6 ms·

I'm looking forward to when one of these laws gets challenged in court and finally thrown out for good. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're

I'm looking forward to when one of these laws gets challenged in court and finally thrown out for good. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're a public employee, on duty, in a public place. It doesn't matter how much you try to torture the words "reasonable", "private", or "public" If someone really is obstructing police work, then the current statutes against obstructing police work are applicable. Police should be limited to enforcing those and not try to criminalize photography.

jorgeortiz85 16y ago
Don't hold your breath. Part of the article is about how courts are upholding these interpretations of electronic surveillance laws.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Why not record the police with a hand-cranked film camera? If no electronic devices are in use, how could electronic surveillance laws apply?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Good luck getting your film developed! Also, undeveloped film tends to meet with 'accidental overexposure' when confiscated, even if only temporarily.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Polaroid.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Did polaroid ever make motion picture film ?
        jrockway 16y ago
        Sounds expensive, so probably not. Either way, I think that photographic documentation is better than no documentation at all.
        URSpider94 16y ago
        Totally off-topic, but YES, they did. It was called Polavision, and the reason you've never heard of it is because VHS and Beta came onto the scene at pretty much the same time, rendering it virtually irrelevant. Many photography historians peg the Polavision project as "the beginning of the end" for Polaroid, because it used up so many engineering resources that could have been used to improve their still-camera instant products. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polavision,_Polachrome_and_Polapan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polavision,_Polachrome_and_Pola... for more information.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        Cool, that's really neat, thanks for digging that up!
  - f1gm3nt 16y ago
    Could get a digital camera and set it to take a picture every 1 second. Some do this, but only will take 3 or 4 shoots.
    - kylec 16y ago
      A digital camera is still "electronic"
      - tibbon 16y ago
        Yet, my Holga is not.
- MartinCron 16y ago
  I'm hoping that this goes all the way to the federal supreme court and gets settled once and for all.
tome 16y ago
When you say "public employee" are you referring just to law enforcement officers and other officials with authority or do you actually mean all of them? I can't see a need to permit the recording or some guy who sells tickets for a municipal railway, or sweeps the streets and is paid by the local authority (although I don't particularly see the need to ban it, either).
- noarchy 16y ago
  Interestingly, taking a photo of a guy selling tickets (or actually, not selling tickets...he was sleeping) actually made news in Toronto not long ago: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/22/ttc-napper-under-investigation.aspx http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/201...
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    One of my fondest memories is arriving at a border crossing in mid-afternoon from the US to Canada and having to wake up the customs guy. Pre 9/11 of course.
- Groxx 16y ago
  I think it may be all of them. Remember that they also include "in a public place". I figure, public place is public place. If you can take a picture of A, why not B, and how does one enforce that anyway? I'd think it'd fall on the side of free speech, similar to how you can tell someone about police abuse. How is any person not photographable in a public place?
- anamax 16y ago
  > I can't see a need to permit the recording or some guy who sells tickets for a municipal railway, or sweeps the streets and is paid by the local authority (although I don't particularly see the need to ban it, either). How about when he's letting his friends ride for free or engaged in some other misbehavior? You want privacy - do it on your time. As long as it's my money paying you, the default is that I get to observe and record, just like any other employer. This is especially true for folks engaged in law enforcement. The only possible exception is undercover, but if you're made.... No exception for plainclothes - if you've identified yourself as a cop, you're fair game.
jfoutz 16y ago
It is a two fold problem. First, require district attorneys to prosecute people who take pictures of officers rescuing kittens. Second, clearly distinguish between electronic surveillance and a photograph. a digital camera should not be subject to both laws. pick one and stick to it.

jorgeortiz85 16y ago

Don't hold your breath. Part of the article is about how courts are upholding these interpretations of electronic surveillance laws.

jrockway 16y ago
Why not record the police with a hand-cranked film camera? If no electronic devices are in use, how could electronic surveillance laws apply?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Good luck getting your film developed! Also, undeveloped film tends to meet with 'accidental overexposure' when confiscated, even if only temporarily.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Polaroid.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Did polaroid ever make motion picture film ?
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Sounds expensive, so probably not. Either way, I think that photographic documentation is better than no documentation at all.
      - URSpider94 16y ago
        Totally off-topic, but YES, they did. It was called Polavision, and the reason you've never heard of it is because VHS and Beta came onto the scene at pretty much the same time, rendering it virtually irrelevant. Many photography historians peg the Polavision project as "the beginning of the end" for Polaroid, because it used up so many engineering resources that could have been used to improve their still-camera instant products. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polavision,_Polachrome_and_Polapan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polavision,_Polachrome_and_Pola... for more information.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        Cool, that's really neat, thanks for digging that up!
- f1gm3nt 16y ago
  Could get a digital camera and set it to take a picture every 1 second. Some do this, but only will take 3 or 4 shoots.
  - kylec 16y ago
    A digital camera is still "electronic"
    - tibbon 16y ago
      Yet, my Holga is not.
MartinCron 16y ago
I'm hoping that this goes all the way to the federal supreme court and gets settled once and for all.

tome 16y ago

When you say "public employee" are you referring just to law enforcement officers and other officials with authority or do you actually mean all of them? I can't see a need to permit the recording or some guy who sells tickets for a municipal railway, or sweeps the streets and is paid by the local authority (although I don't particularly see the need to ban it, either).

noarchy 16y ago
Interestingly, taking a photo of a guy selling tickets (or actually, not selling tickets...he was sleeping) actually made news in Toronto not long ago: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/22/ttc-napper-under-investigation.aspx http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/201...
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  One of my fondest memories is arriving at a border crossing in mid-afternoon from the US to Canada and having to wake up the customs guy. Pre 9/11 of course.
Groxx 16y ago
I think it may be all of them. Remember that they also include "in a public place". I figure, public place is public place. If you can take a picture of A, why not B, and how does one enforce that anyway? I'd think it'd fall on the side of free speech, similar to how you can tell someone about police abuse. How is any person not photographable in a public place?
anamax 16y ago
> I can't see a need to permit the recording or some guy who sells tickets for a municipal railway, or sweeps the streets and is paid by the local authority (although I don't particularly see the need to ban it, either). How about when he's letting his friends ride for free or engaged in some other misbehavior? You want privacy - do it on your time. As long as it's my money paying you, the default is that I get to observe and record, just like any other employer. This is especially true for folks engaged in law enforcement. The only possible exception is undercover, but if you're made.... No exception for plainclothes - if you've identified yourself as a cop, you're fair game.

jfoutz 16y ago

It is a two fold problem. First, require district attorneys to prosecute people who take pictures of officers rescuing kittens. Second, clearly distinguish between electronic surveillance and a photograph. a digital camera should not be subject to both laws. pick one and stick to it.