Privacy expert Hugh Tomlinson QC sums it up: “In this case an English court has held, for the first time, that the publication of an inoffensive photograph of an everyday activity in the street could amount to an invasion of privacy. This brings English privacy law more closely into line with the position in France.”

This morning’s Guardian carries this story: JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son.

Published photos, that is, and in the specific case, photos made of the five-year-old back when he was still less than two. The photos of him in a baby buggy were originally found to be inoffensive: a judge wrote of the Rowlings: “the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything.”

A later appeal judge did not agree, however, stating: “If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.” Which seems unusual, as non-famous children and non-famous parents certainly have no such legal expectation.

Yet.

That’s the message according to this Memphis Flyer Online story: Tourist or Terrorist?

Multiple federal and Memphis-local departments have launched “Operation Sudden Impact,” which seems to have something vaguely to do with terrorism, though the exact identities of the terrorists and their terror victims are not specified.

This TV news link reports that so far “Operation Sudden Impact” has resulted in the issuance of close to 1300 traffic tickets and 332 arrests, including the captures of 142 fugitives.

Richard Pillsbury of the Tennessee Fusion Center, a collaboration between the Department of Safety and the Department of Homeland Security, told a public audience: “You may think a guy is just shooting pictures, but if you report it to us, we’ll send it on to the FBI.”

Shelby County sergeant Larry Allen also warned the public that environmental groups and animal rights groups may harbor terrorists, while public affairs officer Steve Shular opined in a zen-koan-like manner: “We may get information that doesn’t pan out to be true at all, but that one bit of information that someone calls in could make all the difference.”

Related forum.

Reuters has reported that Pulitzer-winning AP Photographer Bilal Hussein has be released from US custody after two years of detention at Camp Cropper near Baghdad.

Related forum thread and previous item.

“Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12.”

This amazing bit of legislation from Maine, described in this SeacoastOnline article, describes the new penalties for appearing to be observing fully-clothed children in public. The bill has cleared the state house and is moving now to the state senate.

Update: A PDF of the actual amendment is available on the Maine legislative web site, which shows the exact wording — wording that would not, despite the circumstance cited in the Seacoast Online article, allow police to legally arrest someone for observing fully-clothed children.

Related forum thread.

NPPA reports that the US Military refuses to release Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Bilal Hussein, even though he has been exonerated by the courts:

U.S. military authorities have said a U.N. Security Council mandate allows them to retain custody of a detainee they believe is a security risk even if an Iraqi judicial body has ordered that prisoner freed. The U.N. mandate is due to expire at the end of this year.

Related forum thread.