6 ms·

Notably, they struck down a state law forbidding recording police in public. This is great! Police need accountability. Now we just need some accountability fo

Notably, they struck down a state law forbidding recording police in public. This is great! Police need accountability. Now we just need some accountability for law makers. Who thought it was a good idea to ban recording police? What could the justification for that law possibly be?

jlmorton 6y ago
The law didn't ban recording police officers, it banned one-party secret recordings, and the police were treated the same as everyone else.
- icelancer 6y ago
  Yeah, this is actually an interesting case and one well worth litigating. I agree with the outcome (perhaps obviously) but it's good to have it argued in open court.
- Retric 6y ago
  What you just described would outlaw security cameras which is clearly not what the actual law said.
  - wiml 6y ago
    I linked the law in my other comment — to this non-lawyer's reading, it forbids security cameras that capture audio, but not video-only surveillance cameras.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - athms 6y ago
      In California, the two-party consent rule only applies when there is an expectation of privacy. As an example, dash cams that record audio are legal in California. However, there can be cases when somebody expects to have a confidential conversation with you (on the phone, standing next to the door, or from the backseat) and you must notify them of the audio recording.
  - hedora 6y ago
    Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California. Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA. The penalties for operating such a camera are low, but enough to prevent evidence from holding up in court. Anyway, the ruling that hidden recording of police is OK is great news, IMHO.
    - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
      As someone who operates two Nest cameras (one doorbell, one camera, both record audio) in California with clear line of sight towards public areas (sidewalk and street), I would really like to know what sources make you believe this is illegal. I find that claim very hard to believe.
      - brewdad 6y ago
        If you are concerned about this being an issue for you. Place one of the window stickers that came with it in a front window. That should satisfy any need to notify others of possible surveillance.
    - athms 6y ago
      >Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California. It depends. The two-party consent rule applies when the audio being recorded is in a location where there is an expectation of privacy because the communication is considered confidential. Generally, this doesn't apply to cameras as long as their use doesn't violate community norms and they are used in an area without an expectation of privacy. Using a security camera on your porch is fine because there is no expectation of privacy, but if the microphone is powerful enough to pick up the conversation across the street on the neighbor's porch, that is illegal. >Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA. Again, it depends. There is no two-party consent rule for video recording. You are free to put security cameras anywhere on your property (inside or outside), without notification, including hidden cameras. There are some exceptions: 1) Commercial operators of vehicles used to transport passengers require notification to passengers when using a video recording device. 2) It is illegal to use a video recording device in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person. This doesn't include areas of a business used to count negotiable instruments. 3) It is illegal to use a video recording device to view the naked body or undergarments of a person, without their consent, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  - codecutter 6y ago
    The county officials would not remove traffic cameras, so citizens had to put it on voting ballet in Houston and force the county to remove them. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houst...
Frost1x 6y ago
There seems to be an inverse relationship with power and accountability/responsibility: the less power you have, the more accountability; the more power you have, the less accountability.

jlmorton 6y ago

The law didn't ban recording police officers, it banned one-party secret recordings, and the police were treated the same as everyone else.

icelancer 6y ago
Yeah, this is actually an interesting case and one well worth litigating. I agree with the outcome (perhaps obviously) but it's good to have it argued in open court.
Retric 6y ago
What you just described would outlaw security cameras which is clearly not what the actual law said.
- wiml 6y ago
  I linked the law in my other comment — to this non-lawyer's reading, it forbids security cameras that capture audio, but not video-only surveillance cameras.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - athms 6y ago
    In California, the two-party consent rule only applies when there is an expectation of privacy. As an example, dash cams that record audio are legal in California. However, there can be cases when somebody expects to have a confidential conversation with you (on the phone, standing next to the door, or from the backseat) and you must notify them of the audio recording.
- hedora 6y ago
  Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California. Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA. The penalties for operating such a camera are low, but enough to prevent evidence from holding up in court. Anyway, the ruling that hidden recording of police is OK is great news, IMHO.
  - nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
    As someone who operates two Nest cameras (one doorbell, one camera, both record audio) in California with clear line of sight towards public areas (sidewalk and street), I would really like to know what sources make you believe this is illegal. I find that claim very hard to believe.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      If you are concerned about this being an issue for you. Place one of the window stickers that came with it in a front window. That should satisfy any need to notify others of possible surveillance.
  - athms 6y ago
    >Security cameras that record audio are illegal in California. It depends. The two-party consent rule applies when the audio being recorded is in a location where there is an expectation of privacy because the communication is considered confidential. Generally, this doesn't apply to cameras as long as their use doesn't violate community norms and they are used in an area without an expectation of privacy. Using a security camera on your porch is fine because there is no expectation of privacy, but if the microphone is powerful enough to pick up the conversation across the street on the neighbor's porch, that is illegal. >Security cameras that are not clearly visible (i.e., with a sign pointing them out) are also illegal in CA. Again, it depends. There is no two-party consent rule for video recording. You are free to put security cameras anywhere on your property (inside or outside), without notification, including hidden cameras. There are some exceptions: 1) Commercial operators of vehicles used to transport passengers require notification to passengers when using a video recording device. 2) It is illegal to use a video recording device in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person. This doesn't include areas of a business used to count negotiable instruments. 3) It is illegal to use a video recording device to view the naked body or undergarments of a person, without their consent, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- codecutter 6y ago
  The county officials would not remove traffic cameras, so citizens had to put it on voting ballet in Houston and force the county to remove them. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houst...

Frost1x 6y ago

There seems to be an inverse relationship with power and accountability/responsibility: the less power you have, the more accountability; the more power you have, the less accountability.