Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the coercing-cooperation dept.

Andy Smith is a Scotland-based news photographer (and a long-time reader of Slashdot). He writes Recently the police wanted to seize some of my work photos to use as evidence in a prosecution... 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, even though the photos were in a secure location, not at my home or in my possession. I was then given 24 hours to retrieve and hand over the photos, or the police would raid my home and take everything, effectively ending my career.
His blog post describes erasing every computer and memory card, though he believes the police only wanted the leverage that came from threatening to seize them. But the journalists' union advised him to surrender the photos, since otherwise his equipment could be held for over a year -- so he complied. "I regret my decision. Everyone on this side of the case has reassured me that it was the right thing to do, but it wasn't."

"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."

46 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · · 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.
    1. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Zocalo · · 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!
    2. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by coastwalker · · 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.
    3. Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      demonstrate a illiteracy

      *golf clap*

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous Coward · · 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. :/

    7. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by gweihir · · 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.
    8. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · 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.
    9. Re:Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · · 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.
    10. Re: Offsite backups become more and more important by Opportunist · · 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.
  2. Couldn't happen in the US by Hognoxious · · 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."
    1. Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Couldn't happen in the US by rmdingler · · 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

    3. Re:Couldn't happen in the US by Roger+W+Moore · · 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.

    4. Re:Couldn't happen in the US by ckatko · · 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!

  3. This is normal. by FooAtWFU · · 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.
    1. Re:This is normal. by Grishnakh · · 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.

    2. Re:This is normal. by harperska · · Score: 2

      How bad could Best Korea be? They have 'Democratic' right there in their name.

    3. Re:This is normal. by Nemyst · · 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?

    4. Re:This is normal. by Teun · · 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."
    5. Re:This is normal. by boa · · 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/...

    6. Re:This is normal. by dryeo · · 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
  4. Bottom line... by hyades1 · · 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.
    1. Re:Bottom line... by hey! · · 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.
    2. Re:Bottom line... by AmiMoJo · · 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
  5. Dicks by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Who were the police protecting? by whoever57 · · 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!
  7. Re:citizens injunctions? by ColdWetDog · · 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!
  8. Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  9. Not unheard of by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by CrAlt · · 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...
    1. Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by McFortner · · 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.
    2. Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by AmiMoJo · · 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
    3. Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Re:The thing to do, here by serviscope_minor · · 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.
  12. Re:Cops = thugs by Applehu+Akbar · · 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.

  13. I don't know... by McFortner · · 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.
  14. Re:The thing to do, here by darthsilun · · 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'.

  15. Something doesn't ring true by darthsilun · · 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)

  16. Civil forfeiture how's this for crazy in Canada by future+assassin · · 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*
  17. Re:Leave the UK by BlueStrat · · 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.
  18. Re:Another perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  19. Re:The thing to do, here by smugfunt · · Score: 2

    Diaeresis#English

  20. Re:citizens injunctions? by gweihir · · 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.
  21. Re:citizens injunctions? by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

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