Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<a9f4d96f0902232345o3b715c2elc15b111918205a71@mail.gmail.com>, John 
Wilson <tugwilson@gmail.com> writes
>The sections which seem to be causing concern are section 76 of the
>2008 act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9#pt7-pb3-l1g76)
>which extends section 58 of the 2000 act
>(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_6#pt6-pb1-l1g58)
>
>You will see that the 2000 act says that a "record" can be a
>photographic record.

Which is why I am puzzled that people say there is a specific and new 
prohibition on photos.

>You will also see that the 2008 act covers

In a section talking about "eliciting information". Does taking a photo 
qualify as "eliciting"? (Note, I am not arguing that the 2000 Act 
excludes photos, merely that the 2008 Act isn't extending it to photos).

>existing and previous
>members of the armed forces, the intelligence services and constables.

While the 2000 Act does not restrict the "collecting or making a record" 
to that subset of humanity.

I continue to wonder why people think the 2008 Act is (a) the first to 
restrict photography and (2) the first to include a ban on information 
about constables [etc].

The only extra power I can see is the specific offence of "publishing 
and communicating" information previously covered (because the 2000 Act 
does not exclude information about Constables [etc]).

And you can't "publish or communicate" something unless you possess it 
(see 58(1)(b) of the 2000 Act). Or is this merely about closing a 
loophole where someone passes on information, destroying the copy they 
used to have, in circumstances where it's impossible to prove the 
original collecting/making/possession.

So I'm still apparently missing the point?

ps I wonder if "making" here has the same meaning as under POCA/Bowden.
-- 
Roland Perry