The BBC notes that rules of engagement for digital photography still are being ironed out in the UK:

Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that “once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence.”

And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly.

I myself have been stopped and threatened by law enforcement officers (LEO) after taking scenery photos. Most interesting to me in the story above is the revelation that a court order is required to destroy the photos and also that follow-up action was taken by the local police. Did Phil file a formal complaint or are the Suffolk officers working to win public confidence?

Autoweek has reported on a hilarious piece of legislation in the US. Remember defensive driving? No need with this kind of thinking. Turn up the sound and those pesky bipeds had better move it or else…fair warning, right?

Legislation setting a minimum sound level for vehicles sold in the United States by as early as 2010 is expected to be introduced on Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill would require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to lead a study to determine if a minimum sound level is needed to protect pedestrians, specifically the blind. And if such a level is necessary, the bill would set it.

U.S. Reps. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., are sponsors of the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. The proposed legislation stemmed from concern that blind pedestrians may be put in danger because of quiet-running hybrid and electric vehicles.

Every day I wonder to myself who could have let noise pollution get so far out of control. Then I read a story like this and realize that pollution is a problem with more support than opposition in current economic models. No wonder that Beijing is having a hard time reaching promised compliance goals for the Olympics. Just think, cyclists and runners required to emit noises for the safety of the other competitors.

Seriously, though, the government should be working to reduce pollution, not reward it or create some kind of wacky “security” model that makes it seem beneficial. Imagine a street so quiet that you could actually hear the tires quietly rolling…with maximums enforced the minimums become a non-issue.

The AP has some nicely worded statements about compliance and risks in the airline industry:

FAA spokeswoman Lynn Tierney said the agency is simply doing its job.

“We are aware and sympathetic … 100,000 people being stranded is extraordinary,” Tierney said. “But the role is clear, it’s a regulator’s role and you have to enforce the regulations. We understand the disruption this causes, but (the airlines) had 18 months to complete the work.”

Tierney is referring to the safety order issued on the Boeing Co. MD-80 aircraft that have been grounded by American, Midwest and other airlines in recent days. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive on those planes after reports of shorted wires, evidence of worn-down power cables, and fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. It was effective Sept. 5, 2006, and the airlines had 18 months to comply.

“The FAA is doing what it’s chartered to do: enforce safety regulations,” said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the nation’s largest airlines. “It is yet to be seen if they are going too far.”

It is interesting to watch this unfold and compare with discussions in IT departments about the time to comply with patching and upgrade directives.