5 ms·

But you can have your video footage taken without you having violated any laws or even have any relation at all to the reason they want the footage, the cops ca

But you can have your video footage taken without you having violated any laws or even have any relation at all to the reason they want the footage, the cops can say "We think there's something we want to see on your camera feed, now give it to us", and as long as they have reasonable suspicion that there's footage related to an investigation, they'll get it.

JohnFen 4y ago
If you're assuming the cops and the judges are so corrupt that the safeguard of the subpoena process is worthless, then you also have to think of everything you own being subject to seizure. Not just data.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I think you are talking past each other. If a crime (not committed by you) happens near your security camera, then your footage can be subpoenaed. This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process. I agree that it's a bit over-the-top to say "you don't own the footage." just because of this, but that appears to be the point that is being made.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Yes, I understand. I think the issue, really, is a philosophical disagreement. I think that if the police are to be able to investigate crime, they need to have some invasive powers. But they also shouldn't be trusted to use them without controls. The subpoena (and warrant) process is the control we have in the US. I don't think the existence of this ability is, itself, a serious violation of rights. Other people may legitimately disagree. There is also a serious discussion that could be had about whether the controls are sufficient, but that's a procedural issue rather than a philosophical one.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    > This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process Not if it ends there and cops make the right decisions. However it's a legitimate concern that an overly broad police investigation, even after a real crime happens, might lead bad/lazy/dishonest cops to wrongfully accuse someone unrelated.
Thrymr 4y ago
> But you can have your video footage taken without you having violated any laws This is true of your car too, look up civil forfeiture in the US. The bar for seizing property is much lower than for criminal conviction.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  A low bar doesn't mean "no bar" - they literally need zero reason to think you had and relation to a crime to take your video footage, but for civil forfeiture, they have to have suspicion that the property seized was related to wrongdoing.
  - connicpu 4y ago
    Subpoenaing footage also has more than "no bar" as they still have to convince a judge to approve it
    - Johnny555 4y ago
      But my point is that you don't have to be under any suspicion yourself, if the police think your camera recorded something related to an investigation, they can take the footage. If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage even if you don't want to. If you really owned your camera footage, you could say "Naa, I don't wanna help that guy, I'm not going to let you have it".
      - zakki 4y ago
        And still that doesn’t mean we don’t own our data. We own it. That’s why the police asked us for the data. Because we own it.
        Johnny555 4y ago
        But they don't ask, they tell you that you have to hand it over. You can appeal to the courts (which is an expensive option), but the judge may say the same thing and you have no (practical) choice . That's why I say that you don't own it -- if you owned it and the police ask for it, you could say "no".
jameshart 4y ago
… I’m confused why this would be objectionable. If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator existed on someone else’s camera system, wouldn’t you want the police to be able to get hold of it?
- Johnny555 4y ago
  I'm not arguing for or against the police being able to subpoena video, I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. It doesn't keep the police from subpoenaing and obtaining the video. It makes it a little easier to fight the subpoena since you can hold onto the video while it works its way through the courts, but that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one.
  - jrumbut 4y ago
    It doesn't keep the police from using it, it does keep some cloud company (and a possibly limitless network of 3rd parties, regardless of what is publicly known) from using it.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    > I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. 3rd party have no motivation to only give the say front porch camera video vs "here are all of their videos from every camera everywhere".
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one. You don't actually need to hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena. It would be smart, but not necessary. And how expensive that fight is depends entirely on how far you want to take it. If you're broke, you can still appear before the judge and argue your case. It only really gets expensive if the judge rules against you and you want to fight it in a higher court.

JohnFen 4y ago

If you're assuming the cops and the judges are so corrupt that the safeguard of the subpoena process is worthless, then you also have to think of everything you own being subject to seizure. Not just data.

aidenn0 4y ago
I think you are talking past each other. If a crime (not committed by you) happens near your security camera, then your footage can be subpoenaed. This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process. I agree that it's a bit over-the-top to say "you don't own the footage." just because of this, but that appears to be the point that is being made.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Yes, I understand. I think the issue, really, is a philosophical disagreement. I think that if the police are to be able to investigate crime, they need to have some invasive powers. But they also shouldn't be trusted to use them without controls. The subpoena (and warrant) process is the control we have in the US. I don't think the existence of this ability is, itself, a serious violation of rights. Other people may legitimately disagree. There is also a serious discussion that could be had about whether the controls are sufficient, but that's a procedural issue rather than a philosophical one.
- asveikau 4y ago
  > This is not corruption or a violation of the subpoena safeguard process Not if it ends there and cops make the right decisions. However it's a legitimate concern that an overly broad police investigation, even after a real crime happens, might lead bad/lazy/dishonest cops to wrongfully accuse someone unrelated.

Thrymr 4y ago

> But you can have your video footage taken without you having violated any laws This is true of your car too, look up civil forfeiture in the US. The bar for seizing property is much lower than for criminal conviction.

Johnny555 4y ago
A low bar doesn't mean "no bar" - they literally need zero reason to think you had and relation to a crime to take your video footage, but for civil forfeiture, they have to have suspicion that the property seized was related to wrongdoing.
- connicpu 4y ago
  Subpoenaing footage also has more than "no bar" as they still have to convince a judge to approve it
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    But my point is that you don't have to be under any suspicion yourself, if the police think your camera recorded something related to an investigation, they can take the footage. If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage even if you don't want to. If you really owned your camera footage, you could say "Naa, I don't wanna help that guy, I'm not going to let you have it".
    - zakki 4y ago
      And still that doesn’t mean we don’t own our data. We own it. That’s why the police asked us for the data. Because we own it.
      - Johnny555 4y ago
        But they don't ask, they tell you that you have to hand it over. You can appeal to the courts (which is an expensive option), but the judge may say the same thing and you have no (practical) choice . That's why I say that you don't own it -- if you owned it and the police ask for it, you could say "no".

jameshart 4y ago

… I’m confused why this would be objectionable. If you were the victim of a crime, and some useful evidence that could lead to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator existed on someone else’s camera system, wouldn’t you want the police to be able to get hold of it?

Johnny555 4y ago
I'm not arguing for or against the police being able to subpoena video, I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. It doesn't keep the police from subpoenaing and obtaining the video. It makes it a little easier to fight the subpoena since you can hold onto the video while it works its way through the courts, but that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  It doesn't keep the police from using it, it does keep some cloud company (and a possibly limitless network of 3rd parties, regardless of what is publicly known) from using it.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I'm just questioning the real ownership value of storing the video on your own hardware vs cloud storage. 3rd party have no motivation to only give the say front porch camera video vs "here are all of their videos from every camera everywhere".
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > that's an expensive process that I think few would undertake so it's more of a theoretical advantage rather than a practical one. You don't actually need to hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena. It would be smart, but not necessary. And how expensive that fight is depends entirely on how far you want to take it. If you're broke, you can still appear before the judge and argue your case. It only really gets expensive if the judge rules against you and you want to fight it in a higher court.