6 ms·

The War on Cameras

173 points by ccoop 16y ago

pyre 16y ago
Remember that through all of that muddle mess of 'what is really illegal' is the fact that 'ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.' So if the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations' then how is a normal citizen supposed to evaluate these things for themselves? Accidentally cross the line, and then find yourself in jail as an example to others? Is this the 'justice' that we want? Throwing people in jail as part of the process of figuring out where we should 'draw the line?' Just throwing people under the bus?
- dantheman 16y ago
  Exactly, its not about justice - it's about power and accountability.
  - steauengeglase 16y ago
    I really wish I could remember who said it, but it always comes to mind when I read a story like this. "He who stands against the law shall die, for the law is god." [That should probably be an upper-case "G".] Essentially that is this man's crime. From a judge's perspective, he didn't really say that the law in question was invalid or that he was unjustly persecuted, but that the authority of law was invalid. From the judge's seat he might as well have been a murder arguing that murder was OK by killing someone in the courtroom. In the end, that is the single greatest crime that anyone can commit. Someone with a little more common sense would have gone to a higher court and argued that he wasn't allowed a court reporter, an act that contradicted the entire point of his argument.
- noonespecial 16y ago
  The interface between "ignorance is no excuse" and the vagueness and selective enforcement of a great deal of law is always a difficult gray area. I think that the most important thing about a political system is predictability, not "democracy" or "justice" or some other vague, high minded ideal. The number one job of our elected and appointed officials should be providing this predictability. This is a particularly stark example of what happens when that duty is shirked. Corruption and incompetence flow into every crevice not solidly plugged with deterministic law.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    I have to disagree. Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I don't want to know for sure, unquestionably that if I speak out against the government me and my family will be fed into a wood chipper, no matter how predictable that response would be.
    - uriel 16y ago
      > but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable I'm not so sure, not saying there not might be some cases of this, but usually brutal regimes exercise force arbitrarily. Predictability implies a set of constraints on the actions of those in power.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I agree that a predictable rule of law isn't enough for a worthwhile society. At the same time, it's worth noting that many repressive regimes are very unpredictable. Look at Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalin's Russia; Unpredictable terror is an important weapon in a dictator's arsenal. It forces people to go beyond the normal call of duty in defense of the state. It produces something like "learned helplessness" in the population. It prevents rivals from acting against the leader.
    - khafra 16y ago
      Intermittent reinforcement is the most effective form of operant conditioning. Unpredictable punishments in a wide gray area will make people stay well clear of even the shallow end of that gray area.
      - aphyr 16y ago
        ...which is why nobody speeds.
        pyre 16y ago
- edj 16y ago
  "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" Not exactly; it's more complex than that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
  - milkmandan 16y ago
    I think this is more related to inadvertent vs. intentional recording. For example, you can inadvertently record someone who is shouting at you if you were on the phone, leaving a voicemail message.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Growing up, I always found this odd as well. Now I think when they say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" what they actually mean is "just because you didn't know (perhaps because there was no way to know), we're still going to punish you".
- bluedanieru 16y ago
  By keeping the laws vague you can pretty much arrest whoever you want for whatever you want. And, when you've got enough ridiculous laws on the books that the average citizen can't avoid regularly committing felonies, a police state isn't far behind. That's not to say that the ones who wrote the laws, or the ones who enforce them, are doing so to that end. But when the pieces are put in place, even if unwittingly, it's only a matter of time.
  - ajays 16y ago
    I came here to say this. Underpinning all police states is a system that a citizen can be arrested for just about anything. This is how you keep citizens in check. I found it interesting (and also saddening) that all the "law enforcement" people automatically line up to oppose the use of cameras. It's as if they live in a different world than the rest of us, who see cameras as ubiquitous and handy. This separation of society into 2 classes, the "law enforcers" and "average citizens", is another harbinger of a police state. I'm sure many here will say: so what? I'm not bothering anybody, so why should I worry? The problem is, all of this capricious police action weakens society as a whole. We can't move forward if we're governed by 20th century laws applied at whim.
- efsavage 16y ago
  "the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations'" Which is ironic, since that is the core part of his job, to present a hypothetical scenario (an alleged crime) and argue it actually happened.
Groxx 16y ago
Non-print single page: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/sin...
zmitri 16y ago
The thing that seems so absurd to me is that shows like "COPS" are so ridiculously successful.
- lhnn 16y ago
  "Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get. What they're trying to do is still wrong. Were I a legislator, I would immediately do one or more of the following: -change the wiretapping laws to set explicit "No Record" areas or situations, allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. (Best) -Allow public servants to be recorded, and citizens must inform servants they are being legally recorded. (Better than current, but not so great) -require cops to inform citizens that recording is prohibited (bad for soooo many reasons)
  - zmitri 16y ago
    Right, but the people who were being arrested didn't. Regardless of whether the video is used in court, it's still being recorded. Isn't that the same thing? Do you think they take advantage of the defendants "dire" situations to get them to sign release forms in order to subsidize their court defense? How is filming them prior to having their consent not the exact same thing?
  - rflrob 16y ago
    > allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. I'm tempted to go so far as to say that a public official (especially in law enforcement) acting in her official capacity should have no expectation of privacy from recording, though I'm willing to admit that there might be some case I'm not thinking of.
    - celoyd 16y ago
      Three related cases come to mind: 1. Secrecy in matters like, well, diplomacy. 2. Protection from reprisal. 3. Confidentiality of people other than the public servants. A lot of government work deals with heavily stigmatized things other than crime – poverty, disease, etc. It’s hard to record a social worker without bringing unjustly harmful attention to the people they work with. I strongly agree with your general principle. I just don’t think it would work without some compromises.
rbranson 16y ago
As someone who's been arrested for a misdemeanor due to a case of mistaken identity and basically forced to take a plea entirely because of a falsified police report, the FOP spokesperson's claim that we must trust the police is laughable. If it's happened to me, a friendly white guy in a nice part of town, I can't imagine what happens in less advantageous situations. I sure wish I would have had a video of the situation at the time.
- duke_sam 16y ago
  When the word of an officer is worth more than the word of a member of the public being able to record the officer in the course of their work is the only way to defend yourself. Yes this might lead to an increase in people getting off on technicalities but saying that is a good enough reason to turn law enforcement into an entity above reproach is very dangerous. The ability for the courts or police to shutdown any practical oversight by members of the public turns changes the power dynamic completely. Any person is one pissed off cop away from having to deal with being arrested. It becomes a big game of chance. The (vast) majority of the time we don't interact with cops/the courts, the (vast) majority of cops are concerned about the general good and protecting people but even 1% of 1% in a country this big leads to a lot of hardship.
  - salemh 16y ago
    The 1% of 1% is so damaging..it can effect lives, and those around those lives. The problem, to me, is the "blue line" of protectionist policies of departments, which, camera's would never be an issue if this was not the case.
acangiano 16y ago
As we've been told many times over, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Let's apply the same principle to our public servants.
- varaon 16y ago
  Simple retort: Really? Why do you close the bathroom door?
  - vanschelven 16y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. If the argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a bad one (which it it), it's also a bad argument to use against the gov't. I think there are very good arguments to hold our public officials accountable, but they stand on their own merit.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      Sometimes the most effective way to show someone how bad their own argument is is to use it on them.
    - iwwr 16y ago
      There is a fundamental power imbalance between the government and an individual. This is why the privacy of the individual is paramount, while the privacy of the government should be minimal. The master here should be the individual and the public official a servant.
  - dalore 16y ago
    To keep the stink away from others.
    - huhtenberg 16y ago
      Originally it was the curtains, not a bathroom door, and it is from "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" [1]. A very nice read. [1] http://www.gab.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nothing-to-hide.pdf http://www.gab.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nothing-to-hide...
alanh 16y ago
Carlos Miller's excellent blog "Photography is Not a Crime" is highly relevant.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I assume you mean this: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248 http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248
delackner 16y ago
The persistent failure of US state and federal government to fix this situation has a deeply corrosive effect on the public trust. With trust in public officials plummeting for various reasons, this represents an alarming threat to the long-term health of the United States.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Sadly, I can't upvote you more...
billswift 16y ago
"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either decide that people are free to secretly record any conversation they’re privy to, or have to draw lines between some conversations and other conversations that are hard to justify as a First Amendment matter." Since anyone can report on anything that is said to them, with "expectation of privacy" or not, all requiring permission to record from the other person a conversation you are party to is to make it easy for liars. If A says B said X, and B says he didn't, then all a recording could do is determine who's lying. The existence of a recording doesn't constitute a betrayal, the reporting of private conversation does, whether or not there is a recording.
- ScottBurson 16y ago
  Agreed. While it's clear why it's illegal to record other people's conversations, I don't get why it has ever been illegal to secretly record a conversation in which one is a known participant. How is that "wiretapping"??? I think if I say something to you, you should be able to hold me accountable for it. I don't have a problem with that. Does anyone here understand why these laws prohibit recording of one's own conversations???
VladRussian 16y ago
instead of recording on your device, just call a voicemail set up in a state with no wiretapping law.
- eru 16y ago
  Or to make it legally even more interesting: Always run a (video) phone call with a group of volunteers, who will act as witnesses. Is this even wiretapping?
  - ams6110 16y ago
    One day soon it will be routine for people's cell phones (or some similar device) to record every moment of the person's life in audio and video. Almost everyone will have a permanent record of everything they do, of every conversation they have had, with every person they meet. I can't recall where I read about this, it may have been something Negroponte wrote about. As a society we are going to have to figure out how to deal with this end of privacy. It's bigger than just law enforcement.
    - eru 16y ago
      Yes, I agree. But for the situation described in the article, creating a situation where you don't record anything, but just add a few more listeners would be an interesting test.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      The movie The Final Cut has some interesting commentary on a similar concept. In it, a neural implant installed before birth records every moment of a person's life: waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc.
iwwr 16y ago
The word of a police officer is taken at a higher value in court, in the absence of any other evidence. The police having that power and being entrusted with the collection of evidence means ordinary citizens are already at a great disadvantage once in court. Surveillance is sometimes the only resort the public have to defend themselves from abuse. Not saying that the police are abusive by definition, but when they do act in that manner (or tamper with evidence), there is little an ordinary citizen can do to defend himself. Surveillance has the great advantage that it doesn't particularly hinder honest officers in the line of duty, it only trips up the abusers.
- Hoff 16y ago
  While certainly useful, video can also be used to misrepresent reality. Ask Shirley Sherrod about that, for instance.
motters 16y ago
If they're public officials in a public space performing a public duty then there should be no problem with taking photos or video of them. The recent case of the death of Ian Tomlinson is a good illustration of how important it can be for people to be able to independently photograph police. In that case had a bystander not been taking photos the full circumstances of the case may never have been known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
- ewjordan 16y ago
  I think the way I'd put it would be that if I could be in any sort of legal trouble (or if there's any insinuation from an officer of the law that I could be in any sort of legal trouble) if I just got up and left, I'd damned well better be legally allowed to record the interaction. It should also be at least a felony for any officer of the government to interfere in any way with my recording of such an interaction with them. I really can't see any reason to oppose such measures, unless a person wants to make sure police officers have free reign to abuse captives, or lie about what they say.
uriel 16y ago
See also Cato's insightful "Cops on Camera": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8
nodata 16y ago
It's worth point out that the title applies only to non-government. There is a war on cameras used by the public, but there has been an explosion of cameras used the other way round.
Estragon 16y ago
My brief scan of the law in NYS suggests that recording public officials without their knowledge or consent is legal here. http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art250 http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm...
milkmandan 16y ago
The public must Miranda the cops now. "Everything you say..." etc.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
In a situation like this, where it's obvious that the law has to change, I become more interested in the systems of people that are misaligned to make the confusion worse. It looks to me that if you are an undercover policeman, you cannot participate in any police work aside from your undercover duties. Likewise, if you have ever been a "public" officer, you then can't cross over and become an undercover agent -- not with facial recognition software. There are also considerations for domestic violence, juvenile, and rape cases. No longer can you meet or converse with victims in any sort of public forum (interesting question: can victims of crime also tape their own interviews? How about suspects?) All of this means we have a bunch of retraining and re-organizing to do of the national police force. This is going to be a major change and effects everything from seniority to career tracks, manpower needs, and court appearances. Just guessing, I'm betting that it adds a lot more cops than we had before. Not sure who is going to pay for those cops or if, in the end, we don't end up in a worse spot from where we started. Having said that, because of the severity and broad scale of the problem, this will probably end up being settled at the national level. Probably after some crisis occurs. Wonder what that crisis would be? I'd also note that it is the edge cases that are driving the change. There are probably dozens of cops taped everyday without incident. And probably dozens that illegally prevent taping. We just don't know. The only things we know are those things which are publicized effectively. The point being that it's easy to think in terms of what the perfect world is or should be. The interesting part comes when real people and systems are bounced up against necessary changes.
z0r 16y ago
The police must be held to a higher standard than the citizens they regulate. They should be subject to panopticon.
Mizza 16y ago
Working on an app to fix this. 95% finished. Launching soon.

173 points by ccoop 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

Remember that through all of that muddle mess of 'what is really illegal' is the fact that 'ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.' So if the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations' then how is a normal citizen supposed to evaluate these things for themselves? Accidentally cross the line, and then find yourself in jail as an example to others? Is this the 'justice' that we want? Throwing people in jail as part of the process of figuring out where we should 'draw the line?' Just throwing people under the bus?

dantheman 16y ago
Exactly, its not about justice - it's about power and accountability.
- steauengeglase 16y ago
  I really wish I could remember who said it, but it always comes to mind when I read a story like this. "He who stands against the law shall die, for the law is god." [That should probably be an upper-case "G".] Essentially that is this man's crime. From a judge's perspective, he didn't really say that the law in question was invalid or that he was unjustly persecuted, but that the authority of law was invalid. From the judge's seat he might as well have been a murder arguing that murder was OK by killing someone in the courtroom. In the end, that is the single greatest crime that anyone can commit. Someone with a little more common sense would have gone to a higher court and argued that he wasn't allowed a court reporter, an act that contradicted the entire point of his argument.
noonespecial 16y ago
The interface between "ignorance is no excuse" and the vagueness and selective enforcement of a great deal of law is always a difficult gray area. I think that the most important thing about a political system is predictability, not "democracy" or "justice" or some other vague, high minded ideal. The number one job of our elected and appointed officials should be providing this predictability. This is a particularly stark example of what happens when that duty is shirked. Corruption and incompetence flow into every crevice not solidly plugged with deterministic law.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  I have to disagree. Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I don't want to know for sure, unquestionably that if I speak out against the government me and my family will be fed into a wood chipper, no matter how predictable that response would be.
  - uriel 16y ago
    > but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable I'm not so sure, not saying there not might be some cases of this, but usually brutal regimes exercise force arbitrarily. Predictability implies a set of constraints on the actions of those in power.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I agree that a predictable rule of law isn't enough for a worthwhile society. At the same time, it's worth noting that many repressive regimes are very unpredictable. Look at Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalin's Russia; Unpredictable terror is an important weapon in a dictator's arsenal. It forces people to go beyond the normal call of duty in defense of the state. It produces something like "learned helplessness" in the population. It prevents rivals from acting against the leader.
  - khafra 16y ago
    Intermittent reinforcement is the most effective form of operant conditioning. Unpredictable punishments in a wide gray area will make people stay well clear of even the shallow end of that gray area.
    - aphyr 16y ago
      ...which is why nobody speeds.
      - pyre 16y ago
edj 16y ago
"ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" Not exactly; it's more complex than that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- milkmandan 16y ago
  I think this is more related to inadvertent vs. intentional recording. For example, you can inadvertently record someone who is shouting at you if you were on the phone, leaving a voicemail message.
loewenskind 16y ago
Growing up, I always found this odd as well. Now I think when they say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" what they actually mean is "just because you didn't know (perhaps because there was no way to know), we're still going to punish you".
bluedanieru 16y ago
By keeping the laws vague you can pretty much arrest whoever you want for whatever you want. And, when you've got enough ridiculous laws on the books that the average citizen can't avoid regularly committing felonies, a police state isn't far behind. That's not to say that the ones who wrote the laws, or the ones who enforce them, are doing so to that end. But when the pieces are put in place, even if unwittingly, it's only a matter of time.
- ajays 16y ago
  I came here to say this. Underpinning all police states is a system that a citizen can be arrested for just about anything. This is how you keep citizens in check. I found it interesting (and also saddening) that all the "law enforcement" people automatically line up to oppose the use of cameras. It's as if they live in a different world than the rest of us, who see cameras as ubiquitous and handy. This separation of society into 2 classes, the "law enforcers" and "average citizens", is another harbinger of a police state. I'm sure many here will say: so what? I'm not bothering anybody, so why should I worry? The problem is, all of this capricious police action weakens society as a whole. We can't move forward if we're governed by 20th century laws applied at whim.
efsavage 16y ago
"the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations'" Which is ironic, since that is the core part of his job, to present a hypothetical scenario (an alleged crime) and argue it actually happened.

Groxx 16y ago

Non-print single page: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/singlepage http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/sin...

zmitri 16y ago

The thing that seems so absurd to me is that shows like "COPS" are so ridiculously successful.

lhnn 16y ago
"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get. What they're trying to do is still wrong. Were I a legislator, I would immediately do one or more of the following: -change the wiretapping laws to set explicit "No Record" areas or situations, allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. (Best) -Allow public servants to be recorded, and citizens must inform servants they are being legally recorded. (Better than current, but not so great) -require cops to inform citizens that recording is prohibited (bad for soooo many reasons)
- zmitri 16y ago
  Right, but the people who were being arrested didn't. Regardless of whether the video is used in court, it's still being recorded. Isn't that the same thing? Do you think they take advantage of the defendants "dire" situations to get them to sign release forms in order to subsidize their court defense? How is filming them prior to having their consent not the exact same thing?
- rflrob 16y ago
  > allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. I'm tempted to go so far as to say that a public official (especially in law enforcement) acting in her official capacity should have no expectation of privacy from recording, though I'm willing to admit that there might be some case I'm not thinking of.
  - celoyd 16y ago
    Three related cases come to mind: 1. Secrecy in matters like, well, diplomacy. 2. Protection from reprisal. 3. Confidentiality of people other than the public servants. A lot of government work deals with heavily stigmatized things other than crime – poverty, disease, etc. It’s hard to record a social worker without bringing unjustly harmful attention to the people they work with. I strongly agree with your general principle. I just don’t think it would work without some compromises.

rbranson 16y ago

As someone who's been arrested for a misdemeanor due to a case of mistaken identity and basically forced to take a plea entirely because of a falsified police report, the FOP spokesperson's claim that we must trust the police is laughable. If it's happened to me, a friendly white guy in a nice part of town, I can't imagine what happens in less advantageous situations. I sure wish I would have had a video of the situation at the time.

duke_sam 16y ago
When the word of an officer is worth more than the word of a member of the public being able to record the officer in the course of their work is the only way to defend yourself. Yes this might lead to an increase in people getting off on technicalities but saying that is a good enough reason to turn law enforcement into an entity above reproach is very dangerous. The ability for the courts or police to shutdown any practical oversight by members of the public turns changes the power dynamic completely. Any person is one pissed off cop away from having to deal with being arrested. It becomes a big game of chance. The (vast) majority of the time we don't interact with cops/the courts, the (vast) majority of cops are concerned about the general good and protecting people but even 1% of 1% in a country this big leads to a lot of hardship.
- salemh 16y ago
  The 1% of 1% is so damaging..it can effect lives, and those around those lives. The problem, to me, is the "blue line" of protectionist policies of departments, which, camera's would never be an issue if this was not the case.

acangiano 16y ago

As we've been told many times over, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Let's apply the same principle to our public servants.

varaon 16y ago
Simple retort: Really? Why do you close the bathroom door?
- vanschelven 16y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted. If the argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a bad one (which it it), it's also a bad argument to use against the gov't. I think there are very good arguments to hold our public officials accountable, but they stand on their own merit.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    Sometimes the most effective way to show someone how bad their own argument is is to use it on them.
  - iwwr 16y ago
    There is a fundamental power imbalance between the government and an individual. This is why the privacy of the individual is paramount, while the privacy of the government should be minimal. The master here should be the individual and the public official a servant.
- dalore 16y ago
  To keep the stink away from others.
  - huhtenberg 16y ago
    Originally it was the curtains, not a bathroom door, and it is from "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" [1]. A very nice read. [1] http://www.gab.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nothing-to-hide.pdf http://www.gab.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nothing-to-hide...

alanh 16y ago

Carlos Miller's excellent blog "Photography is Not a Crime" is highly relevant.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I assume you mean this: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248 http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

delackner 16y ago

The persistent failure of US state and federal government to fix this situation has a deeply corrosive effect on the public trust. With trust in public officials plummeting for various reasons, this represents an alarming threat to the long-term health of the United States.

rbanffy 16y ago
Sadly, I can't upvote you more...

billswift 16y ago

"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either decide that people are free to secretly record any conversation they’re privy to, or have to draw lines between some conversations and other conversations that are hard to justify as a First Amendment matter." Since anyone can report on anything that is said to them, with "expectation of privacy" or not, all requiring permission to record from the other person a conversation you are party to is to make it easy for liars. If A says B said X, and B says he didn't, then all a recording could do is determine who's lying. The existence of a recording doesn't constitute a betrayal, the reporting of private conversation does, whether or not there is a recording.

ScottBurson 16y ago
Agreed. While it's clear why it's illegal to record other people's conversations, I don't get why it has ever been illegal to secretly record a conversation in which one is a known participant. How is that "wiretapping"??? I think if I say something to you, you should be able to hold me accountable for it. I don't have a problem with that. Does anyone here understand why these laws prohibit recording of one's own conversations???

VladRussian 16y ago

instead of recording on your device, just call a voicemail set up in a state with no wiretapping law.

eru 16y ago
Or to make it legally even more interesting: Always run a (video) phone call with a group of volunteers, who will act as witnesses. Is this even wiretapping?
- ams6110 16y ago
  One day soon it will be routine for people's cell phones (or some similar device) to record every moment of the person's life in audio and video. Almost everyone will have a permanent record of everything they do, of every conversation they have had, with every person they meet. I can't recall where I read about this, it may have been something Negroponte wrote about. As a society we are going to have to figure out how to deal with this end of privacy. It's bigger than just law enforcement.
  - eru 16y ago
    Yes, I agree. But for the situation described in the article, creating a situation where you don't record anything, but just add a few more listeners would be an interesting test.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    The movie The Final Cut has some interesting commentary on a similar concept. In it, a neural implant installed before birth records every moment of a person's life: waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc.

iwwr 16y ago

The word of a police officer is taken at a higher value in court, in the absence of any other evidence. The police having that power and being entrusted with the collection of evidence means ordinary citizens are already at a great disadvantage once in court. Surveillance is sometimes the only resort the public have to defend themselves from abuse. Not saying that the police are abusive by definition, but when they do act in that manner (or tamper with evidence), there is little an ordinary citizen can do to defend himself. Surveillance has the great advantage that it doesn't particularly hinder honest officers in the line of duty, it only trips up the abusers.

Hoff 16y ago
While certainly useful, video can also be used to misrepresent reality. Ask Shirley Sherrod about that, for instance.

motters 16y ago

If they're public officials in a public space performing a public duty then there should be no problem with taking photos or video of them. The recent case of the death of Ian Tomlinson is a good illustration of how important it can be for people to be able to independently photograph police. In that case had a bystander not been taking photos the full circumstances of the case may never have been known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

ewjordan 16y ago
I think the way I'd put it would be that if I could be in any sort of legal trouble (or if there's any insinuation from an officer of the law that I could be in any sort of legal trouble) if I just got up and left, I'd damned well better be legally allowed to record the interaction. It should also be at least a felony for any officer of the government to interfere in any way with my recording of such an interaction with them. I really can't see any reason to oppose such measures, unless a person wants to make sure police officers have free reign to abuse captives, or lie about what they say.

uriel 16y ago

See also Cato's insightful "Cops on Camera": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8

nodata 16y ago

It's worth point out that the title applies only to non-government. There is a war on cameras used by the public, but there has been an explosion of cameras used the other way round.

Estragon 16y ago

My brief scan of the law in NYS suggests that recording public officials without their knowledge or consent is legal here. http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art250 http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm...

milkmandan 16y ago

The public must Miranda the cops now. "Everything you say..." etc.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

In a situation like this, where it's obvious that the law has to change, I become more interested in the systems of people that are misaligned to make the confusion worse. It looks to me that if you are an undercover policeman, you cannot participate in any police work aside from your undercover duties. Likewise, if you have ever been a "public" officer, you then can't cross over and become an undercover agent -- not with facial recognition software. There are also considerations for domestic violence, juvenile, and rape cases. No longer can you meet or converse with victims in any sort of public forum (interesting question: can victims of crime also tape their own interviews? How about suspects?) All of this means we have a bunch of retraining and re-organizing to do of the national police force. This is going to be a major change and effects everything from seniority to career tracks, manpower needs, and court appearances. Just guessing, I'm betting that it adds a lot more cops than we had before. Not sure who is going to pay for those cops or if, in the end, we don't end up in a worse spot from where we started. Having said that, because of the severity and broad scale of the problem, this will probably end up being settled at the national level. Probably after some crisis occurs. Wonder what that crisis would be? I'd also note that it is the edge cases that are driving the change. There are probably dozens of cops taped everyday without incident. And probably dozens that illegally prevent taping. We just don't know. The only things we know are those things which are publicized effectively. The point being that it's easy to think in terms of what the perfect world is or should be. The interesting part comes when real people and systems are bounced up against necessary changes.

z0r 16y ago

The police must be held to a higher standard than the citizens they regulate. They should be subject to panopticon.

Mizza 16y ago

Working on an app to fix this. 95% finished. Launching soon.