4 ms·

Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even i

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.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Pretty much anything can come back to bite you. You could use your exact same argument with s/public places/private places/. Also, is evidence gathered illegally by a non-government entity inadmissible? I thought that they would use it anyway, and also prosecute the recording party for breaking that law.
  - andrewclunn 11y ago
    The recording isn't illegal. The argument is over whether it's admissible. Even the article, which clearly favors throwing it out, admits to that.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I thought evidence was inadmissable iff it was gathered illegally (by the government).
    - andrewclunn 11y ago
      The term illegal is not the same as inadmissible. The recording isn't illegal, and isn't going to get anybody prosecuted for making it. Whether it's admissible is another question, but the article itself states: "What the government did here is not unlawful only because it occurred outside a courthouse..." The headline says illegal, but that's not what the term actually means. I know it's semantics, but the argument you appear to be making is that law enforcement broke laws here. They did not. They may have a recording that they can't use in court, but the recording itself is not illegal.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        How was it not illegal? California law prohibits recording communications without the consent of all parties unless they have no expectation of privacy. If the argument is that there was no such expectation because they were in public, then what causes the recording to be inadmissible?
        andrewclunn 11y ago

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.
mikeash 11y ago
Pretty much anything can come back to bite you. You could use your exact same argument with s/public places/private places/. Also, is evidence gathered illegally by a non-government entity inadmissible? I thought that they would use it anyway, and also prosecute the recording party for breaking that law.
- andrewclunn 11y ago
  The recording isn't illegal. The argument is over whether it's admissible. Even the article, which clearly favors throwing it out, admits to that.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I thought evidence was inadmissable iff it was gathered illegally (by the government).
  - andrewclunn 11y ago
    The term illegal is not the same as inadmissible. The recording isn't illegal, and isn't going to get anybody prosecuted for making it. Whether it's admissible is another question, but the article itself states: "What the government did here is not unlawful only because it occurred outside a courthouse..." The headline says illegal, but that's not what the term actually means. I know it's semantics, but the argument you appear to be making is that law enforcement broke laws here. They did not. They may have a recording that they can't use in court, but the recording itself is not illegal.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      How was it not illegal? California law prohibits recording communications without the consent of all parties unless they have no expectation of privacy. If the argument is that there was no such expectation because they were in public, then what causes the recording to be inadmissible?
      - andrewclunn 11y ago