Slashdot Mirror

How about free body cams for civilians?

Just make sure you've got a lawyer and sufficient money to get bailed out of jail if you plan on photographing/video-recording law enforcement officers. Although courts have ruled that citizens have the 1st-Amendment right to record police while in public performing (or not) their duty as officers, many will still harass and/or arrest you, or even employ threats and violence.

http://photographyisnotacrime....

Strat

A mile away or up and close... if our local peace officers have to resort to lethal force then you damn well deserve what's coming.

Did you "sieg heil!" after hitting "submit"?

Yes, police are infallible, and are never ever corrupt, murderers, or suffer psychological problems. /s

http://photographyisnotacrime....

Imagine guys like that with access to drones with a rocket launcher or an automatic weapon.

I want all police restricted to shotguns, .38SP revolvers, and bolt-action rifles, with body armor, armored vehicles, automatic and/or crew-served weapons, and any explosive/incendiary devices like flash-bang grenades banned for use by domestic law enforcement. Police already have more than enough advantage in training, organization/communications, and numbers over any criminal or gang. It keeps them honest and respectful of those they police when they know they *can* be taken out by those in their community if they go too far.

Sorry, if those terms are unacceptable to any LEO's, there are other jobs. TSA is always looking for screeners and it's much safer.

Strat

People already get shot for holding a cellphone so what makes you think a smartphone app will improve the situation? Also, if you don't have a smartphone then will they just assume you are hostile and/or antisocial?

The problem is how the police are chosen and trained.

It doesn't take millions of self-righteous privileged white liberals in Boston or DC to fix the problems in Ferguson,

Really? Local problems fix themselves? Is that why we have the fourteenth amendment? I think it does take self-righteous privileged white liberals in DC to fix the problems in Ferguson. They're called congress. And they need to take action to rein in the police, who are abusing and executing citizens on a regular basis. They will kill you for a pen, they will attempt "false flag" operations and then attack protesters when they are discovered, they will shoot you in the back, they will get away with serial rape... The problems are endemic and wishing will not make them go away. We need citizen's police review boards with teeth everywhere that we have cops. They need the power to fire with prejudice, and they need it now. Police Unions are helping the police murder, rape, and enslave us. It is difficult to imagine a solution to this problem that does not include action from the federal government.

"Inciting violence will only get yourself ostracized and jailed"

Yup, even on a small scale.

http://photographyisnotacrime.... here it shows it flew more just from a backyard to the closest neighbour

But the key is "exigency of the circumstances", and how reasonable their belief is that the evidence is under threat of being destroyed. Evidence in the custody of someone likely to destroy that evidence is much different that evidence in the custody of the someone likely to preserve that evidence, and the law recognizes this.

If law enforcement believes that you recorded evidence of a crime and are likely to delete that evidence, then they do have the right to seize the recording device to preserve the evidence, for a limited time, while they timely get a search warrant.

But when you have recorded police misconduct, have protested against that misconduct, and even state that you are going to publicize the recording of the misconduct, I would argue the police DO NOT have a have a belief that such evidence is going to be deleted, and so do not have "exigent circumstances" as a reason for seizing the recording device while they get a warrant. Get a warrant first, then seize and search the recording device.

Lengthy discussion can be found in the DOJ's paper on the public's right to record law enforcement activities: http://static.photographyisnot...

If you want to live as a citizen in a democracy, you have to hold officials responsible. When the police decide that they are above the law, it is up to us to show them that the law applies to everyone.

On the other hand, if you want to be a peon in a police state, just go ahead and support the status quo. Let the TSA steal you stuff when you fly. Let the NSA put you on a watch list based on a mass surveillance algorithm that no one will ever review. Or get on a list by posting something on Slashdot. It's your choice.

I don't think it is illegal to record police in the open, but that doesn't stop a lot of cops from intimidating citizens into stopping and attempting to confiscate / delete said recordings, especially if the cop did what this guy did. And if it comes to it, it takes a lot more courage to respectfully decline an intimidating request from a man in uniform holding a gun who just shot another man in the back. It didn't happen in this case, but I wonder in how many similar cases police have deleted such recordings? It seems to be standard practice for certain cops.

Here is a recent real world example from Bakersfield Calif. A suspect was beaten by police outside of a local hospital and died an hour later. Two people called 911 and said they were video taping the event. The cops showed up at their door and took their cell phones. When they were returned the videos had been deleted. This happened in May 2013 and there seems to be no further news on the matter. Case closed.

Police accused of erasing cell phone footage of fatal beating.

She says she saw six sheriff's deputies hitting a man with a club and kicking him.

She took out her cell phone and told the deputies what she was doing. It's unclear whether she thought this might get them to stop. If that was the case, this doesn't seem to have happened.

She says the man screamed and cried for help for a total of eight minutes. He finally fell silent, and the police then allegedly tied him up and dropped him twice on the ground.

It was only then, Melendez said, that they enacted CPR. David Sal Silva, 33, died less than an hour later.

Melendez said that she and her daughter's boyfriend both filmed what happened. She also said that police confiscated both their phones without a warrant being served.

The sheriff's department disputes this version, insisting that everything was done legally and the phones have been handed to the Bakersfield Police Department.

Melendez and her daughter's boyfriend both said that police officers paid them a visit at their homes and demanded the phones.

Worse, there are now accusations that some of the cell phone footage has been deleted. A report from the Los Angeles Times says that the FBI has now been called into the investigation.

This move was prompted, said Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, by the fact that one of the two confiscated cell phones seems to have no footage on it at all.

"Our credibility is at stake here," he told the L.A. Times. More witnesses have come forward to support the essence of Melendez's claims that the police were overly zealous.

"They must have gotten rid of one of the videos," Melendez's daughter, Melissa Quair, told the L.A. Times.

Some might conclude from incidents such as the one in Bakersfield that if you're of a mind to film the police and believe wrong has been done, post it to YouTube as soon as you can.

There was no legal justification for the police to confiscate the phones. They broke the law in doing so. The FBI examined the phones and couldn't find the videos. There have been civil suits, but no charges or administrative actions against any of the officers.

In the current incident the video was turned over to the lawyer for the family. If the police had gotten their hands on it first it would have disappeared. If you deny this happens you are condoning lawless police violence that can and does result in murder.

If you think this is an isolated case, to to Photography is Not a Crime. They have a lot of examples of how police are caught breaking the law and illegally stopping people who video their bad behavior.

I follow Photography Is Not A Crime on G+, and boy is it ever chilling. If you feel like you need more of that cold feeling in your belly, just follow those guys.

In the U.S. of today, prosecutors can get dishonest advances to their careers by lying and cheating.

From an earlier submitted Slashdot story: New Jersey cops killed a man by mauling him with a dog. The U.S. is rapidly getting worse.

The FAAâ(TM)s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws,â the agency said. âoeThe FAAâ(TM)s guidance calls for inspectors to notify someone with a letter and then follow up. The guidance does not include language about advertising. The FAA will look into the matter.

More recently Public Defender Arrested While Defending Client and Video Shows Defense Attorney's Arrest Inside Courthouse. Obviously the police were way out of line and charges against the Attorney were dropped. I don't know if she will pursue the officers in court.

If you create an anonymity network, those of us who have worked in forensics know the depravity and criminality that it will attract

If you create a law enforcement framework which hoards power jealously and does its best to prevent openness, those of us who are thoughtful citizens know the depravity and criminality that it will attract.

If you want to run an anonymity network - dont be so naive as to say it's for the greater good.

If you want to run an organized crime network, don't be so disingenuous as to say it's for the greater good.

I note that you're hiding behind anonymity, and that you're a depraved criminal, so I guess that there's something to what you say...

You have a point; however you don't want to put people off videoing. It may be their only protection from a long time in prison. Most of these people get cleared by the courts as long as they make sure some record of the incident survives.

You've got serious problems there if a law abiding citizen cannot talk to the cops.

Welcome to Amerikka. Here's some links from my history.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/09/06/illinois-cops-threaten-confiscate-mans-camera-recording/
http://filmingcops.com/parents-outraged-after-cop-asks-their-12-yr-old-child-for-sexual-photos/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2014/01/cops-beat-deaf-man-for-7-minutes-because-he-didnt-respond-to-them/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/28/yale-professor-found-dead-in-his-jail-cell-hours-after-fighting-with-police/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newlywed-kansas-city-firefighter-shot-killed-duty-police-officer-v21721897
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/frequently-harassed-teen-secretly-records-video-of-police-stop-and-frisk/news/2013/12/19/80517

Sadly, I couldn't find the most applicable one, where some people who reported a crime and then hung around to see what happened ended up harassed for obstructing justice.

#2 - would you bet your freedom on a "sampling error", when the easier solution is to simply not talk? If the police are so good at catching criminals (#3), they can do it without your help.
#4 - the damage is done if you talk before reaching a courtroom. Once you're in the courtroom, you plead the fifth if you need to, or perhaps "fail to recollect".
#5 - there are countless examples of police officers abusing their authority, as well as misrepresenting your rights. The worst you can do is interact with them, and the best you can do is record their actions and hope they don't confiscate your footage:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

The "Don't Snitch" phenomenon is more about witness intimidation than self-incrimination. It's also rooted in racial tension... police do profile and arrest blacks disproportionately, no surprise that cooperation is nowhere to be found. "Not talking to the police" is about not answering the questions of an officer that approached you. Have information about a crime? There are anonymous hotlines you can use to report that information to the police.

As someone who has been harassed for photography I make a personal note of places that post signs prohibiting photography and remain aware of my surroundings should I engage in photography. There seems to be this strange unspoken paranoia in society about cameras and law enforcement usually has the worst attitude about it let alone private persons.

The uphill challenges that photographers face in regard to people's attitudes and misinformed ideas about the law reminds me of the same challenges and misinformed ideas and attitudes that those who carry of firearms (or other defensive tools such as tazers) often have to face.

Unfortunately photographers don't have as much case law and legislative code to defend themselves with unlike those who lawfully carry firearms but this site is a great place to start on the subject and of course the EFF usually has some good material in relation to this subject.

star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.

Don't delude yourself. Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.

How would you know? Google Glass is deliberately obvious, but you wouldn't recognize most cameras as cameras, let alone notice that they are pointed at you.

It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

The rulings that public photography is a First Amendment right goes back a long, long ways. The recent ones just re-affirm that. The author of TFA is woefully ignorant of the state-of-the-law when it comes to photography.

Unfortunately, so are many public officials

You need only browse Photography is Not a Crime for 2 minutes before you realize that this war is already happening. There's a metric shit-ton of this stuff going on, with video evidence to back it up.

Yes, please do take two minutes to browse the site - because you'll find the OP is painting a very biased and heavily spun version of what the site shows.

Will officers be able to choose when the video is running?

Yes. Obviously.

How will the video be protected from tampering?

It won't.

How long will it be archived?

Not long enough.

Can it be demanded by courts?

Well sure, but you'll find that every time it does, the video stream is "conveniently" missing or corrupted.

Stop asking questions citizen, you're not supposed to be creative, just shut up and watch the Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.

This is a good site for documentation of the trampling of said First Amendment Rights. While it doesn't show illegal, it does show "getting arrested for."

As for illegal. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been leveraged to prosecute people for video tapping. While these were over turned by the Supreme courts many time these laws are still used for the arrest or punishment of a citizen and only 38 states have laws that officially declare that it IS legal to record a police officer in the course of duty. I'd link to it, but you obviously don't understand how to use Google to do any research anyhow.

My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.

Or this ones. But how you distinguish evil cops from good ones? Because good ones don't lie? And how you distinguish evil (or crazy, or plain stupid) civilians/cops from good ones when giving them a gun permit, if current tests/training don't work?

http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/

Only 318 pages of that eh?

They didn't charge this guy with recording: http://www.infowars.com/california-man-jailed-four-days-for-recording-cops/
Instead it was "resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer" and not having reflectors on his bicycle pedals.

Police policy means shit if the officers are not trained appropriately.
http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a good clearinghouse for stories about police & private securitywho don't know how to do their jobs.

Certainly thought provoking.
It could be done more interestingly, perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam. Then he could engage passers by in conversations more like: "Why are you taking a video?" "Do you think there is a difference between what I'm doing and what that camera over there is doing?" As it is, he just seems to be irritating people and not planting any seeds for future thought.

I say this after watching the second video here ..
0:23 shopper exits store
shopper: "Can I ask who you are?"
video guy: "What."
shopper: "What are you doing?"
video guy: "Oh I'm taking a video."
shopper: "Of what?"
video guy: "Just a video."
shopper: "Why are you taking a video?"
video guy: "Why not?"
shopper: "I don't really care for other people just to be taking a random video of me."
video guy: "Didn't you just come out of the drug store?"
shopper: "Yeah"
video guy: "They have cameras in there."
shopper: "So?"
shopper: gets on bike, rides off.

(The other interactions go down hill from there.)