5 ms·

Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state, this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an expectation

Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state, this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an expectation of privacy there, and no warrant is or should be required in that situation. EDIT - Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place. > Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.
- rtl49 11y ago
  His or her edit wasn't tactful, but I also think the reply represented a common opinion that hadn't been represented on this thread and deserved the consideration you were good enough to provide. I've seen even well-educated people espouse the belief that anything goes as far as monitoring the behavior of people while in "public." I wouldn't defend this view myself, but it's an idea worth engaging, if only because of its prevalence.
- andrewclunn 11y ago
  This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will protect the public because it can be used by the public. A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.
  - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
    That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your drone just happened to be small enough not to be observed? I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the state's use of a hidden camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps. Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.
    - andrewclunn 11y ago
      No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such recordings admissible. I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.
      - nikdaheratik 11y ago
        > Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally. Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff. And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.
stellar678 11y ago
I didn't downvote you, and haven't actually read the article yet - but wiretap laws are pretty clear that it's illegal to perform audio recordings of people without their knowledge, regardless of location and how that applies to an expectation of privacy.
- morninj 11y ago
  Unless you're talking to an undercover informant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White
sharpray 11y ago
I agree with you. In public, anything goes, otherwise it is not a principled law and it will be amended with exception in all sorts of direction based on whoever has the best lobbyists. As a libertarian I think presumption of privacy in public can't exist even for people's DNA if they spit on the street, touch a light post, or otherwise leave their DNA behind. We can't go around arresting people for scrutinizing public spaces no matter what they collect, and likewise no one should have an expectation of privacy in public. You're being down-voted because the old-timers in this forum aren't smart enough to debate or think issues through, so they react on emotion. Can you imagine if there were no down-vote button? Those people would explode in rage, as irrational people (those who can't argue) are prone to do. They can't deal with entertaining dissenting thoughts without causing harm to their interlocutor. By the way, the person above who implied you've "produced bullshit ideas" has only contributed with a fallacy ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition): " Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public." (emphasis mine). Yes, maybe it has always been that way, so what? That's not an argument, that's a fallacy. I told you the old-timers here can't argue.
vacri 11y ago
> Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Downvoting is disagreeing here.
granfalloon 11y ago
I strongly disagree, but I'm up-voting to get this comment back up where it belongs. Plenty of smart people -- including, I imagine, some supreme court justices -- feel this way, so I don't see any good reason for censoring it as "noise."

koenigdavidmj 11y ago

Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place. > Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.

rtl49 11y ago
His or her edit wasn't tactful, but I also think the reply represented a common opinion that hadn't been represented on this thread and deserved the consideration you were good enough to provide. I've seen even well-educated people espouse the belief that anything goes as far as monitoring the behavior of people while in "public." I wouldn't defend this view myself, but it's an idea worth engaging, if only because of its prevalence.
andrewclunn 11y ago
This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will protect the public because it can be used by the public. A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your drone just happened to be small enough not to be observed? I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the state's use of a hidden camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps. Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.
  - andrewclunn 11y ago
    No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such recordings admissible. I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.
    - nikdaheratik 11y ago
      > Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally. Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff. And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.

stellar678 11y ago

I didn't downvote you, and haven't actually read the article yet - but wiretap laws are pretty clear that it's illegal to perform audio recordings of people without their knowledge, regardless of location and how that applies to an expectation of privacy.

morninj 11y ago
Unless you're talking to an undercover informant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White

sharpray 11y ago

I agree with you. In public, anything goes, otherwise it is not a principled law and it will be amended with exception in all sorts of direction based on whoever has the best lobbyists. As a libertarian I think presumption of privacy in public can't exist even for people's DNA if they spit on the street, touch a light post, or otherwise leave their DNA behind. We can't go around arresting people for scrutinizing public spaces no matter what they collect, and likewise no one should have an expectation of privacy in public. You're being down-voted because the old-timers in this forum aren't smart enough to debate or think issues through, so they react on emotion. Can you imagine if there were no down-vote button? Those people would explode in rage, as irrational people (those who can't argue) are prone to do. They can't deal with entertaining dissenting thoughts without causing harm to their interlocutor. By the way, the person above who implied you've "produced bullshit ideas" has only contributed with a fallacy ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition): " Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public." (emphasis mine). Yes, maybe it has always been that way, so what? That's not an argument, that's a fallacy. I told you the old-timers here can't argue.

vacri 11y ago

> Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Downvoting is disagreeing here.

granfalloon 11y ago

I strongly disagree, but I'm up-voting to get this comment back up where it belongs. Plenty of smart people -- including, I imagine, some supreme court justices -- feel this way, so I don't see any good reason for censoring it as "noise."