>> > On 9 July, 19:40, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- >> > in-...@lineone.net> wrote: >> >> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
>> > It only talks about terrorism and does not address other red rags to >> > their bull. e.g. the "crime" of photographing children. This can not >> > only get you arrested (and hence ineligible for US visa waiver) but >> > also an entry on the CRB intel database as a possible paedophile (and >> > hence ineligible for certain kinds of work), even if you have a >> > totally innocent explanation.
>> There is no such thing as the crime of photographing children and in a >> public place you have every right to if you so wish (as long as you don't >> mind dealing with disgruntled parents and the odd mis-informed PCSO etc...). >> So, with all due respect, you are basically talking a load of crap
>> MC
>Thank you for your respect. Yes, you know and I know that there is no >such crime, which is why I put the word in quotes. But there is an >urban myth that there is, and IME it's hard to convince PCs/PCSOs/ >disgruntled parents otherwise. This is why it would have been nice to >have it covered by the Met's guidelines.
>And in case anyone wonders, I don't normally have any interest in >photographing children,
It is getting very bad when you actually have to start putting "disclaimers" like this in posts to Usenet. :-(
>or adults for that matter, without asking or >being asked, but like PCSOs, sometimes they get in the frame.
And most PCSO's have no idea of the law. Come ot that many Police are not that clued up. I understand that the police can not know all the law all the time (there is a lot of it) but you should now laws you intend to use. breat coppers will not need to know fraud, computer, financial crime etc but they should know the stuff relating to "street crime"
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> >> > whisky-dave wrote: > >> >> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > >> >>news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> >>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: > >> >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> >> >>> "Officers have the power to view digital images > >> >>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried > >> >>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism > >> >>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine > >> >>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile > >> >>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in > >> >>> connection with terrorism."
> >> >>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some neat > >> >>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of > >> >>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
> >> >>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as a > >> >>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
> >> >> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are you > >> >> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student and started > >> >> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. that > >> >> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist could > >> >> come up with a long winded description of such things. > >> >> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making > >> >> themselves conspicuous like that.
> >> > These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, > >> > travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do > >> > research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
> >> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
> >> -- > >> Regards,
> >> Savageduck
> >Interestingly, where I used to work in New Mexico disappeared from > >Google Earth. Try to find it, they've replaced it with an overlay of a > >bunch of tumbleweed. You can go down the state highway that leads to > >it, and the google road map from the car disappears. Picks up a few > >miles later. Yeah, cue up the X Files theme. ...
> >So, there is some censorship. At least in some areas of the US.
> You're just now finding out about this? (Cue clueless theme.) It's not just > "some areas".
> This is why I urge any adventurer to keep all old copies of their > topographic data, paper or digital. You'd be surprised at the number of > trails and roads that they "disappeared" from present data all across the > world. My last trekking buddy and I were wondering why the data from Topo > 5.0 didn't reveal the very same roads and trails that were on Topo 4.0 > data. The very roads that we were already traveling on in hundreds of > locations. It's since gotten worse with subsequent software "upgrades".
> I swear, the more and more that I read on usenet, the more and more I > believe that the rest of humanity is already brain-dead. Or at least > desperately compelled to become that way.
No not really. I remember an instructor in college talking about maps and how they weren't infallable.
I remember being at Edwards, we needed a base map for years. Finally got Defense Mapping to come up with one. Within a few days some of the range rats found all sorts of problems with it, sites that no longer existed on it, some that were off in location. Probably has never been corrected.
Keeps cartographers employed.
Want a good read, go look up some of the annual newspaper reporting on how the company that makes the large books of streets for LA does it. Great source of income, movie planners use them, delivery drivers, all that. They put in a fake street or two to be able to prove that copyright has been infringed if people just copy and reproduce them. Sneaky.
My point was there was a location that WAS there and a few months later disappeared. And so it goes....
Annika1980 wrote: > On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: >> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In >> Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not >> fine enough for tactical planning.
> I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" > on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go > to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the > street.
A good point. Many cities have asked Google to abstain from streetview or at least remove photos of people or personal info.
<dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote: >On Jul 12, 12:02 am, Surprised Not <y...@noaddress.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT), frank
>> This is why I urge any adventurer to keep all old copies of their >> topographic data, paper or digital. You'd be surprised at the number of >> trails and roads that they "disappeared" from present data all across the >> world. My last trekking buddy and I were wondering why the data from Topo >> 5.0 didn't reveal the very same roads and trails that were on Topo 4.0 >> data. The very roads that we were already traveling on in hundreds of >> locations. It's since gotten worse with subsequent software "upgrades".
>No not really. I remember an instructor in college talking about maps >and how they weren't infallable.
>I remember being at Edwards, we needed a base map for years. Finally >got Defense Mapping to come up with one. Within a few days some of the >range rats found all sorts of problems with it, sites that no longer >existed on it, some that were off in location. Probably has never been >corrected.
>Keeps cartographers employed.
>Want a good read, go look up some of the annual newspaper reporting on >how the company that makes the large books of streets for LA does it. >Great source of income, movie planners use them, delivery drivers, all >that. They put in a fake street or two to be able to prove that >copyright has been infringed if people just copy and reproduce them. >Sneaky.
>My point was there was a location that WAS there and a few months >later disappeared. And so it goes....
What you say is true, but I'm talking about verified roads that they disappeared from many places, mostly in wilderness areas. Example: we were trying to find an inroad to a more remote valley in one spot for some wildlife photography we needed to do. This is on public lands mind you. Clearly shown on our topo 4.0 data. As long as there was a road available we were going to take our whole traveling digital-photo-rig (solar-panel powered desktop, wide-bed printer for test proofs on the spot, etc.) along with, instead packing-up and hoofing it for many miles. The entrance turn to that road was nowhere to be found. We got out of the vehicle and looked around. Right where the road was supposed to be was an inconspicuous low berm and hollow behind it that would prevent any typical vehicle from going that way through the woods. Trees and native plants looking no more out of the ordinary than anywhere else. Scratching our heads we got curious. We walked back behind that berm about 100 yrds. and there it was--the road. *Very* cleverly disappeared. The army-corps-of-engineers' handiwork no doubt. We found a way around that berm and through the stands of trees with our vehicle and continued on our merry way. Photo assignment (self-assigned) accomplished.
This is just one of many where this happened in many states, many locations. Later, now aware of this behavior of governments, we often compared topo 5.0 data to reality more often. Sure enough it would happen time and time again, a road wasn't shown on any maps anymore but was shown in 4.0 data. Even some open roads, not camouflaged-entrance ones, wouldn't appear on the 5.0 data at times but was clearly shown on the 4.0 data. I guess they hope that, in time, people will stop traveling on them because their vehicle's GPS unit is no longer telling them it exists. Then they can "disappear" that one too with a low berm and some carefully replanted vegetation.
[Fun anecdote: my photo-trekking buddy was telling me about how he found a way through a pass in Alaska mountains with his snowmobile, a way that nobody dared try before. It stared to become a locally known but rarely traveled snowmobile route after that, for the brave. He wanted to show me where it was on the topo software and how he got through. Not expecting anything other than elevation contours when trying to locate it. We surprisingly found that that little trail of his now appears on all mapping software. I guess they picked it up from aerial/satellite imagery.]
For the wilderness trekker and wildlife photographer, keep your old data with you too. You'll be sorry that you didn't some day.
> Annika1980 wrote: >> On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: >>> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In >>> Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not >>> fine enough for tactical planning.
>> I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" >> on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go >> to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the >> street.
> A good point. Many cities have asked Google to abstain from streetview or > at least remove photos of people or personal info.
Surely a city (council, Mayor, whoever represents it) cannot force Google not to "streetview" their city. I cannot see Google giving up "streetview" of a city just because the said city does not like it.
MC wrote: > "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:TdidnSo9gb1118fXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com... >> Annika1980 wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >>> wrote: >>>> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In >>>> Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not >>>> fine enough for tactical planning. >>> I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" >>> on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go >>> to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the >>> street. >> A good point. Many cities have asked Google to abstain from streetview or >> at least remove photos of people or personal info.
> Surely a city (council, Mayor, whoever represents it) cannot force Google > not to "streetview" their city. I cannot see Google giving up "streetview" > of a city just because the said city does not like it.
Surprised Not wrote: > disappeared from many places, mostly in wilderness areas. Example: we were > trying to find an inroad to a more remote valley in one spot for some > wildlife photography we needed to do. This is on public lands mind you. > Clearly shown on our topo 4.0 data. As long as there was a road available > we were going to take our whole traveling digital-photo-rig (solar-panel > powered desktop, wide-bed printer for test proofs on the spot, etc.) along
I find it utterly hilarious that you expect people to believe this sort of rubbish.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> On Jul 9, 1:40 pm, Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address- > in-...@lineone.net> wrote: > > Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
MC wrote: > "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > news:TdidnSo9gb1118fXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com... >> Annika1980 wrote: >>> On Jul 11, 12:26 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >>> wrote: >>>> GE is 2D so it can be misleading wrt terrain, obstacles and so on. In >>>> Google Maps there is the "terrain" view with elevation, but it is not >>>> fine enough for tactical planning. >>> I haven't checked London, but around here you can choose "Street View" >>> on Google maps to see actual photos of the locations. Then you can go >>> to the next pic taken a few yards away as if you're walking down the >>> street. >> A good point. Many cities have asked Google to abstain from streetview or >> at least remove photos of people or personal info.
> Surely a city (council, Mayor, whoever represents it) cannot force Google > not to "streetview" their city. I cannot see Google giving up "streetview" > of a city just because the said city does not like it.
> MC
> MC
Google actually stated in a BBC news program a while back that they won't conduct street mapping in an area if the residents don't want it done. It's already happened in a few places.
>>> The Met Police have not changed anything, they are just making clear >>> what the law says and what we all knew. It is not a case of "hope the >>> other police forces follow", they simply have to comply with what is the >>> law, bottom line.
>> Whilst I agree with the sentiment that all police forces (and individual >> officers) are required to uphold and comply with the law it is >> unrealistic to expect each and every officer to know all of the >> intricacies of all the laws that are currently in force. Indeed it would >> be a Herculean task seeing as this government has created 1 new offence >> for every day it has been in power!
> I agree, but the OPs post inferred that the Met has it's own, independent > interpretation of the law when in fact the law is the law and all police > forces must adhere to it.
>> The subject of photography may be of importance to us - because we're >> photographers - but it is of far less import when considered against >> murder, rape and other less-severe crimes. I would rather the police know >> their way around those bits of legislation than a few odd-ball sections >> of the Terrorism Act 2000.
> Again, I agree. However, not knowing the law is no excuse for making it > up as you go along. All police officers should know exactly what the law > is before confronting any member of the public who are engaging in an > activity to which that law refers. If they are not clear on the law at the > time they should leave well alone until they are educated of the correct > procedure under that particular law, by a senior officer on site or back > at headquaters.
I've heard police officers here in the USA mention that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when someone unknowingly violates a law. The same should apply to those charged with enforcing the law, even moreso. They should be held to a higher standard.
>> So far I have not had any problems when undertaking street photography >> despite including several police officers in my pictures - plus >> government buildings, military installations/personnel and transport >> infrastructure.
> Me neither come to that. They just dare. :-)
>> Sorry, MC, if this sounds like I'm having a dig at you personally - I'm >> not, but I needed to sound off somewhere and it was your comment that got >> the juices flowing ;-)
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > I've heard police officers here in the USA mention that "ignorance of the > law is no excuse" when someone unknowingly violates a law. The same should > apply to those charged with enforcing the law, even moreso. They should be > held to a higher standard.
In California I heard that (at the time [mid-2008]) it was not legal to have a GPS navigator stuck to the windshield under the mirror [only a 5 in squared area in either lower window corner was permitted]. On my way into a restaurant a couple cops were looking at license plates and I asked them. Baffled, they said "no problem". This was, admittedly, a narrow area of the California highway code, but these cops had no idea. (The law has since been modified in CA).
In article <h3g655$up...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou <nto...@optonline.net> writes
>I've heard police officers here in the USA mention that "ignorance of >the law is no excuse" when someone unknowingly violates a law.
It is the same here - you don't need to know what law you are breaking to be guilty of breaking it.
>The same should apply to those charged with enforcing the law, even >moreso.
Nice idea in principle.
"All animals are equal, But some are more equal than others"
Why do you think they are called pigs? Sadly, it is nothing to literate. In the UK, and also in the US, it is because their senior officer's snouts are up to their ears in the trough!
>They should be held to a higher standard.
Just the same standard would be a good start.
"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the police. The creatures outside looked from police to thieves, and from terrorist to police, and from police to politician again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - sic. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <h3g655$up...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou > <nto...@optonline.net> writes >> I've heard police officers here in the USA mention that "ignorance of >> the law is no excuse" when someone unknowingly violates a law.
> It is the same here - you don't need to know what law you are breaking > to be guilty of breaking it.
>> The same should apply to those charged with enforcing the law, even >> moreso.
> Nice idea in principle.
> "All animals are equal, > But some are more equal than others"
> Why do you think they are called pigs? Sadly, it is nothing to > literate. In the UK, and also in the US, it is because their senior > officer's snouts are up to their ears in the trough!
How does one literate something?
<s>
>> They should be held to a higher standard.
> Just the same standard would be a good start.
> "No question now, what had happened to the faces of the police. The > creatures outside looked from police to thieves, and from terrorist to > police, and from police to politician again; but already it was > impossible to say which was which." - sic.
yeah, I knew what you meant, and picking a tiny typo is not meant to diminish the truth and eloquence of what you say. Quoting Orwell is almost always a good thing.
Kennedy McEwen wrote: > In article <h3g655$up...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou > <nto...@optonline.net> writes >> I've heard police officers here in the USA mention that "ignorance of >> the law is no excuse" when someone unknowingly violates a law.
> It is the same here - you don't need to know what law you are breaking > to be guilty of breaking it.
>> The same should apply to those charged with enforcing the law, even >> moreso.
> Nice idea in principle.
> "All animals are equal, > But some are more equal than others"
> Why do you think they are called pigs? Sadly, it is nothing to > literate. In the UK, and also in the US, it is because their senior > officer's snouts are up to their ears in the trough!
>> They should be held to a higher standard.
> Just the same standard would be a good start.
> "No question now, what had happened to the faces of the police. The > creatures outside looked from police to thieves, and from terrorist to > police, and from police to politician again; but already it was > impossible to say which was which." - sic.
It's the old Latin "vigilis" thing. (My Latin being near extinct I won't attempt the quote).
I agree in general that those sworn to any public office should be held to a much higher consequence for deliberate malfeasance.
> >> > whisky-dave wrote: > >> >> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message > >> >>news:P6GdnYvPyaer4MvXnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > >> >>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote: > >> >>>> Good news. Common sense at last. Hope other police forces follow.
> >> >>> "Officers have the power to view digital images > >> >>> contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried > >> >>> by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism > >> >>> Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine > >> >>> whether the images contained in the camera or mobile > >> >>> telephone are of a kind, which could be used in > >> >>> connection with terrorism."
> >> >>> leaves a lot to interpretation. You take a close up photo of some > >> >>> neat > >> >>> detail of the London Eye and it could be artistic or part of > >> >>> recconaisance on where to place a bomb.
> >> >>> There are endless possibilities of what strikes a persons fancy as > >> >>> a > >> >>> photographic subject and what might be scouting.
> >> >> Friends of mine have had that problem the police asking so why are > >> >> you > >> >> taking a picture of the 4 security cameras. he was an art student > >> >> and started > >> >> describing the way the barbed wire created a frame for the camera. > >> >> that > >> >> enclosed the clouds. The policeman believed him, I doubt a terrorist > >> >> could > >> >> come up with a long winded description of such things. > >> >> I do wonder why a terrorist would bother taking such photos making > >> >> themselves conspicuous like that.
> >> > These days there is so much photography on the web, in magazines, > >> > travel books, etc., etc., etc. that a terrorist would only need to do > >> > research then eyeball recce. without a camera.
> >> Google Earth is the London terrorist's friend.
> >> -- > >> Regards,
> >> Savageduck
> >Interestingly, where I used to work in New Mexico disappeared from > >Google Earth. Try to find it, they've replaced it with an overlay of a > >bunch of tumbleweed. You can go down the state highway that leads to > >it, and the google road map from the car disappears. Picks up a few > >miles later. Yeah, cue up the X Files theme. ...
> >So, there is some censorship. At least in some areas of the US.
> You're just now finding out about this? (Cue clueless theme.) It's not > just > "some areas".
> This is why I urge any adventurer to keep all old copies of their > topographic data, paper or digital. You'd be surprised at the number of > trails and roads that they "disappeared" from present data all across the > world. My last trekking buddy and I were wondering why the data from Topo > 5.0 didn't reveal the very same roads and trails that were on Topo 4.0 > data. The very roads that we were already traveling on in hundreds of > locations. It's since gotten worse with subsequent software "upgrades".
> I swear, the more and more that I read on usenet, the more and more I > believe that the rest of humanity is already brain-dead. Or at least > desperately compelled to become that way.
No not really. I remember an instructor in college talking about maps and how they weren't infallable.
I remember being at Edwards, we needed a base map for years. Finally got Defense Mapping to come up with one. Within a few days some of the range rats found all sorts of problems with it, sites that no longer existed on it, some that were off in location. Probably has never been corrected.
Keeps cartographers employed.
Want a good read, go look up some of the annual newspaper reporting on how the company that makes the large books of streets for LA does it. Great source of income, movie planners use them, delivery drivers, all that. They put in a fake street or two to be able to prove that copyright has been infringed if people just copy and reproduce them. Sneaky.
My point was there was a location that WAS there and a few months later disappeared. And so it goes....
All these maps show the street I live on to be a through street, but in fact, it is a dead end, and if one were to crash through the barrier at the end, one would be looking at about a 30 foot drop to the ground below........
They can put out all the bulletins and directives they want. I will believe it when they stop arresting tourists who are behaving like tourists. Perhaps an official US State Department advisory warning tourists not to take pictures in Great Britain would light a fire under these jokers.
>They can put out all the bulletins and directives they want. I will >believe it when they stop arresting tourists who are behaving like >tourists.
Panorama (30 mins bbc1 Monday) and "taking liberties" (2 hours more4 last night) were covering these issues pretty comprehensively....
It is likely that the silent majority won't stay silent much longer.
> Perhaps an official US State Department advisory warning tourists not >to take pictures in Great Britain would light a fire under these >jokers.
Why would that have any relevance?
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Okay, thanks! I think this may help to explain the fate of Rich's own so-called "brain" -- it was the victim of an alien abduction, shortly after his birth. <g>
|
