|
Is a digital picture permissable as evidence in court?
|
Is a digital picture permissable as evidence in court?
I've got a feeling that generally it isn't - it's too easy to manipulate a digital image.
|
I've got a feeling that generally it isn't - it's too easy to manipulate a digital image.
That's what I thought. More versatile to keep a film camera in the glovebox instead unless you're only going to take pictures of the scenery.
Hopefully someone who knows for definate will be along shortly
|
I occasionally do reports for lawyers of 'tripping hazards' whenthey are acting for a client sueing the local authority or similar.
When I got my first digital camera a few years ago I used it for one report and it was sent back to me with the comment that it had to be a 'real' photograph as digital was more open to fraud.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
Thats exactly what i thought Espada.
You can often find cheap disposable cameras in the likes of poundland and home bargains - probably a better thing to keep in the glove box.
|
|
Film photography can of course be tweaked, though not as readily. Some years ago I produced film photos (digital had not been invented) in court as evidence on a motoring matter. The bench simply asked me to swear on oath that I had taken the pictures and that they were unretouched originals. I suppose the same would apply to digital.
|
When SWMBO bought her previous Yaris the dealer included foc a small film camera to carry in the glove box to take photos in the event of an accident.
It was just another example of the sort of good service and thinking that makes people return to Toyota dealers.
|
It was just another example of the sort of good service and thinking that makes people return to Toyota dealers.
Or is it that Toyota know how bad their drivers are ;o)
|
Careful Dave making comments like that about Toyota drivers.
I may be forced to release SWMBO who has 33 years driving without an accident or conviction on you ...
I could mention what happened to the car salesman who ignored her and talked only to me when she was after a new car.
Be afraid , be very afraid.....
|
|
|
Given the unpredictability of digital cameras (waking from sleep, shutter response time, electronic tantrums) film camera seems to be the best choice for emergency use. Don't want to increase the fumble-factor in the aftermath of an accident, even minor.
|
>>film camera seems to be the best choice for emergency use.>>
..and with all due respect to the idea of keeping Badger's highlighted cheap camera in the glovebox, even a similarly priced film camera would provide vastly superior pictures; in fact one of the better quality disposable types would probably prove sufficient.
But for a bit of fun these cheap digital cameras are ideal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Must say that although I was also under that impression (via Pugugly IIRC) I don't see why digital photographs shouldn't be submitted in certain circumstances. Let's face it, courts rely hugely on the words of witnesses for whom the only test of integrity is the swearing of an oath! Surely it's much easier to lie than convincingly doctor a photograph whether digital or not.
|
Precisely. Subject to the lawyers' opinions, I would put a photo in the same category as a police officer's notebook (something which could be amended after the event even more readily than a picture). It is not the record itself which is the evidence, but the testimony on oath, reinforced by that record.
But why think of it purely in terms of courtroom combat. A picture can be a useful record, a visual notebook again, to help in formulating or supporting an insurance claim. Didn't note the registration number? It's on the picture. And might not even the mere existence of pictures tend to concentrate the mind of any another driver involved?
But surely any record of an incident is better than no record.
|
|
Agree totally Badger. As for the uncertainties of digital cameras, at least you can normally (not in the case above I'm sure @ only £9.99) view the photos you've taken at the time rather than trust to luck that the camera you've used is working and the film's OK.
|
Digital cameras can go wrong as well....:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Surely Digital images would be admitted as valid evidence, bearing in mind that a fair proportion of safety camera images are electronically captured, transmitted, and used as corroborative evidence?
|
GOOD POINT!
All the new cameras are digital.
|
just bought the camera.
no screen, but has usb lead. will let you all know how good it is.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I too just bought one!
Here's some samples - bear in mind that it's dull and overcast.
www.hrmconsultancy.net/images/Photo002.jpg
www.hrmconsultancy.net/images/Photo003.jpg
www.hrmconsultancy.net/images/Photo004.jpg
Not bad for a tenner. No case, so you'd need to keep it in a small jiffy bag - takes/stores 26 at hi-res.
For real glove-box accident recording use I think I'd have a one-use camera with flash, though.
|
With all due respect, you have confused the image displayed on a computer monitor with what would be reproduced in photographic print form...:-)
The very low level of resolution from your digital camera would mean a print version of similar quality would be tiny in size; the more it was enlarged, the worse it would get.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
You should get reasonable prints of around 4" x 3". Good enough for the purpose and, as you point out, adequate for screen use.
I too have just bought one. They must have foreseen the likely use as glove-pocket cameras -- image editing software is included . . .
On the question of evidence, traffic wardens here are now issued with digital camera. I have not yet seen any question of admissibilty being reported, but I'll watch it. However, every form of physical evidence is at risk of tampering -- look at tape recordings for example -- and I should imagine that the courts are fully aware that digital imaging is another such.
Must see how my Lloyds Pharmacies shares are doing. Will Lloyds now join Aldi and Liddl on this forum?
|
|
PS; a USB camera lead is included. What do they cost?
|
I too have just bought one of these cameras- For a tenner you can't go wrong particularly as USB lead is included. Be warned that it does not work with Windows 98 despite what it says on the packet.My local branch had one returned for this reason.
A bit off topic but as regards USB leads I was looking at an HP printer /scanner /copier the other day which was around £70 .
It did not include the lead at another £13 and the cartridge is the small starter pack and then replacement cartridges run at £15 for black and £17 for colour so you end up paying another £45 on top of the advertised price... Its a rip off IMO selling items like this without the leads like it was when you didn't get a plug with electrical appliances...
Do these people think we can't add up?
|
Are some speed cameras not digital these days? How do they go on using digi pics to convict drivers?
Anyway, back on subject, if you go to www.halina.co.uk and click on the lloyds pharmacy link at the bottom of the page it gives you the spec of the camera, info sheet etc.
|
|
And whilst I remember...these sorts of digi cams that lloyds are selling store pics on an internal memory chip which has to be powered. So even when the camera is off, you need the batteries in to power the memory. So even with no pics on it, power is still drawn and when you pull it out of the glovebox to use, you may have a flat battery. Leave the battery out, but this means more time to set the thing up.
|
I too have just bought one of these cameras- For a tenner you can't go wrong particularly as USB lead is included. Be warned that it does not work with Windows 98 despite what it says on the packet.My local branch had one returned for this reason.
Should work fine with 98SE though.
|
Cost depends on where you buy it, just as with Scart leads etc.
They are a very handsome source of high profit margins for retailers; you can get them from about £2 upwards depending on type at www.cpc.co.uk and £3 upwards from www.maplins.co.uk, but the best source is usually a computer fair.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
CPC prices do not include VAT (I have an account at the local CPC trade counter), but at the very worst that's a sizeable chnk of the cost of this camera.
|
|
A reasonable disposble camera will provide far better pics than a mega cheap digi cam as well as not relying on batteries unless flash is required.
|
|
The resolution of the camera is really only good enough for emails; it isn't even 1 megapixel and wouldn't produce a decent print even at 4x3in. Quite good 3 megapixel digicams can be had for under a hundred pounds (Olympus C310 - 3.2 megapixels and 3x optical zoom for £80). I wouldn't spend even £10 on a camera that wouldn't produce decent prints.
|
|
By the way, you can do all sorts with digital images with Adobe Photoshop.
|
|
The reason that wet film is a better legal choice is that the negatives can be produced as well if required. Local Police went through a phase of using Polaroid prints for assault victims. Not good.
|
Trouble is; if someone really wants to fake a photo; it isn't particularly difficult to take a digital photo; manipulate it in the desired manner; and then have the new file re-photographed onto wet film.
In addition some of the more expensive 'pro' digital cameras 'watermark' each image, so that it can be shown to be unmanipulated Not exactly in the ten quid price range though!
|
>>Quite good 3 megapixel digicams can be had for under a hundred pounds
True, but even at that price I would not leave it in the glove pocket. That is the whole point, which the shutterbugs on here seem to miss. These cameras are cheap enough to risk losing and no, the print I have had today at 4 x 3 is not exhibition quality but it's certainly good enough for its purpose here.
|
|
. . . and unquestionably good enough to email to an insurer or the police.
|
Its only Badger who says it has to stay in the glovebox (if your is big enough).
I think its perfect fine for teaching a child the basics of photography and if it gets broken; who cares for £10?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
Plenty of them are small enough to go in a pocket. I use a Minolta 4 megapixel camera quite a lot and carry it around with me all day. A lot are much smaller than this and produce decent photos.
|
Its only Badger who says it has to stay in the glovebox (if your is big enough).
I think its perfect fine for teaching a child the basics of photography and if it gets broken; who cares for £10?
True, but my point is motoring-related.
|
Last year my better half got hit by a car cutting across from M60 joining A34 south cutting across Chevrons. Motoring offence etc. so I later took pictures on my then 2M pixel digital camera of the scene. Skid marks and some debris visible to me and only somewhat visible on digital camera. Had I used my disposable in the car... would have better pics. But I didn't for some reason.
In the end we won and the other guy's insurance paid up the excess etc. but the photo evidence possibly made a difference.
Also , couple of years ago, I collided with another car on a roundabout and had a disposable (think I'd read it was a good idea in a mag so had one). When I asked officer if it was a good idea, he implied maybe. Then directed me to take the right photos of the scene... angles etc.
Personally think a normal photo camera in car a good idea. No batteries etc. to worry about. Okay ones with a flash have a battery but digital camera needs powering somehow and you might find it doesn't work when needed.
|
If the USA is anything to go by, they CERTAINLY want 'proper' photograhic evidence.
Well they always use film, rather than digital, in CSI tv series!!
VB
|
|
Look -- I've simply given you all a tip about where you can get a digital camera, with bits, for under a tenner. What's the result? Crab crab, gripe gripe, complain complain. If you don't want the thing OK, but I dunno why I bother. Back down the sett for a kip I reckon. Heigh, ho . . .
|
I meant to add:-
With the notable exception of EspadaIII, to whom I am indebted for introducing a sense of proportion.
|
Too kind Badger - I wish my wife agreed that I had a sense of proportion!
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
Buy her one of these cameras for her birthday and you've cracked it.
|
|
|
|
