Score: 1

If you read the story, the warrant for seizure of his equipment is valid, forever. They have no right to stop anyone else from filming or taking photographs in a public place but this guy they can harm anytime they like.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Consider an Automatic Cloud Backup Service by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

There are many reputable providers and almost all of them offer some combination of common features including automatic scheduled backups of either the entire computers or selected drives/folders, versioning of backed up files, handy client software and web interface to facilitate the process, encrypted storage and secure access. Can the government still get your files if they really want to? Yeah, probably, but it seems to me that the main goals here are twofold:

1. A secure offsite backup to prevent theft or loss of data by misadventure, equipment failures, fires, viruses, etc.
2. To remove the sting from any police threat to seize the physical equipment, at least from a data loss point of view.

Finally, with regard to the physical loss of the equipment for a year or more, it should be possible to purchase an insurance policy against this for a relatively modest periodic fee. If I were Mr. Smith, I would speak with an insurance agent about this possibility. The policy should cover the cameras, computers, memory cards, etc. I would think that this kind of equipment insurance is common among professional photographers. If the policy doesn't cover police seizures already, it may be possible to purchase a rider on the policy to cover that. A good insurance agent should be aware of all the options and how to get it all set up.

Re:Consider an Automatic Cloud Backup Service by haruchai · 2017-03-11 07:13 · Score: 1

"purchase an insurance policy against this for a relatively modest periodic fee"
Insurance policies have exceptions. It wouldn't surprise me if they made seizure by the authorities one of them.
Even if that isn't the case initially, the fact that the warrant remains open means his gear can be seized over & over.
How many times would Lloyd's or Stiff Upper Lip insurers replace his stuff within, for example, a 6 month period?
Once, twice, weekly?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Dont want to thug lovin. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:22 · Score: 1

No I dont want no thugs,
a thug is a COP that cant get no love from me.
Riding high in the backseat of his ride,
tryin to fondle me.

A COP is a guy who isnt kind,
also known as a crime dustuh, ...blah... ...blah...

no, I dont want a ticket.
no, dont look at my plates

no...blah...blah

The thing to do, here by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:27 · Score: 1

>coöperated

Explain the umlaut here.

Where's the rest of the story? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:35 · Score: 1

I wanna know why this person has evidence for a criminal prosecution and refuses to cooperate? Where is the rest of the story with this person? I am pretty sure the police first choice was not to obtain a blanket warrant for all his equipment. I never like one sided stories because they are typically a skewed version.

Not unheard of by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 04:36 · Score: 5, Informative

> Rather than trying (and likely failing) to get a warrant to seize the photos, the prosecutor used a tactic that nobody had heard of before: He got a warrant to seize all of my cameras, computers, memory cards, etc

It's known as a writ of assistance and it was part of the reason why we sent a loud Fuck You to His Royal Majesty, by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith, King George III.

Re:The thing to do, here by thebigmacd · 2017-03-11 04:40 · Score: 1

In French, an umlaut indicates that the vowel is to be separately pronounced, as opposed to being pronounced as part of a dipthong (see Noël). In this instance it indicates that the pronunciation is "co-op" as opposed to "coop" as in "chicken coop". That said, an umlaut is not a component of English so who knows why they are using it.

Re:The thing to do, here by Hognoxious · 2017-03-11 04:53 · Score: 1

It's not an umlaut, it's a diaresis.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by CrAlt · 2017-03-11 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

From you blog...

I'd just finished covering a trial at the local sheriff court when there was an altercation between people involved in the trial. I photographed the incident.

Why not just PUBLISH the photos?
It happened in the public court.
Publishing would give the police, and everyone else access to what happened that day.

As a reporter why would you take the photo's and then try and hide them? Did you maybe have an interest in protecting one of the parties involved?

--
I have to return some videotapes...

Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by SuricouRaven · 2017-03-11 05:25 · Score: 1

You stopped reading at the end of that paragraph?
"Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It’s quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police."
The photographers need to be seen as impartial observers, not collectors of evidence that can be used against people. That means they never hand anything over to the police without a proper warrant. The police could have gotten that warrant, but they chose instead to play the legal system so they could threaten to destroy his career if he didn't cooperate 'voluntarily.'
It seems very much as if someone wanted to teach this journalist a lesson: We can destroy you on a whim, so do as we tell you.
Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by McFortner · 2017-03-11 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

You stopped reading at the end of that paragraph?
"Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It’s quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police."
That doesn't hold up. Reporters are supposed to report on what happened truthfully, regardless of which side it favors. By refusing to publish and release these photos, he has biased himself and chosen a side. If it would have embarrassed the police and/or the court, would he have felt compelled to withhold it in order to be "impartial"? No, because that is what a reporter does. But that works both ways. He must report on what is favorable for them as well as what hurts them.

--
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by AmiMoJo · 2017-03-11 06:06 · Score: 2

If the police had just kept quiet the photos might have been published. Depends on how graphic they were, and chances are only one in the series would have made it to print, maybe two on the web site.
The problem was created by the police asking. Once the police ask a journalist for something, the journalist can't give it to them because it would make other people unwilling to trust the journalist. Imagine someone gave an interview on condition of anonymity, and the police forced the interviewer to give up that person's contact details anyway... Their career would be pretty much over, and the public wouldn't be able to get those kinds of candid interviews any more.
The police have shown themselves to be the enemies of democracy time and time again. Using subservience powers to get the phone records of journalists in an attempt to unmask their sources, for example.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by Andy+Smith · 2017-03-11 06:09 · Score: 1

The incident in the photos brought about the immediate collapse of a trial, and an arrest, potentially leading to another trial. Publishing the photos would have been contempt of court.
Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 07:40 · Score: 2

That doesn't hold up. Reporters are supposed to report on what happened truthfully, regardless of which side it favors. By refusing to publish and release these photos, he has biased himself and chosen a side.
Reporters aren't firehoses. They don't list names and faces of everyone they see at rallies. They don't give the names and home address of the police officers. At some point, their job is to cover the story and that often involves leaving a lot of potentially embarrassing or abusable information.

If it would have embarrassed the police and/or the court, would he have felt compelled to withhold it in order to be "impartial"? No, because that is what a reporter does.
So, you're saying that reporters always report every embarrassing thing the police or courts do? Seriously? No, they leave a lot of that out because it's just not news worthy.

But that works both ways. He must report on what is favorable for them as well as what hurts them.
Yep, doxing everyone is the thing to do as a reporter. We all know that won't lead to harassment or worse.
Seriously, if all you think a reporters job to do is strap a camera on their person and constantly broadcast on Facebook while going to events, court hearings, etc, you obviously have no idea what it means to be a reporter or journalist.
Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by sumdumass · 2017-03-11 17:25 · Score: 1

Why would it be contempt of court? Was he ordered not to publish them?
You can only be in contempt of court if you disobey or fail to faithfully follow an order issued by the court. There is no such thing as an implied order either.
The cops likely wanted the photos before the story behind them could be written and once the cops had them, it would become part of a trial and therefore public record if used as evidence. Doing it like this would be giving any news organization the right to publish the photos without paying royalties. This guys real reason seems to be motivated by monetary losses and not the stated reasons. If the events played out like he says, he is in no more of a position of confidence than a tourist or random stranger. He had no special access to witness the fight. The only difference is that he won't get paid for the use of the photos if they become evidence.

Re:The thing to do, here by serviscope_minor · 2017-03-11 05:02 · Score: 2

That said, an umlaut is not a component of English so who knows why they are using it.

To make it more mëtäl?

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Operation WETBACK by gestalt_n_pepper · 2017-03-11 05:31 · Score: 1, Funny

Sorry about your spelling and punctuation problems and all the cognitive problems they imply.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

I don't know... by McFortner · 2017-03-11 05:42 · Score: 2

Something sounds fishy about this. I have a feeling we aren't getting the whole story out of this. Face it, human beings are by nature energy conserving (read lazy) and it would have been a lot easier to ask first, then get the production order. The press hands over photographs and videos to the police as evidence all the time without any problems. Why is it they are trying to make an example out of him? Or has it been he's been doing his best to make trouble for authorities and this is just a clever excuse? It's probably somewhere in between the two extremes, but how far one way or the other is going to be hard to determine with the limited, one sided information that his post gives out.

Remember, understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth. (with apologies to JMS)

--
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.

Re:I don't know... by DerekLyons · 2017-03-11 18:02 · Score: 1

Something sounds fishy about this. I have a feeling we aren't getting the whole story out of this.
I have that feeling too - especially after the self serving bullshit about how he wouldn't assist the police. Followed by an explanation about how he had to call his union to discover what his rights were and what the procedure was. What kind of professional doesn't already know this stuff?

Face it, human beings are by nature energy conserving (read lazy) and it would have been a lot easier to ask first, then get the production order. The press hands over photographs and videos to the police as evidence all the time without any problems. Why is it they are trying to make an example out of him? Or has it been he's been doing his best to make trouble for authorities and this is just a clever excuse?
My bet - he said something abysmally provocative and stupid to the officer that called him. And either he's not telling us that, or he's a complete idiot that doesn't grasp what he did.

Re:The thing to do, here by darthsilun · 2017-03-11 05:46 · Score: 3, Informative

It's not an umlaut. There are no umlauts in English. Coöperate isn't a German word.

it's a diaeresis. It's tells the reader that you pronounce the second 'o'. It's not pronounced coop-er-ate, it's pronounced co-op-er-ate.

It's most commonly seen in scholarly papers, and in the New Yorker magazine, where it's the 'house style'.

Something doesn't ring true by darthsilun · 2017-03-11 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.

What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".

Maybe standards have slipped in the UK, but I really can't imagine a judge in Scotland approving such a warrant. Some other places in the world I can see it happening, but I wouldn't have thought in Scotland.

But IANAL, not in Scotland, not anywhere. (Even though I play one on TV)

Re:Something doesn't ring true by darthsilun · 2017-03-11 10:47 · Score: 1

If the prosecution, i.e. Queens Counsel, in a criminal trial wants his photographs to use as evidence against someone else, I would expect them to subpoena them.
They did. He illegally refused to comply. Making him a criminal.
I'm still not a lawyer, but AIUI the judge can find him in contempt of court. I don't know what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in Scotland. Over here you can be fined, and even jailed. A few days in the pokey usually puts people in the right frame of mind to comply with subpoenas and court orders.

What they don't do, AIUI, is have the police get a (search) warrant to search the home of an innocent third party. for "evidence".
Except this criminal is not innocent. He's broke the law.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Criminals are – generally – not innocent. At least of the crime(s) they were convicted for.
So he's been tried, has he? And convicted? AFAICT he might only be in contempt of court. And all in all, that's a rather key fact to have left out in the telling of this tale of miscarriage of justice.
And WRT "He's broke [sic] the law.", I dare say we've all broken the law at one point or another in our lives. Does that make us all criminals? And thus subject to random warrants to have jackbooted thugs confiscate our property?

Sorry what? by pele · 2017-03-11 06:16 · Score: 1

What sort of an ass are you actually?
You are "press" yet no-one gets to see your "material"?
As far as that sheriff is concerned you have witnessed an event and if you have material evidence that can help someone solve the case then you are a proper cnut for not giving them the photos straight away.
"Press impartiality"? To what? You witness an event and you report on it publicly, what exactly is partial in that?

Moaner.

Re:Sorry what? by darthsilun · 2017-03-11 09:15 · Score: 1

If he has evidence, the normal thing to do is subpoena it. If he refuses to deliver it he can be found in contempt of court, and penalized appropriately by the court.
AIUI that's how it works (is supposed to work) here (USA), and how I suppose ti works in the UK too since our legal system is based on theirs.
What you don't get to do is get a so-called warrant, for jack booted thugs to confiscate personal property.
The fact that you seem to be okay with jack booted thugs is – cough – troubling to me, and I presume to many in the civilized world.

Civil forfeiture how's this for crazy in Canada by future+assassin · 2017-03-11 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative

In Canada especially in BC civil forfeiture is now being used as a punishment in some cases when the crown lost the case. Its sounds crazy but http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... there are other cases and even judges has stated on record that what the Civil Forfeiture office is doing goes beyond the punishment but the judges are power less to over turn it.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

More rescent info by future+assassin · 2017-03-11 06:33 · Score: 1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:Leave the UK by BlueStrat · 2017-03-11 06:58 · Score: 2

I never understood why people living in totalitarian regimes complain about not being able to have free speech. Right now you have the ability to leave your country and go to one where you can do your job without being persecuted (as much). Let the UK slowly shrivel with its backwards laws and misguided ideals. It will naturally crumble when its citizens won't be able to support it.

Maybe because he would rather stay and fight those destroying his native country that he loves rather than flee and allow the descent into totalitarianism to proceed unopposed? To where will people flee when the last relatively-free nation(s) joins other less-free nations (the world's majority) in oppressing the people? Fleeing is a temporary solution at best, and submission to tyranny at worst.

There are only a small handful of nations which are relatively "free". We're each already at our 'Alamo' and we'd better defend them and our freedom, as there's rapidly becoming nowhere left to flee to escape.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:The thing to do, here by smugfunt · 2017-03-11 07:11 · Score: 2

Diaeresis#English

secret sharing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-11 07:12 · Score: 1

even better, you can use cryptologic secret sharing methods to split backups between multiple locations so that all files are needed to access the data.

It will take cooperation of, say, the US, China, Iran and Russia to get access.

Re:asshole by MindPrison · 2017-03-11 08:05 · Score: 1

does this asshole knows it's impossible o erase data from a memory card?

LOL, a memory card is non-magnetic storage, it's all electrical. You can fill up the entire card with other files, it'll write over all the old content. There is no magnetic residue left over like the old harddisk system with a spinning magnetic disk where you could find earlier data due to misalignement over the years.

--
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.

The guard dog fell asleep..... by BlytheBowman · 2017-03-11 08:51 · Score: 1

.....and of course the fox raided the chicken coop. Guard Dog=Citzens of the UK Fox=Your government

RTFA by tomhath · 2017-03-11 08:52 · Score: 1

I took advice from the National Union of Journalists, who advised that there is a standard procedure in such cases: The police issue what is known as a production order, then the photographer either co-operates or the union contests the order. We told the police that the photos wouldn’t be handed over voluntarily. The only copy of the photos was placed in a secure off-site location.

It was at this point that events took an unexpected turn. The police chose not to issue a production order. Instead, the Procurator Fiscal (the Scottish equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service in England, or the District Attorney in the United States) applied for a warrant to raid my home and seize “if necessary by force” all of my electronic equipment.

It sounds like there was more to his discussions with the police than he lets on here, and he doesn't say whether he told the police that he'd moved the photographs offsite. I get the impression he was being a dick about it so the prosecutor (not the police) got a warrant to seize everything that might contain the photographs instead of just the pictures.

The guard dog fell asleep........ by BlytheBowman · 2017-03-11 09:00 · Score: 1

........and of course the fox raided the chicken coop. Guard Dog=Citzens of the UK. Fox=Your government Chicken Coop=everything you hold dear, including your freedom

informed, not served by citizenr · 2017-03-11 09:22 · Score: 1

Sell all of your equipment. To a friend, to a family member etc. Sell it all, have everything in writing.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

Re:You've got that kind of backwards... by Grishnakh · 2017-03-11 10:31 · Score: 1

Sounds like it's the EU that needs to build a "big, beautiful wall".... It shouldn't be that expensive, because the Greece/Bulgaria border with Turkey isn't that long; it looks like roughly 200 miles judging by a map. Or they could just invade Turkey and seize most of the European part, short of Istanbul; then they'd only need a wall about 25 miles long.

Re:Operation WETBACK by Maureen+Base · 2017-03-11 10:33 · Score: 1

Is there a reason I can't understand what you are saying?

--
Would you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.

Another Glorious Triumph by julian67 · 2017-03-11 12:22 · Score: 1

Another Glorious Triumph for the National Socialist Scottish Workers' Party and Police Scotland. All hail the victory of True Scottish National Socialism and the Almighty, 1000 year blockhouse blockhead Fuhrer, Mrs Rab C Nesbitt!

Judicial tyranny FTW! by jmcvetta · 2017-03-11 16:04 · Score: 1

Fuck you, commoner, that's why.

USA is worse. by Stoutlimb · 2017-03-11 16:46 · Score: 1

In the USA they don't even give them back.

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-03-11 20:20 · Score: 1

Harriet Tubman was just a local community activist. The "Underground Railroad" mythology comes from a Coca-cola advertising campaign dating to 1913 wherein they use her name and likeness.

Welcome to the new world order.... by Lumpy · 2017-03-12 00:13 · Score: 1

"As for the warrant, it remains active, with no time limit. I now conduct my work knowing that the police could raid my home at any time, without warning, and take everything."

"The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and terrorisim and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain."

Welcome to the world all of your fuckers created.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by RabidReindeer · 2017-03-12 00:43 · Score: 1

Fortunately, in the Real World, there are people who don't know better. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. People like the US Founding Fathers. Even people like Fidel Castro (you don't have to be a Good Guy to fight the state).

You may not lead a long and happy life, but at least you're not likely to be forgotten by History as merely another Jew queueing up to get into the boxcar.

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by easyTree · 2017-03-12 01:09 · Score: 1

Exactly the kind of thing a liberal would say! :P

--
Requiem for the American Dream

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by easyTree · 2017-03-12 01:11 · Score: 1

It's almost as if the terms are nothing but a distraction from the issues deployed by those with an interest in the issues being free from scrutiny.

--
Requiem for the American Dream

Re:The thing to do, here by bhetrick · 2017-03-12 01:19 · Score: 1

It's a diæresis, and it's English's only native diacritical mark.

Civilized Countries by RecycledElectrons · 2017-03-12 03:29 · Score: 1

Civilized countries have a way to send their police to prison for this kind of terrorism.

Aparently the UK is not a civilized country.

I will resume purchasing British products when these cops are on trial.

Democracy at risk - we need to act! by SlovakWakko · 2017-03-12 04:28 · Score: 1

Those pesky Russians, oppressing journalists and blackmailing them with crazy warrants. We should enact some more sanctions against them!

Re:The thing to do, here by michael_wojcik · 2017-03-12 08:22 · Score: 1

it's English's only native diacritical mark

M' learnèd friend is perhaps forgetting the grave accent?

Re:The thing to do, here by bhetrick · 2017-03-12 14:15 · Score: 1

Ah! I was naïve.

How would this affect impartiality? by 91degrees · 2017-03-12 20:26 · Score: 1

The photographer had photos documenting an event. The event happened. The police want the unbiased document.

If neutrality is so important, also offer exactly the same to the accused.

Re:The thing to do, here by 91degrees · 2017-03-12 20:51 · Score: 1

I guess for the same reason as the New Yorker

Personally, I think this is hokum. I am perfectly aware of what "cooperate" spells. Most people do.

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by alexandru_preoteasa · 2017-03-13 02:46 · Score: 1

Wow, a bit contemptuous of Jews much?
Why so anti-Semitic?

Re: Offsite backups become more and more importan by RabidReindeer · 2017-03-13 03:47 · Score: 1

Well, if I'd said "another black person lining up for the slave ship", you'd have probably called me racist. The point isn't the race, nationality or religion of the person, it's whether they accept their fate meekly or they fight back, even if they'll ultimately lose.

The real story... by syntotic · 2017-03-13 05:44 · Score: 1

...is that it was not seizing but theft, it was computers and cards and were just taken without any warrant nor any indication it was some authority, which can of course be accessed formally and keeps matters public if need be. And is findable. And no, I would not erase my computers nor cards nor drives, the photos are to be followed according to the meaning I can give them. Some, most of them even. So the implication is that these people heard of THIS case and are mimicking. False news? Could be. That neither computers nor cards were, are, in my possession is what was not seizing but theft, and does turn the thieves into my almost something! I ve seen that trick before, Lump Together, they are all a group and... the tactic is African in essence. So now leads trail somewhere else, and my case? Confused with this one. So may be playacting or really enacting or trying to find WHO to **make the rumor** real, which is a technique of displacement. No doubt this theft can even reach across continents, after all, it is the first time it is happening to Humanity, NEARLY ALL PICTURES TAKEN ARE IMPORTANT DESPITE THEIR OVERALL NUMBER. So what do they want to investigate? They will understand nothing without an ordering tool, most likely. This news should come with picture samples. There is style in Photography, no doubt. Consider any attack against pictures a Muslim inspired attack.

Slashdot Mirror

Police Allegedly Threaten A UK Photographer With Seizure Of All His Computers (wordpress.com)

182 of 299 comments (clear)