Who snapped first?
The Met experiences panopticon blowback
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Last week's damp squib G20 protests have finally thrust an issue into the spotlight - just not the one the organizers or the state might have expected.
Videos of the moments preceding the death of 47-year-old Ian Tomlinson on his way home from work emerged in quick succession this week. The Guardian was the first to publish video from an American fund manager which appeared to show a police officer shoving Tomlinson to the ground. Moments later, Tomlinson had a heart attack and died. ITN followed up last night with another view of the incident, which appeared to show the same officer striking Tomlinson with his baton before Tomlinson hit the ground.
This morning, further pictures emerged in The Sun of Tomlinson being shoved out of the way by riot police 85 minutes before his collapse.
The emergence of the The Guardian and ITN vids has prompted a ramping up of the investigation into Tomlinson's death. Originally, this was being carried out by City of London police, but it has now been taken over by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Last night the commission issued a statement saying it had the details of the Metropolitan Police officer "who we believe appears in the footage we recovered last night, and who appears to make contact with Ian Tomlinson."
The statement quoted IPCC Commissioner and deputy Chair Deborah Glass saying, "We are pleased that we now have what appears to be valuable information relating to this incident. Several police officers, including the officer himself have come forward. It is our intention to interview this officer as soon as possible."
The Sun's pictures were accompanied by claims that Tomlinson was drunk, had been pushed aside after refusing to move out of the path of a police van, and did not seem to be intent on heading home.
Police forces have regularly been slammed for intrusive filming of protesters, and even just unwitting citizens going about their everyday business. At the same time, the Reg has highlighted growing concern about Police and Community Support Officers harassing professional and hobbyist photographers, usually on the grounds of stopping paedophiles snapping children or preventing terrorist reconnaissance.
So privacy activists will feel that the cops have been hoisted by their own petard this time, with professional and amateur snappers deploying video technology exposing allegedly heavy handed policing. "Cops with nothing to hide will have nothing to fear," they might argue.
For their part, the authorities will argue that they have a duty to keep tabs on suspicious characters pointing cameras at sensitive buildings, and still need CCTV and cam-toting cops to prevent public disorder and bring those responsible for justice.
That's a perfectly fair point, and their argument will be strengthened if and when they produce their own footage of the events leading up to Tomlinson's death. So far they haven't. In the meantime, no-one is laying down their cameras. ®
COMMENTS
@AC, re Police State (part 2)
"Those of you whining about the UK being a "Police State" ought to go and try organising a demo in a country that actually does have a police state. I'm thinking maybe Zimbabwe, China etc."
Try going on a protest march or demonstration that has not been okay'ed in advance by your local Council and Police farce and you can be arrested for unlawful gathering. Or try protesting in front of the Houses of Parliament or New Scotland Yard - especially without prior "approval". Victims of this include a group of motorcyclists all stopping at the same roadside cafe on the way back from a biker meet and a teenagers' party after an anonymous caller allegedly rang up to complain about the noise - the 'caller' and trhe noise problem only being mentioned after the Plods had completely failed to find any drugs at the party.
And since the Great British public can now be held incommunicado for up to 28 days if Plod can convince a judge they should be allowed to do it, your comparison to Zimbabwe or China is not quite as bad as you make out - at least neither of those countries make war on others to protect the populations "liberty" while suppressing their own...
"I think the Met's tactics of containment of protestors, some of whom are engaging in criminal activity, is much more preferable than firing tear gas / plastic bullets / real bullets or running them over with tanks."
Even more preferable would be if the Met could actually grab the ones "engaging in criminal activity" rather than just confining everyone into an increasingly small area and wondering why some people - especially those not actually involved in the protest but who were in the area for other reasons - get a little unhappy.
Mine's the one with the ID number removed and the collar turned up...
@AC, Re: Police State
"Those of you whining about the UK being a "Police State" ought to go and try organising a demo in a country that actually does have a police state. I'm thinking maybe Zimbabwe, China etc."
Okay. We'll wait until it's too late before we start voicing opposition.
"I think the Met's tactics of containment of protestors, some of whom are engaging in criminal activity, is much more preferable than firing tear gas / plastic bullets / real bullets or running them over with tanks."
Yeah, it's not like anyone died or anything.
Seriously, where shall we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Enough!"? Do we wait until someone dies? We've already got there! Do we wait until innocent people are rounded up along with violent criminals? That's what the police were doing!
What's your relationship with the police, fellow Anonymous Coward? Something to hide? Something to fear?
Who Watches The People Who Aren't Allowed To Watch?
<< Police forces have regularly been slammed for intrusive filming of protesters >>
<< their argument will be strengthened if and when they produce their own footage of the events leading up to Tomlinson's death. So far they haven't. >>
Is it just me, or is there a bit of an inconsistency here? It looks to me as though what the Reg is asking for is a situation in which the public (protesters, in this case) are allowed to film the police, but the police are not allowed to film the public. (This is putting aside the principle, so long out of fashion, that police and public are the same thing.)
Isn't the fairest situation to allow them to film each other? That way there are two copies, and it's pointless for either side to employ any form of video manipulation or careful editing.
Oh, and AC (08:57):
<< What is need to be done is:-
1) Police complains service that isn't run by police. >>
Like the IPCC, you mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Police_Complaints_Commission

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth