On Wednesday night, two men from Garland, Texas were shot to death after an attempt to recover a stolen camera. 26-year-old Michael Ryan Love scheduled a meeting after seeing a camera on OfferUp. He believed it was the camera that had been stolen from him, and he wanted to recover it from the seller, which ended in a tragedy.
Earlier this year, New Carlisle News photographer Andy Grimm was shot because of his camera. Clark County deputy Jake Shaw confused Grimm’s camera and tripod for a gun and reportedly shot him without warning. The photographer has now decided to file a lawsuit against Shaw, seeking over $75,000 in damages.
Artificial intelligence is developing fast and has many possible applications. However, it makes mistakes, and this has proven to be a problem for London’s Metropolitan Police. They use AI to detect incriminating images on seized electronic devices. But, it’s unreliable when it comes to nudity, as it still can’t tell the difference between a nude photo and a photo of a desert.
You might remember that police in the Netherlands were training eagles to take drones out of the sky. After almost two years they have decided to shut down the program.
This controversial program had caused significant concern among animal activists who questioned how harmful it would be to the birds. After nearly two years the birds are being retired and reportedly sent to new homes.
Shootings are covered by the media every day. What’s not so common, though, is when a news organisation is reporting that one of their own staff has been shot. In this case, New Carlisle News photographer, Andy Grimm. Grimm had left work to cover a lightning storm passing over the small town boasting a population of around 5,700 people.
While he was out, he encountered a traffic stop. He pulled over to turn his camera toward that, and while unloading his equipment from the car, he was shot by Deputy Jake Shaw of the Clark County Sheriff’s office. Reports say that one bullet struck him in the chest, while the other grazed his shoulder.
This is a somewhat limited bit not insignificant ruling. Techdirt reports that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has “sort of” decided that the Supreme Court’s Riley decision isn’t just for phones. It covers digital cameras, too.
In the case in question, a robbery suspect’s backpack was searched. In it, amongst other things, they found a camera. The police searched it without a warrant and discovered a photograph of the suspect next to what was later to be a stolen gun. This led to two convictions. One for stolen property and the other for carrying a firearm without a license.
This Tuesday, the reporters of many major newspapers tried covering the healthcare protests on Capitol Hill. According to their tweets from the Senate Gallery, the police blocked them and tried forcing them to delete the photos.
That day, almost 100 demonstrators were arrested for protesting against Trumpcare. As the journalists tried to cover the arrest, the police prevented them from taking photos, calling the place “a crime scene.”
Photographing and filming the police is an often touchy topic. Mostly due to a lack of education on the part of some police officers. These officers (and it is a tiny minority) seem unaware of the actual laws regarding it. Or, they outright lie and say it is illegal, sometimes to the point of allegedly beating those filming them unsonscious.
Now, a panel of judges fro the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that this falls under the First Amendment. An individual’s right to film police officers in the performance of their duties has constitutional protection. The decision involves two instances where civilians had attempted to film Philadelphia police officers, and were retaliated against.
The South Wales Police confirmed this Tuesday that they’ve arrested a man thanks to the automatic facial recognition technology (AFR). As they confirmed to Ars Technica, this was the first time AFR was used to perform an arrest, although it has been used for a while by the UK police forces.
The officers used a camera-equipped surveillance van to scan the passers-by. The AFR recognized the face of a man from the police’s database, which led to the arrest.
A few weeks ago, my camera was stolen out of my studio locker at school. I am an architecture student in college, so I keep my a lot of my stuff at my studio. Anyway, I put my camera in my locker for about 2 days without having to use it. When I finally decided to pull it out 2 days later, I noticed that it was missing. I called the campus police and someone came over to take a police report. They asked me questions like, “when did you last see it?”, and “do you know if anybody you know would take it?” etc.
The last question that they asked was if I remembered what the serial number was. They said that places like Pawn shops have to report the serial numbers in case people sell stolen items to them. Luckily I had semi-recently bought the camera, so I called the store were I bought it from to ask if they knew. They checked their records and pulled up my cameras serial number. I told the police and they wrote it down.