7 ms·

More on the war against photography

46 points by cwan 16y ago

teilo 16y ago
"The castle walls may be crumbling and decayed, but they invaders can be fought back and the walls rebuilt." I want to think so. I really do. But all I see is the erosion continuing. More and more you can't photograph or videotape the police (regardless of what the law actually says). Why? For your protection. On the other hand, they and other government organizations can photograph and videotape you all they want and you have no recourse. Why? For your protection. I have long held a theory that as freedoms erode, good men and women will not wish to be engaged in the violation of said freedoms. Therefore they will naturally not want to be a part of law enforcement. This means that, over time, law enforcement will be dominated more and more by those who don't give a damn about your liberty and will abuse it however they see fit.
- enjo 16y ago
  Thankfully law enforcement, ultimately, is responsible to the electorate. This whole thing is our (collective) fault. The American people have gladly exchanged essential freedom for the promise of security from a threat that was never terribly real to begin with. - We flocked to suburbs because cities just aren't safe. - We turned into a nation of helicopter parents terrified that our children were surely going to be kidnapped at any moment. - We elected politicians who promised to be "tough on crime" giving us such gems as mandatory minimum sentencing, huge prison terms for petty crimes, trying 15 year old kids as adults, etc... - We massively increased the number of police on our streets. And we did all of this, despite the fact that statistically we we're actually never in much of anything resembling danger. I remember folks in Cabot Arkansas (where I attended high school for two years) freaking out over a perceived gang problem. It was ridiculous then, but they made sure to hire a few more police officers to keep an eye on it. Americans have proven to be two things: 1) terrified and 2) really bad at math. Our reporters don't understand statistics and our soccer moms are even worse. That's why I'm greatly amused about all the fighting we do over national politics. Who cares about Obama... you should be fighting tooth and nail over your mayor. The person who is in charge of your police and ultimately much more likely to impact your freedom. How many folks have made this an issue locally? I haven't heard a peep here in Denver.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Crime wasn't always an imaginary problem in this country. In fact, not too long ago it was a major problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States). Right now we have almost half the level of violent crime and homicide we had about 20 years ago. Some cities, like New York, had even higher crime rates in the 80's and 90's compared to now than the country as a whole.
- wikyd 16y ago
  I agree that the disparity is frightening, but I think that the timespan for this problem is way too short to judge. These cases are popping up frequently in the news, most likely because of the sudden ubiquity of digital cameras. The law needs some time to catch up to this sudden shift. Also, we're not hearing of all the times when people are allowed to film the police, but I have watched many videos of just the Seattle police in the past year with no legal repercussion to the videographers. I think it's pretty clear that nearly everyone (except the police (except when being glorified on "Cops")) agree that citizens have the right to observe law enforcement. The law is just ambiguous about this filming right now because it wasn't a consideration in the past. Some police officers are abusing this situation, but as more and more of these cases pop up, the law will have to be clarified.
- acabal 16y ago
  I tend to agree with this. When an entity takes new power, they fight tooth and nail to keep it, regardless of whether it's "right" for them to have it or not. Bush II massively increased the power of the executive branch with terrorism and fear as an excuse, pushing it farther from a checks-and-balances system towards a checks-against-the-president system. Now that it's been established that the executive has greater power, does anyone think any upcoming president will sit down and say, "welp, time to give some of this up and bring it back to how things used to be!" I don't think so. Same with civil liberties taken by police and other enforcement. The attitude some (not all, or even the majority of) officers seem to have is the attitude of control and being the boss, not serving and protecting. (Like this article--on what imaginable grounds did the officer think he could arrest a citizen for taking film from within their own house if not because "I don't like being on film, so I'm going to show this person who's boss by arresting them"). When it becomes a case of maintaining some sort of imagined and idealized "order" instead of enforcing specific law, our liberties are eroded; and when we just lay back and take it, they probably aren't coming back, because those erosions then eventually become law as people and enforcers get used to the idea. There are of course cases where things have been turned around for the better, like civil rights, suffrage, etc. But this more modern trend of slow, steady, and insidious erosion of rights in the name of protecting us is that much more dangerous because we've become convinced we need the protection. And when the enforcers have the big guns, the ability to detain or throw anyone in prison for almost anything, and a staggeringly complex body of law that requires a small fortune to defend against, things aren't so easy to change anymore. I'm not talking black-helicopter conspiracy theories or anything here, just a general sadness to see us giving up so much of what makes real life free and enjoyable for the illusion of safety from child rapists and terrorists.
jdietrich 16y ago
The United States: Land of the free, home of the biggest prison population in the world. In all seriousness, I wish more USians were aware of how much of the rest of the world views the current state of your nation. I could address this specific point, but I just feel it's irrelevant in light of the much bigger issues. I think that this clip is quite insightful to the prevailing attitude in Britain and much of Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE At 3:06, Jimmy Carr says "I'd very much like to say something hilarious, but something must be done." Take note of his tone - it's not the indignation usually aimed at America. There's no sense that he thinks you should know better. It's the same tone he would use to talk about a humanitarian disaster in the developing world. He's just sad. We're describing "slavery by the backdoor" and we're not even angry. We don't view you as "the evil empire", not any more. We don't hate you, we just don't have the heart to. We pity you. We pity what you have become and what you may yet become. You look to many of us like a punched-out former heavyweight - once great, now just an incoherent wreck, old and infirm before your time. When hurricane Katrina hit, many of us agreed with Kanye West's sentiment that "George Bush does not care about black people". Five years on, many of us have come to believe that the US is just becoming incapable of managing its own affairs. I'm not sure which is a sadder thing to believe. Us Brits can empathise to an extent - we used to have an empire on which the sun never set, now we're just a drizzly little island with a few rotten banks and a rubbish football team. Where we can't empathise is that we've always been able to feed our poor and sick and old. Since 1948 we've had a right to a hospital bed, regardless of our means. We used to think that you were unwilling, but now we're not sure whether you're just unable. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704...
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  Meh. I am well aware of how the rest of the world views the U.S., having spent a fair amount of time traveling around it. In Europe I got a sense that a lot of people were rooting for the U.S. to fail, and that those sentiments tended to cloud their otherwise sound judgement. Like for example the girl from Greece I met who swore that 9/11 was a CIA-instigated plot, and said everyone she knew agreed. Or the French guy who was berating America for backing dictatorships in the Mid-East and Africa, while his own government merrily sells them the guns and bombs needed to prolong the oppression. During Bush II I lived in Spain for a time, and the amount of distortions and outright fabrications that appeared in the papers there about things our leaders had said or done never ceased to amaze me. And then we have the Brits, who never miss a chance to loudly empathize with what it's like to live in an "ex-empire", and boast about NHS--you know, the institution under which my friend waited 13 months to get a knee operation. (That's a long time to be crippled.) Of course, who knows how long that will last, what that hideous budget deficit you're now forced to confront. The mistake people from other countries always seem to make when it comes to us Americans is that they mistake our politeness for ignorance. We're not blind to our deficiencies, our yours; we're just too polite to go around rubbing them in. You could learn something from that.

46 points by cwan 16y ago

teilo 16y ago

"The castle walls may be crumbling and decayed, but they invaders can be fought back and the walls rebuilt." I want to think so. I really do. But all I see is the erosion continuing. More and more you can't photograph or videotape the police (regardless of what the law actually says). Why? For your protection. On the other hand, they and other government organizations can photograph and videotape you all they want and you have no recourse. Why? For your protection. I have long held a theory that as freedoms erode, good men and women will not wish to be engaged in the violation of said freedoms. Therefore they will naturally not want to be a part of law enforcement. This means that, over time, law enforcement will be dominated more and more by those who don't give a damn about your liberty and will abuse it however they see fit.

enjo 16y ago
Thankfully law enforcement, ultimately, is responsible to the electorate. This whole thing is our (collective) fault. The American people have gladly exchanged essential freedom for the promise of security from a threat that was never terribly real to begin with. - We flocked to suburbs because cities just aren't safe. - We turned into a nation of helicopter parents terrified that our children were surely going to be kidnapped at any moment. - We elected politicians who promised to be "tough on crime" giving us such gems as mandatory minimum sentencing, huge prison terms for petty crimes, trying 15 year old kids as adults, etc... - We massively increased the number of police on our streets. And we did all of this, despite the fact that statistically we we're actually never in much of anything resembling danger. I remember folks in Cabot Arkansas (where I attended high school for two years) freaking out over a perceived gang problem. It was ridiculous then, but they made sure to hire a few more police officers to keep an eye on it. Americans have proven to be two things: 1) terrified and 2) really bad at math. Our reporters don't understand statistics and our soccer moms are even worse. That's why I'm greatly amused about all the fighting we do over national politics. Who cares about Obama... you should be fighting tooth and nail over your mayor. The person who is in charge of your police and ultimately much more likely to impact your freedom. How many folks have made this an issue locally? I haven't heard a peep here in Denver.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Crime wasn't always an imaginary problem in this country. In fact, not too long ago it was a major problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States). Right now we have almost half the level of violent crime and homicide we had about 20 years ago. Some cities, like New York, had even higher crime rates in the 80's and 90's compared to now than the country as a whole.
wikyd 16y ago
I agree that the disparity is frightening, but I think that the timespan for this problem is way too short to judge. These cases are popping up frequently in the news, most likely because of the sudden ubiquity of digital cameras. The law needs some time to catch up to this sudden shift. Also, we're not hearing of all the times when people are allowed to film the police, but I have watched many videos of just the Seattle police in the past year with no legal repercussion to the videographers. I think it's pretty clear that nearly everyone (except the police (except when being glorified on "Cops")) agree that citizens have the right to observe law enforcement. The law is just ambiguous about this filming right now because it wasn't a consideration in the past. Some police officers are abusing this situation, but as more and more of these cases pop up, the law will have to be clarified.
acabal 16y ago
I tend to agree with this. When an entity takes new power, they fight tooth and nail to keep it, regardless of whether it's "right" for them to have it or not. Bush II massively increased the power of the executive branch with terrorism and fear as an excuse, pushing it farther from a checks-and-balances system towards a checks-against-the-president system. Now that it's been established that the executive has greater power, does anyone think any upcoming president will sit down and say, "welp, time to give some of this up and bring it back to how things used to be!" I don't think so. Same with civil liberties taken by police and other enforcement. The attitude some (not all, or even the majority of) officers seem to have is the attitude of control and being the boss, not serving and protecting. (Like this article--on what imaginable grounds did the officer think he could arrest a citizen for taking film from within their own house if not because "I don't like being on film, so I'm going to show this person who's boss by arresting them"). When it becomes a case of maintaining some sort of imagined and idealized "order" instead of enforcing specific law, our liberties are eroded; and when we just lay back and take it, they probably aren't coming back, because those erosions then eventually become law as people and enforcers get used to the idea. There are of course cases where things have been turned around for the better, like civil rights, suffrage, etc. But this more modern trend of slow, steady, and insidious erosion of rights in the name of protecting us is that much more dangerous because we've become convinced we need the protection. And when the enforcers have the big guns, the ability to detain or throw anyone in prison for almost anything, and a staggeringly complex body of law that requires a small fortune to defend against, things aren't so easy to change anymore. I'm not talking black-helicopter conspiracy theories or anything here, just a general sadness to see us giving up so much of what makes real life free and enjoyable for the illusion of safety from child rapists and terrorists.

jdietrich 16y ago

The United States: Land of the free, home of the biggest prison population in the world. In all seriousness, I wish more USians were aware of how much of the rest of the world views the current state of your nation. I could address this specific point, but I just feel it's irrelevant in light of the much bigger issues. I think that this clip is quite insightful to the prevailing attitude in Britain and much of Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E7wgFcCefE At 3:06, Jimmy Carr says "I'd very much like to say something hilarious, but something must be done." Take note of his tone - it's not the indignation usually aimed at America. There's no sense that he thinks you should know better. It's the same tone he would use to talk about a humanitarian disaster in the developing world. He's just sad. We're describing "slavery by the backdoor" and we're not even angry. We don't view you as "the evil empire", not any more. We don't hate you, we just don't have the heart to. We pity you. We pity what you have become and what you may yet become. You look to many of us like a punched-out former heavyweight - once great, now just an incoherent wreck, old and infirm before your time. When hurricane Katrina hit, many of us agreed with Kanye West's sentiment that "George Bush does not care about black people". Five years on, many of us have come to believe that the US is just becoming incapable of managing its own affairs. I'm not sure which is a sadder thing to believe. Us Brits can empathise to an extent - we used to have an empire on which the sun never set, now we're just a drizzly little island with a few rotten banks and a rubbish football team. Where we can't empathise is that we've always been able to feed our poor and sick and old. Since 1948 we've had a right to a hospital bed, regardless of our means. We used to think that you were unwilling, but now we're not sure whether you're just unable. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704...

hyperbovine 16y ago
Meh. I am well aware of how the rest of the world views the U.S., having spent a fair amount of time traveling around it. In Europe I got a sense that a lot of people were rooting for the U.S. to fail, and that those sentiments tended to cloud their otherwise sound judgement. Like for example the girl from Greece I met who swore that 9/11 was a CIA-instigated plot, and said everyone she knew agreed. Or the French guy who was berating America for backing dictatorships in the Mid-East and Africa, while his own government merrily sells them the guns and bombs needed to prolong the oppression. During Bush II I lived in Spain for a time, and the amount of distortions and outright fabrications that appeared in the papers there about things our leaders had said or done never ceased to amaze me. And then we have the Brits, who never miss a chance to loudly empathize with what it's like to live in an "ex-empire", and boast about NHS--you know, the institution under which my friend waited 13 months to get a knee operation. (That's a long time to be crippled.) Of course, who knows how long that will last, what that hideous budget deficit you're now forced to confront. The mistake people from other countries always seem to make when it comes to us Americans is that they mistake our politeness for ignorance. We're not blind to our deficiencies, our yours; we're just too polite to go around rubbing them in. You could learn something from that.