4 ms·

The issue here isn't the photo/video part, but the audio part which the police are trying to say is illegal surveillance. I have to wonder if the Boston PD is

by tibbon 17y ago

The issue here isn't the photo/video part, but the audio part which the police are trying to say is illegal surveillance. I have to wonder if the Boston PD is trying to set precedent that such cases will be thrown out so they can start using more audio recording without warrants or what. Possibly just trying to cover their own tracks so they don't have any evidence against them. Precedent seems to be that the audio recording needs to be hidden. Holding up a cameraphone in plain site isn't hidden.

pavel_lishin 17y ago
I honestly don't think they'd be that smart.
TallGuyShort 17y ago
You make an excellent point, but I don't think that's what's going on here. This reminds me more of the ATM technician who overreacted to someone taking a photograph with their phone of the machine being refilled. The man was temporarily arrested and had his phone confiscated, and was treated very rudely, when in actual fact, technical schematics are available online from the ATM's manufacturer. It's just people being power-hungry, that's all. I understand that police are concerned about their own privacy and safety, but the major reasoning behind much of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the police (and government in general) from feeling comfortable stepping outside their bounds. People in both situations claimed the cops were being overly violent - so what evidence could anyone bring against the police now?
jamesbritt 17y ago
But consider this: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/06/07/20090607biz-taser0607.html http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/06/07/200906... http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx It includes audio, and is meant to be worn by cops. I am unfamiliar with Boston and MA law, so perhaps in it's different in those areas, but prsumably it's OK to run around recording audio during an arrest if Taser is selling these things. Is a judge going to say that it's only OK when a cop does it?

by tibbon 17y ago

pavel_lishin 17y ago

I honestly don't think they'd be that smart.

TallGuyShort 17y ago

You make an excellent point, but I don't think that's what's going on here. This reminds me more of the ATM technician who overreacted to someone taking a photograph with their phone of the machine being refilled. The man was temporarily arrested and had his phone confiscated, and was treated very rudely, when in actual fact, technical schematics are available online from the ATM's manufacturer. It's just people being power-hungry, that's all. I understand that police are concerned about their own privacy and safety, but the major reasoning behind much of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the police (and government in general) from feeling comfortable stepping outside their bounds. People in both situations claimed the cops were being overly violent - so what evidence could anyone bring against the police now?

jamesbritt 17y ago

But consider this: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/06/07/20090607biz-taser0607.html http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2009/06/07/200906... http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx It includes audio, and is meant to be worn by cops. I am unfamiliar with Boston and MA law, so perhaps in it's different in those areas, but prsumably it's OK to run around recording audio during an arrest if Taser is selling these things. Is a judge going to say that it's only OK when a cop does it?