3 ms·
> 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 tran
by 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 agoI'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).