3 ms·

"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

by 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.
  - lhnn 16y ago
    I agree. Even when dealing with officers, sometimes the conversations that take place have confidential or otherwise private information that should not be available to the public. However, if the citizen wants it, they should be able to record all interactions they have with servants.
  - rflrob 16y ago
    Can you elaborate on 2 a bit? As to the other points, I should clarify my statement above: I only meant that they should have no expectation of privacy from the person they're dealing with. Planting a bug in the police station or eavesdropping on a conversation to which you aren't a party seem reasonable to leave as illegal. I'm tempted to agree with other commenters that recording any conversation to which you are a party should be okay, but I haven't given it enough thought. For diplomacy, it seems like the people who would be doing the recording would most likely be other diplomats, and therefore immune from US law anyways. Case 3, it's easy enough to just say that while the social worker has no expectation of privacy, their clients do. If someone is having an interaction with the social worker where someone else's confidential information is disclosed, the social worker is the one who has messed up here, with the person recording it being, at most, auxiliary.
    - celoyd 16y ago
      You seem to be trying to disagree with a comment that basically agrees with yours. The points you raise are covered by common-sense interpretations of what I said. On point 2 specifically: as hard as it might be to imagine in the US at the moment, in many times and places people doing legitimate law enforcement are intimidated by gangs. This ends up being bad for everyone. While it’s rarely a problem here and now, it ought to be protected against.
ugh 16y ago
Another solution would be to allow recording in nearly all situations and apply stricter standards only when something is published.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
cynwrig 16y ago
'"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get.' But what about the privacy of the suspects that the COPS voiceover reminds us are 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.' Did they have any say in a film crew marching in after the police, filming the inside of their house and whatever interactions occur for broadcast? This seems like a far greater violation of privacy that the recording of public officials doing official business in public locations.
- ams6110 16y ago
  They get releases from (and probably pay, though that is conjecture) all those people before the video is broadcast. Ever notice that some faces are obscured? Those folks wouldn't sign the release.

by lhnn 16y ago

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.
- lhnn 16y ago
  I agree. Even when dealing with officers, sometimes the conversations that take place have confidential or otherwise private information that should not be available to the public. However, if the citizen wants it, they should be able to record all interactions they have with servants.
- rflrob 16y ago
  Can you elaborate on 2 a bit? As to the other points, I should clarify my statement above: I only meant that they should have no expectation of privacy from the person they're dealing with. Planting a bug in the police station or eavesdropping on a conversation to which you aren't a party seem reasonable to leave as illegal. I'm tempted to agree with other commenters that recording any conversation to which you are a party should be okay, but I haven't given it enough thought. For diplomacy, it seems like the people who would be doing the recording would most likely be other diplomats, and therefore immune from US law anyways. Case 3, it's easy enough to just say that while the social worker has no expectation of privacy, their clients do. If someone is having an interaction with the social worker where someone else's confidential information is disclosed, the social worker is the one who has messed up here, with the person recording it being, at most, auxiliary.
  - celoyd 16y ago
    You seem to be trying to disagree with a comment that basically agrees with yours. The points you raise are covered by common-sense interpretations of what I said. On point 2 specifically: as hard as it might be to imagine in the US at the moment, in many times and places people doing legitimate law enforcement are intimidated by gangs. This ends up being bad for everyone. While it’s rarely a problem here and now, it ought to be protected against.

ugh 16y ago

Another solution would be to allow recording in nearly all situations and apply stricter standards only when something is published.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

cynwrig 16y ago

'"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get.' But what about the privacy of the suspects that the COPS voiceover reminds us are 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.' Did they have any say in a film crew marching in after the police, filming the inside of their house and whatever interactions occur for broadcast? This seems like a far greater violation of privacy that the recording of public officials doing official business in public locations.

ams6110 16y ago
They get releases from (and probably pay, though that is conjecture) all those people before the video is broadcast. Ever notice that some faces are obscured? Those folks wouldn't sign the release.