5 ms·

This is a non story. Of course the police are able to collect evidence during criminal investigations. Brexit aside I'm sure the Dutch have this enacted in law

This is a non story. Of course the police are able to collect evidence during criminal investigations. Brexit aside I'm sure the Dutch have this enacted in law like the UK. The police are obviously going to ask nicely and if that fails force you by legislation they are empowered to use. And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you. Get a grip!

Someone 3y ago
> And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you Google translate of the original article (https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/deurbelcamera-maakt-burgers-tot-doelwit-dwangmiddelen-politie?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/...) says “There is a legal reason why the police use coercive measures so liberally. “The police must make progress,” the Public Prosecutor's Office indicates. If the police voluntarily requests images, they may not be usable as evidence.” So, yes, there seems to be a legal reason. Not that I understand it, but it may be because it’s not entirely legal, maybe even fully illegal for citizens to video the street in front of their house because of privacy laws.
- account-5 3y ago
  I'm unsure of the legal side here but in the UK the police are required to provide proof of where the evidence came from and it's provenance for it to be admissible in court. This can mean the person in control of the evidence becoming a witness to speak in court to the veracity of the of the evidence, especially if only a copy was taken from the owner so as not to leave the owner without the original thing (ie, a phone used to record something).
crote 3y ago
It's not a "non story". As the article states, refusal can result in a fine or three-month prison sentence. If you film a crime, the defendant will be provided with your full name and address. Considering that Dutch gangs have gotten quite trigger-happy over the last few years and routinely assassinate lawyers, (assumed) whistleblowers, and witnesses, if your camera happens to be recording at just the wrong time you might have too choose between either 3 months of jail time or getting killed.
- gruez 3y ago
  1. Why would dutch gangs attack people who produce evidence? Presumably it's to dissuade other people from producing evidence, but if the people are compelled to do so I'm not really sure what purpose it serves. 2. Is "I might get hurt" a valid reason to refuse to testify and/or ignore a subpoena? At least in the US you can be compelled to testify against others, as long as it doesn't implicate yourself or you're given immunity.
- formerly_proven 3y ago
  Show me a jurisdiction where a witness who refuses to testify with no legal basis can't be held in contempt?
- account-5 3y ago
  Honestly > For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019... A cop not seizing that recorded evidence is neglecting their duty full stop. If you're worried you might record a murder/attempt murder and then have to provide that evidence the answer is not to have the camera recording a public place then. I mean what's the reason for these cameras if not to provide evidence of crimes commited against the owner at the doorstep. You cant have it both ways.
  - berkes 3y ago
    I know at least two people who bought such a doorbell for the sole reason of "being able to talk to the package delivery guy when I'm not at home". And not for security or to aid police in murder cases. I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
    - account-5 3y ago
      Unfortunately the law doesn't care whether you're ignorant of the law or not. Whilst it might not be a consideration for the purchaser the simple fact is that should you be required by law to provide footage you have to provide it, certainly for UK and, from the article, Netherland residents; like it or not. The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.
bArray 3y ago
> “If you could provide images, that would be very nice,” they told her. She gave them her email address and, within a few hours, received a demand email containing threatening legal language. She had to submit images within seven days. Refusing is a punishable offense. “I wasn’t even sure I had images, so I’m worried about what will happen if I can’t provide any,” she told BNR. This is clearly not okay. I don't think the police would take her to court either, it would be far too much cost to prove that she was knowingly withholding information. > Refusing a demand for footage is a punishable offense that can lead to a fine or a prison sentence of up to three months. How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals. In the UK, at least where I live, the police know that they will get nowhere by making such demands.
- gruez 3y ago
  >How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals. If they really wanted to get you, all of the above can be proven with a bit of legwork. For instance, the service provider can be subpoenaed for logs (for whether the recording occurred, or whether you issued a delete command) and/or subscription information.
turquoisevar 3y ago
This is not a non-story. What would be considered normal is if the police kindly requests the footage and the citizen, that is otherwise unrelated to the case, has the option to refuse or cooperate. What also would be normal is if the police requested a judge to order someone to hand over the footage. That way a judicial officer has tested and weighed the legality and legal interests before forcing, again, a citizen that otherwise has no relation to the case. In common law systems this is what is called a subpoena and considered part of discovery, in civil law systems there’s no term for this because there’s no formal discovery process and these kinds of things are decided on a very limited case by case basis. Before 2018 it was the case that a prosecutor would have to make the demand and effectuate seizure. This is still not ideal because it is without judicial oversight, but at least it was a (semi-)officer of the court and someone with proper legal training. The Dutch however decided that since 2018 the police could do this themselves. Which is decidedly not ok. Especially because refusal directly leads to criminal penalties, that are hard to fight against because the penalties are directly linked to the refusal, not to the legitimacy of the seizure. Similar to how in the US you can be arrested for resisting arrest, even if there’s no sufficient legal foundation for the underlying arrest that you “resisted”. It creates a self-fulfilling criminal act with little to no judicial oversight. This it’s an erosion of rights, an increase of the police state and definitely warrants a story. Moreover, the clear goals of the article linked on HM as well as the underlying Dutch source article is to inform people who have these cameras that there are potential risks on having these cameras, risks that most don’t know about. Again, a worthwhile reason to report on this.
- account-5 3y ago
  The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively. What you're suggesting would not work in reality. And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly or how you see fit whilst at the same time advocating even more limits on their powers. I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
  - 3y ago

Someone 3y ago

> And if they're sending you legal speak forms that's more likely procedure to keep things above board rather than something malicious to scare you Google translate of the original article (https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/deurbelcamera-maakt-burgers-tot-doelwit-dwangmiddelen-politie?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=nl https://www-bnr-nl.translate.goog/nieuws/juridisch/10538281/...) says “There is a legal reason why the police use coercive measures so liberally. “The police must make progress,” the Public Prosecutor's Office indicates. If the police voluntarily requests images, they may not be usable as evidence.” So, yes, there seems to be a legal reason. Not that I understand it, but it may be because it’s not entirely legal, maybe even fully illegal for citizens to video the street in front of their house because of privacy laws.

account-5 3y ago
I'm unsure of the legal side here but in the UK the police are required to provide proof of where the evidence came from and it's provenance for it to be admissible in court. This can mean the person in control of the evidence becoming a witness to speak in court to the veracity of the of the evidence, especially if only a copy was taken from the owner so as not to leave the owner without the original thing (ie, a phone used to record something).

crote 3y ago

It's not a "non story". As the article states, refusal can result in a fine or three-month prison sentence. If you film a crime, the defendant will be provided with your full name and address. Considering that Dutch gangs have gotten quite trigger-happy over the last few years and routinely assassinate lawyers, (assumed) whistleblowers, and witnesses, if your camera happens to be recording at just the wrong time you might have too choose between either 3 months of jail time or getting killed.

gruez 3y ago
1. Why would dutch gangs attack people who produce evidence? Presumably it's to dissuade other people from producing evidence, but if the people are compelled to do so I'm not really sure what purpose it serves. 2. Is "I might get hurt" a valid reason to refuse to testify and/or ignore a subpoena? At least in the US you can be compelled to testify against others, as long as it doesn't implicate yourself or you're given immunity.
formerly_proven 3y ago
Show me a jurisdiction where a witness who refuses to testify with no legal basis can't be held in contempt?
account-5 3y ago
Honestly > For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019... A cop not seizing that recorded evidence is neglecting their duty full stop. If you're worried you might record a murder/attempt murder and then have to provide that evidence the answer is not to have the camera recording a public place then. I mean what's the reason for these cameras if not to provide evidence of crimes commited against the owner at the doorstep. You cant have it both ways.
- berkes 3y ago
  I know at least two people who bought such a doorbell for the sole reason of "being able to talk to the package delivery guy when I'm not at home". And not for security or to aid police in murder cases. I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
  - account-5 3y ago
    Unfortunately the law doesn't care whether you're ignorant of the law or not. Whilst it might not be a consideration for the purchaser the simple fact is that should you be required by law to provide footage you have to provide it, certainly for UK and, from the article, Netherland residents; like it or not. The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.

bArray 3y ago

> “If you could provide images, that would be very nice,” they told her. She gave them her email address and, within a few hours, received a demand email containing threatening legal language. She had to submit images within seven days. Refusing is a punishable offense. “I wasn’t even sure I had images, so I’m worried about what will happen if I can’t provide any,” she told BNR. This is clearly not okay. I don't think the police would take her to court either, it would be far too much cost to prove that she was knowingly withholding information. > Refusing a demand for footage is a punishable offense that can lead to a fine or a prison sentence of up to three months. How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals. In the UK, at least where I live, the police know that they will get nowhere by making such demands.

gruez 3y ago
>How can they prove that you are refusing? What if my camera simply didn't detect motion, or I didn't pay my cloud subscription to have it uploaded and it was lost? The camera itself could be a fake and there to deter criminals. If they really wanted to get you, all of the above can be proven with a bit of legwork. For instance, the service provider can be subpoenaed for logs (for whether the recording occurred, or whether you issued a delete command) and/or subscription information.

turquoisevar 3y ago

This is not a non-story. What would be considered normal is if the police kindly requests the footage and the citizen, that is otherwise unrelated to the case, has the option to refuse or cooperate. What also would be normal is if the police requested a judge to order someone to hand over the footage. That way a judicial officer has tested and weighed the legality and legal interests before forcing, again, a citizen that otherwise has no relation to the case. In common law systems this is what is called a subpoena and considered part of discovery, in civil law systems there’s no term for this because there’s no formal discovery process and these kinds of things are decided on a very limited case by case basis. Before 2018 it was the case that a prosecutor would have to make the demand and effectuate seizure. This is still not ideal because it is without judicial oversight, but at least it was a (semi-)officer of the court and someone with proper legal training. The Dutch however decided that since 2018 the police could do this themselves. Which is decidedly not ok. Especially because refusal directly leads to criminal penalties, that are hard to fight against because the penalties are directly linked to the refusal, not to the legitimacy of the seizure. Similar to how in the US you can be arrested for resisting arrest, even if there’s no sufficient legal foundation for the underlying arrest that you “resisted”. It creates a self-fulfilling criminal act with little to no judicial oversight. This it’s an erosion of rights, an increase of the police state and definitely warrants a story. Moreover, the clear goals of the article linked on HM as well as the underlying Dutch source article is to inform people who have these cameras that there are potential risks on having these cameras, risks that most don’t know about. Again, a worthwhile reason to report on this.

account-5 3y ago
The article can at best be described as clickbait. A better title would be: police given powers to do their job effectively. What you're suggesting would not work in reality. And if it was a reality I'm sure you'd be complaining even more about how the police can't solve anything or do their jobs properly or how you see fit whilst at the same time advocating even more limits on their powers. I would imagine it was changed in 2018 because the current way it was working simply wasn't working.
- 3y ago