4 ms·

It will be difficult for states to ban something that is protected by the constitution. Public servants doing public service have zero expectation of privacy an

It will be difficult for states to ban something that is protected by the constitution. Public servants doing public service have zero expectation of privacy and citizens have and absolute right to photograph and record them.

glenda 4y ago
Many states aren't outright banning it, but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.
- ffhhj 4y ago
  Picking an officer's head with a big ass pole microphone is not acceptable? Not standing close.
- indymike 4y ago
  > but making filming from "too close" a form of interference. They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn't one of them.
- kube-system 4y ago
  That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Which is why many security camera systems do not record audio or have settings to disable it.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > > Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn’t one of them. > That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
- kova12 4y ago
  That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only makes it more accurate. It doesn't change the nature that recollection in one form or another has been made. So the real effect is when there is a dispute, the evidence which could otherwise be solid, becomes instead a "he said, she said" type of evidence and justice instead of being precise becomes a flip of a coin
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally. One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
      - formerly_proven 4y ago
        Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
      - autoexec 4y ago
        I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice. I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters. I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
- indymike 4y ago
  That doesn't apply to recording public officials doing their job.
pjc50 4y ago
The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.
- indymike 4y ago
  > The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents. > It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents. It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.

glenda 4y ago

Many states aren't outright banning it, but making filming from "too close" a form of interference.

ffhhj 4y ago
Picking an officer's head with a big ass pole microphone is not acceptable? Not standing close.
indymike 4y ago
> but making filming from "too close" a form of interference. They are trying to, but these laws will likely fail to be constitutional because so far they are completely arbitrary and do not respect freedom of press.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn't one of them.

kube-system 4y ago
That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Which is why many security camera systems do not record audio or have settings to disable it.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > > Some states already require two party consent for recordings. Ohio isn’t one of them. > That pertains to audio, not anyone’s image. Approximately the same states are all-party consent for video recording any place that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, reasonable expectation of privacy is different between audio of a conversation, and video.
kova12 4y ago
That's the thing that pisses me off. If someone talks to me and I can remember it in my head, there is already a recording. Putting this recording on tape only makes it more accurate. It doesn't change the nature that recollection in one form or another has been made. So the real effect is when there is a dispute, the evidence which could otherwise be solid, becomes instead a "he said, she said" type of evidence and justice instead of being precise becomes a flip of a coin
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  It's even dumber than that. You're legally allowed to remember what people say to you. You're also legally allowed to go write down what someone just said to you; when you do that, it magically becomes much stronger evidence. But you can't record it; that's not evidence at all.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Of course a recording would be stronger evidence than written notes. It just wouldn’t be legal evidence unless it was obtained legally. One could potentially collect lots of very good evidence if permitted to ignore laws in the process.
    - formerly_proven 4y ago
      Usual reminder that fruit of the poisonous tree is a US special
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I'd like to believe that there's already a sort of balance in place created by the fact that with enough evidence of someone doing something really really wrong, even if that evidence couldn't be used in a court room, that can still be presented to the public who will use that information to reach something approaching justice. I'd like to think that if someone, especially someone in a position of power, were caught doing something truly evil that society would find an appropriate response regardless of some legal technicality and that there will always be someone willing to risk the personal legal consequences for letting the rest of us know about it. That that same risk of legal consequences would also prevent people from exposing others over trivial matters. I'm not sure that works out in reality though. We have lots of evidence of people who have done very terrible things but have fully gotten away with it, and plenty of evidence that society is as terrible at evaluating evidence as mobs are at coming up with just responses.
indymike 4y ago
That doesn't apply to recording public officials doing their job.

pjc50 4y ago

The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents.

indymike 4y ago
> The constitution means what conservative judges say it means. I'm not sure to word conservative applies. In the US you are just as likely to get a liberal judge as a conservative one in a local trial court. Most cases are never appealed, at the state level, it depends on the state if it's conservative/liberal, and at the Federal level we have judges appointed by both conservative, moderate and liberal presidents. > It also can't stop the police carrying out violent retaliation against dissidents. It can, however make violence expensive. We're seeing case after case cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations and excessive force. The great equalizer has been cameras.