Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps
"The judge ruled that the taking of the photos did not infringe Woods' rights, and that the retention of the photos could not be considered an interference if DNA samples, a much more personal record of identity than a photograph, could be lawfully retained."
So because of one poor bit of law (the fact the police can take and retain your DNA even if you are innocent of any wrongdoing) it follows that they can keep your photo on record to produce crib sheets of known protesters?
I believe that by making this leap of logic the judge has ignored the wording of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is the act that makes it legal for the police to retain fingerprints and samples.
The relevant bit of that act (section 82) is:
------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Section 64 of the 1984 Act (destruction of fingerprints and samples) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) and (2) (obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples of persons who are not prosecuted or who are cleared) there shall be substituted—
“(1A) Where—
(a) fingerprints or samples are taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence, and
(b) subsection (3) below does not require them to be destroyed,
the fingerprints or samples may be retained after they have fulfilled the purposes for which they were taken but shall not be used by any person except for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So the police may be able to keep fingerprints and samples "where fingerprints or samples are taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence"
So assumung the judge intended a photograph to fall within the scope of a sample what offence were the police investigating when they photographed the arms protester?
I suggest that since no offence was being investigated the police have no more right to keep his photograph than they would to retain his fingerprints or DNA if they had been taken in the same circumstances.
To go off topic I have been wondering if wearing a cap with high power infrared LED's on the peak of it would mess up photos or video taken by the police in such circumstances, I think it should work with video cameras but digital cameras might have an IR filter in them.
Black helicopter because the jack booted thugs are getting stronger by the day