URGENT Answers needed .

M

mavron

Suspended / Banned
Messages
321
Name
Ron
Edit My Images
Yes
Please advise me ?. According to the police , any digital camera handed in will not be returned to the finder as it would still contain Data even with the memory card removed . Can anyone verify this or had experience ?. Many thanks in advance . Ron
 
Could contain the owners name in exif - but it does not contain data with card removed - unless it is a cheapy P&S with internal memory....

Why?
 
No experience of this (hope I never do) but very few cameras have any internal memory capable of storing images.

Even then this would have be point and shoot cameras, not DSLR's.

Care to share a bit more of the story??

David

Thinks - must type faster -
 
Assuming it's an SLR (and therefore valuable enough to be worth worrying about getting to keep) it's possible that there is personal data stored on it (you can set up most cameras to store your name/business name/address etc to add copyright data to each file). On the other hand, if this is there, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who the camera belongs to and return it.

There wouldn't (again assuming it's an SLR) be any images stored on it though.
 
I am told by Police Lost property ( run by civvies ). That a camera will still hold data even with the card removed , much like a mobile phone . I cannot see this personally . I own four digitals and i have never heard of this . I am talking about , in this case , a £600 camera which , they claim , will be sent to be destroyed for that reason . I dont believe this and need a good argument to put up . Regards . Ron
 
If a camera can contain data like that, how can we input the data? Just plug it into the computer n see if any kind of memory comes up..
 
I have pulled the following from Kent Police, whose property retention policy is much the same as our one in the Met.

Property will not be returned to a finder if it is:

Identifiable;
Cash;
Postal orders or cheques;
Bank or credit cards;
Building society / bank or other account pass books;
National insurance cards or stamps;
Premium bonds or savings certificates;
Recorded in the Lost Property register;
Classified or security document;
Firearms, ammunition or explosives;
Estimated to have a value in excess of £100;
Suspected proceeds of crime;
Poisons or drugs;
Spectacles and crash helmets;
Of an obscene nature e.g. magazines, films, photographs, etc.;
Found on police premises;
Mobile telephones or pagers;
Personal organisers, lap top computers or any similar device which may contain personal data; or
Any other items which in the opinion of the member of staff should be retained.

The camera in itself doesn't hold any personal data, so that much is rubbish. As for the value of the item, I've never heard us putting that on as a condition of retention. If there is any "personal data" somehow stored on the camera (which I can't see there being any), it should be used to trace the owner.

If it was me in the front office, you'd have a right to the camera once the loser has had a chance to claim it, if they're traced. Unfortunately, I moved away from such duties quite some time ago!
 
Cynic mode on.

The list and the value of over £100. Is that so a Police foce may sell all the itms at auction later thus generating income?

Cynic mode off
 
They make quite a lot of money on these lost property auctions...don't they. Can some of these things listed end up as as auction items sold to boost the police coffers instead of returning them to their proper owners? :shrug:
 
Here's a plan - get your mate to walk into the police station and claim the camera.
 
Driver Wedge ?. Lol. If i was like that , i wouldn`t have given the camera in in the first place would i ?. I`m happy that i`m right , but need to go about it properly . I have to say . If it was a cheapy then i wouldn`t bother But at £600 its worth a try . I`m honestly gutted for the person who lost it But the place is a top tourist spot so could have come from anywhere in the world . And yes , it would be nice to find the owner . Just to see their face when they get it back , but not according to the police .Something , in principal , is wrong here . Regards , Ron
 
I think that is extremely mean. The police didnt used to keep stuff. Money and other valuables were given to the finder after a specified time. Mind you I am talking many years ago when I worked for the police and my husband was a policeman.

It doesnt encourage honesty does it?.Good for you for handing it in but a big booo to the police for keeping it to raise money for themselves.
 
Why does it matter how much its worth?

Years ago my ma handed in a gold longines watch, never got claimed and was given it by the police
 
ladysue said:
I think that is extremely mean. The police didnt used to keep stuff. Money and other valuables were given to the finder after a specified time. Mind you I am talking many years ago when I worked for the police and my husband was a policeman.

It doesnt encourage honesty does it?.Good for you for handing it in but a big booo to the police for keeping it to raise money for themselves.
Click to expand...

It will be down to force policy. As I said, in the Met we don't retain things based on their value. I can't speak for every force in the country.

As for selling lost property to raise money, when it happens it makes such a pittance it's barely worth doing (take a look at Bumblebee Auctions, for example). The costs of storage, retention and disposal pretty much wipe out any financial benefit we would get...and you should see how many pedal cycles are stored at my nick. They take up so much room, we've barely got room for our vehicles!
 
Well , I am now told , " It is a digital camera capable of storing data " and cannot be returned to me . I feel i did the right thing handing it in BUT at the same time i gave it away !, I would have to think twice next time , Not as a criminal but as a failed finder . I feel the police have stitched me up !. Thanks Guys , for you`re valuable advise and replies . Take care . Regards . Ron
 
I have never owned an E1 but I am not even sure that it is capable of storing anything other than it's settings. Nothing personal at least.
Being able to store data is lame as so many things (increasing all the time) can store data of some sort.
Know any green activists or green biased media/councillor? I would think that in this "must recycle or the planet will die" time they would be unhappy about destroying something rather than putting it to good use. Especially electronics with all that apparently evil lead in the solder - unless the E1 is RoHS compliant.
 
mavron said:
Well , I am now told , " It is a digital camera capable of storing data " and cannot be returned to me . I feel i did the right thing handing it in BUT at the same time i gave it away !, I would have to think twice next time , Not as a criminal but as a failed finder . I feel the police have stitched me up !. Thanks Guys , for you`re valuable advise and replies . Take care . Regards . Ron
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that happened Ron. Honesty is the best policy?
 
Surely most cameras are capable of storing the owner's name, and possibly address. I know my last two Canon's did, and the data isn't held on the card as it is retained when swapping cards over.

The information is then included on the Exif of the pictures taken with that camera.

On other threads on here, people have enquired how to remove a previous owner's name from the Exif of their pictures, after acquiring a second hand camera.

So I would say that yes it is possible that a camera can hold personal data, even with the card removed.
 
I suspect somebody in the station has had his/her eye on it....Many years ago, I was in a shop in Bridlington where a man had left behind a leica camera in a fitted leather case..after a brief wait the camera was taken across the road to the Police Station where it was duly written down in the ledger...The cameras owner did come back for it...In the Police Station he was told that no camera had been handed in! although he could see it on a shelf in a small property room behind the counter, after kicking up a bit of a rumpus he did get it back.These things happen!
 
mavron said:
" It is a digital camera capable of storing data "
Click to expand...

Well stone me, you must have been speaking with Sherlock himself to figure that one out! :police:


I'd never have guessed that's how they work....... :geek:
 
as someone has said send a mate in to claim it, you've been honourable and it seems the police are the ones being shady in this instance so don't feel bad about it imho
 
If the camera has some 'data' in it - even a name inside a part of it - then that mate is going to rapidly become your enemy after he is charged!
 
If the camera serial number has been registered with the manufacture or an insurance company , then it wouldn't be to hard to find the rightful owner. On the Nikon D300 you can to a certain extent add personal information via the copyright program, but I don't know if that is posible with the camera in question.

Years ago if an item wasn't claimed within a time limit then the finder could claim it as their own.

In this case one could I suppose inform the police that an item has been found and retained by the finder, given the police the finders name address etc and any relevant details, then if not claimed possibly finders keepers, I don't know how the law stands now

Realspeed
 
Photo Plod said:
The camera in itself doesn't hold any personal data, so that much is rubbish. As for the value of the item, I've never heard us putting that on as a condition of retention. If there is any "personal data" somehow stored on the camera (which I can't see there being any), it should be used to trace the owner.

If it was me in the front office, you'd have a right to the camera once the loser has had a chance to claim it, if they're traced. Unfortunately, I moved away from such duties quite some time ago!
Click to expand...

So if the camera doesn't contain any of my personal data.. how does it know to add my name and website address (and my home address/phone number if I wanted it to) to the EXIF?

I think the problem is one of two parts..
  1. The Data Protection Act prevents the Police from releasing an unclaimed electronic device that may contain personal data. Quite reasonable I think, the MOD and the Met have both fallen foul of this in the past and released their own confidential data by mistake.
  2. It's not part of their job to revert to factory settings every unclaimed electronic device. So that job is sub-contracted to the private company that administers the auctions. Again, to my mind this is quite reasonable, I want bobbies on the beat (unlikely, I know) not playing with shiny gadgets behind the desk.
 
To a point Alastair , I agree . You come to London touring round , you get home , you`ve lost you`re camera bag . No Data is computed for lost property , so , you now have to pinpoint the police station holding it . Thers hundreds to choose from ?. The chap ( or lass ) who hands it in wont get it back cos its digital . You wont get it back cos you dont know what staion is holding it . Theres only one winner ???.
IF YOU FIND A DIGITAL CAMERA , DONT HAND IT TO THE POLICE !!.
Regards to all and many thanks for you`re time and replies. Take care .Ron
 
mavron said:
To a point Alastair , I agree . You come to London touring round , you get home , you`ve lost you`re camera bag . No Data is computed for lost property , so , you now have to pinpoint the police station holding it . Thers hundreds to choose from ?. The chap ( or lass ) who hands it in wont get it back cos its digital . You wont get it back cos you dont know what staion is holding it . Theres only one winner ???.
IF YOU FIND A DIGITAL CAMERA , DONT HAND IT TO THE POLICE !!.
Regards to all and many thanks for you`re time and replies. Take care .Ron
Click to expand...

The catch here is that you won't know if the camera was stolen, possibly even during a mugging. If it is a DSLR then some quick investigation of the settings might bring up info on owner and you could track them down. Otherwise would be be wise to hand it in stright away or you might find it difficultto explain how it came into your hands and the Police might conisder charging you with handling stolen goods or even the mugging?

Hopefully the person who lost it has insurance and claims for the loss, in which case the camera would then technically belong to thier insurers anyway.
 
If you know,

a) where you were that day; and
b) the make/model and serial number of the body and lenses; and
c) the Met website to find out how to report a missing camera properly.

Then I don't see the problem. Like many others here I keep a spreadsheet with the body and lens details including the serial numbers. None of this requires the camera to be turned on for a police officer or civilian administrator to be able to match the details supplied to the items in front of them.

Not to hand in something you've found that someone else has lost is dishonest. You're implying that you're only handing in found items out of a mercenary desire for a reward. Is it to much to assume it's because you're a basic, decent person?
 
Thankyou Alastair For you`re reply . I believe i`m honest . My colleagues were all aware what i did and why i did it . I handed it in because that was the right thing to do , regardless . I believed (and still do ) that i could have found the owner (or had a damn good try ) from the pics inside . I am a London bus driver and could have posted a pic to help find him .. I know i would have been gutted to have lost the camera (not a cheap one ). IAt least i would have tried . More than the police have . Hope that helps . Take care . And thanks again to all who showed interest . Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top