4 ms·

The part I'm missing is: why is this bad? I expect police officers to wear body cams, for instance. I automatically assume any interaction I have with a police

by rcme 4y ago

The part I'm missing is: why is this bad? I expect police officers to wear body cams, for instance. I automatically assume any interaction I have with a police officer is being recorded. I didn't realize these was an expectation of privacy.

d1sxeyes 4y ago
It’s bad because it discourages “off the record” tips given to police officers. Not everyone who talks to a police officer is a criminal.
- rcme 4y ago
  Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however? I know this typically only applies in court, but encouraging off-the-record communication is basically encouraging parallel construction is it not?
  - jack_pp 4y ago
    Not when you're a gangster able and willing to send goons to kill or hospitalize your accuser.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however? It only applies to those who give testimony against you in court. If an informant's tip leads to enough hard evidence to convict, they may not need to testify and thus are not your accuser; your accuser is whoever's testifying about that evidence (forensic tech, detective, etc.) Anonymous tips are a thing, after all.
  - noxvilleza 4y ago
    That's generally (as in, both in the US [6th amendment] and the UK [Article 6 of the ECHR]) regarding witnesses offering testimony during trials (and the right of the defendant to cross-examine them) - not people giving anonymous tips which might inspire police to do investigations of their own. In the UK, even if a witness is giving direct testimony in a trial there are situations which, for safety reasons, the witness might be allowed to be anonymous: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/witness-protection-and-anonymity https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/witness-protection-and... outlines this.
  - d1sxeyes 4y ago
    Maybe the caller is not accusing anyone of anything. Imagine there's a stabbing. The police show up and immediately start questioning bystanders. No-one wants to talk. A detective hands out business cards, and says 'if you remember anything, then give me a call on my mobile'. On the way home, one of the bystanders sees a bloody cloth next to a public bin a block or two away that looks like the knife might be wrapped up in it. They're scared that it might have been a gangland killing, so they call up and report what they saw in confidence, fearing retribution. The caller's not made any accusation. The physical evidence stands for itself in court. There's no need for an illegal or warrantless search to find the knife, and neither does the tip-off form a basis for creating probable cause for a search. In this case, at the very least I think it is reasonable for the caller to expect a level of privacy, and the police should be obliged to inform the caller that the call is being recorded.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  You get that every call you make to an emergency services contact centre is recorded, right?
  - d1sxeyes 4y ago
    Yes. But if there's a stabbing, a detective comes round knocking on doors and handing out business cards with a mobile number on, I think it's reasonable to have the belief that the call to the mobile is not recorded.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Where is this? Also, the app they're talking about isn't a thing that records phone calls on your mobile, it's for accessing the call recorder system.
      - d1sxeyes 4y ago
        Hypothetical stabbing, not a real case. > Also, the app they're talking about isn't a thing that records phone calls on your mobile, it's for accessing the call recorder system. That does not seem to be what the article is saying. > Several police forces in Britain [used] a calling app that recorded hundreds of thousands of phone conversations and illegally retained that data. > Some 1,015 staff downloaded the software on their work phones and made more than 200,000 records of phone chats, which the regulator reckons was likely with "victims, witnesses, and perpetrators of suspected crimes" and were "automatically saved." > When enabled, the app records and stores all phone calls made in the mobile device.

by rcme 4y ago

d1sxeyes 4y ago

It’s bad because it discourages “off the record” tips given to police officers. Not everyone who talks to a police officer is a criminal.

rcme 4y ago
Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however? I know this typically only applies in court, but encouraging off-the-record communication is basically encouraging parallel construction is it not?
- jack_pp 4y ago
  Not when you're a gangster able and willing to send goons to kill or hospitalize your accuser.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Don't you have a right to meet your accuser, however? It only applies to those who give testimony against you in court. If an informant's tip leads to enough hard evidence to convict, they may not need to testify and thus are not your accuser; your accuser is whoever's testifying about that evidence (forensic tech, detective, etc.) Anonymous tips are a thing, after all.
- noxvilleza 4y ago
  That's generally (as in, both in the US [6th amendment] and the UK [Article 6 of the ECHR]) regarding witnesses offering testimony during trials (and the right of the defendant to cross-examine them) - not people giving anonymous tips which might inspire police to do investigations of their own. In the UK, even if a witness is giving direct testimony in a trial there are situations which, for safety reasons, the witness might be allowed to be anonymous: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/witness-protection-and-anonymity https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/witness-protection-and... outlines this.
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  Maybe the caller is not accusing anyone of anything. Imagine there's a stabbing. The police show up and immediately start questioning bystanders. No-one wants to talk. A detective hands out business cards, and says 'if you remember anything, then give me a call on my mobile'. On the way home, one of the bystanders sees a bloody cloth next to a public bin a block or two away that looks like the knife might be wrapped up in it. They're scared that it might have been a gangland killing, so they call up and report what they saw in confidence, fearing retribution. The caller's not made any accusation. The physical evidence stands for itself in court. There's no need for an illegal or warrantless search to find the knife, and neither does the tip-off form a basis for creating probable cause for a search. In this case, at the very least I think it is reasonable for the caller to expect a level of privacy, and the police should be obliged to inform the caller that the call is being recorded.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
You get that every call you make to an emergency services contact centre is recorded, right?
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  Yes. But if there's a stabbing, a detective comes round knocking on doors and handing out business cards with a mobile number on, I think it's reasonable to have the belief that the call to the mobile is not recorded.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Where is this? Also, the app they're talking about isn't a thing that records phone calls on your mobile, it's for accessing the call recorder system.
    - d1sxeyes 4y ago
      Hypothetical stabbing, not a real case. > Also, the app they're talking about isn't a thing that records phone calls on your mobile, it's for accessing the call recorder system. That does not seem to be what the article is saying. > Several police forces in Britain [used] a calling app that recorded hundreds of thousands of phone conversations and illegally retained that data. > Some 1,015 staff downloaded the software on their work phones and made more than 200,000 records of phone chats, which the regulator reckons was likely with "victims, witnesses, and perpetrators of suspected crimes" and were "automatically saved." > When enabled, the app records and stores all phone calls made in the mobile device.