Slashdot Mirror
Photograph the Police, Get Arrested
Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."
He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
You must be new here.
Welcome to America. Remember to leave your civil liberties at the door, thanks.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.
While I can understand that police are probably lairy of being photographed, because it's probably so easy to make mistakes in police procedure that if you were to record their activities, a good lawyer could probably shoot down a large percentage of arrests and whatnot... it does not inspire confidence that a public organisation who allegedly operate inside the law, to uphold the law, should feel it necessary to use their power to conceal the detailed workings of their activities.
Anyone able to point a finger at the legislation that enables them to do this? Or is there none, and they are just overstepping the mark?
How can the police be sure that the photos aren't going to be used to identify police officers for later revenge attacks?
The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.
If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I'm not suprised at all. The USA has under the Bush Administration has become a police state. If the people get a back bone he waves the terrorist flag and everyone ducks for cover.
Its really sad all in all.
You are just 70 years behind Europe. What took you so long?
(Moderators: this is called black humor).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...
Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?
-Tony
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The 99% messes it up for the 1% that are good cops.
I don't think it's required, but not hearing your miranda rights can make a big hole in a case against you. The cop who blew it won't look so hot at that point. It's kinda funny in that it doesn't apply if you're not in custody. more reading here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mira ndaqa.htm
Police officers on duty in a public area have no more right to privacy than anyone else, i.e. none, and thank God for that. Power corrupts, and police have power. The only thing that reliably prevents police abuses is public accountability, which can only happen if the public is informed.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In 1976 for the first time, Americans spent more on private security firms than on police forced.
I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care.
Need Mercedes parts ?
. . .you could say that the police have a right to privacy . . .
No, I could not. The second a police officer puts on a uniform and a badge he is a public officer, ostensibly working in the public's interest and certainly paid from the public's coffers.
And as a branch of the government requiring oversight it is the public that provides it.
KFG
I am not a lawyer. If the facts of this incident are as described in the story this is an easy civil suit for wrongful arrest. A law that outlawed taking pictures of police activity in public would be unconstitutional (1st Amendment) in any case and doesn't exist. The right to observe police activity in public is well established. Another poster mentioned that the police might have a right to privacy in making an arrest in public. Wrong. One cannot have a right to privacy in public doing a public activity. There is no possible expectation of privacy there. This isn't to say that police all over the country don't pull this kind of shit all the time-arresting or attacking people for videotaping or taking pictures of public police activity. Usually it isn't quite this blatant though.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Who will police the police?]
- Latin proverb
If this was indeed a law, then incidents like the Rodney King incident would never be able to surface.
Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone.
So did I miss it or did the police never say 'why' Cruz was arrested?
HD Trailers
you could say that the police have a right to privacy
And you would be very, very wrong.
People who are police officers -- that is, the men and women who do that as their job -- have a right to privacy, when they're at home and off-duty, or doing personal business. As public officials, they have none as they are conducting their jobs. Some of what they do may be confidential, because there's a vested public interest in keeping it secret, but such areas should be clearly and narrowly defined by law. (And that's different from general 'privacy' anyway.)
Furthermore, when standing on a public street, nobody has a right to privacy sufficient to overwhelm my right to photograph them there. It's a public place, you chose to be there, if I choose to record an image of that public place with you in it, tough luck for you.
It's a very dangerous road we go down, when we say that any aspect of our Government -- from the local police on upwards to the highest echelons of the Executive Branch -- has an inherent "right" to be secretive. Nobody does. Where the government is secretive, it should be so only because there's an overwhelming public interest for it to be that way, or where doing so prevents citizens' rights from themselves being violated (e.g., personal records maintained by the government on Federal employees). But those should be the exceptions, and not the rule. Any time you have a situation where citizens have to justify the disclosure of information from the government on a regular basis, you have a problem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I understand the fear that the guy might be involved with the drug dealer, but just deleting the pictures (or confiscating the memory card so it can be securely erased down at the station) ought to have been sufficient. At my previous job I was a researcher working on wireless medical devices to assist in distaster management; my group was invited to participate in a major disaster drill in southern california (many emergency response organizations, from local police to the FBI). We were allowed cameras on the scene to document and evaluate our work, but we were explicitly forbidden from taking pictures of certain responders (eg. the SWAT team, people in HVAC suites, etc.). One of my coworkers got caught violating this (he was taking pictures of the victoms but guys in HVAC's could be seen in the background), and was cuffed and arrested; fortunately they ended up just erasing the pictures and he was never charged.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
...when I first came to the Land of the Free, I had a strong inclination to take a photograph of the light show that two police cars were flashing for my amusement just in front of my bedroom window at 2:30AM. Some poor bloke was being stopped for drunk driving. Anyhow, I refrained from snapping the picture even from within the safety of my darkened bedroom, feeling that I should wait a little until I get better acquainted with the customs of the country. Just for the reference: I hail from the "Land of the Slaughterers", i.e. Serbia, bombed by the U.S. and a few minions back in 1999. Good grief, I might have gotten myself into so much trouble for practicing our savage ways of taking photographs of public service officers on duty.
There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Basically, it is 100% legal to photograph any emergency personal in the line of duty as long as you are not interferring with their work. As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media. However, both of that is null and void if you do get in the way of emergency personel. If you are on private property, such as a shopping mall, they can ask you not to take photos, but you can't be penalized for it unless you continue against their will.
I was lost while looking for where to pick up my nephew from his babysitter, so I pulled over and walked up to a house and asked for directions. My car was a pretty old car, in a reasonably nice neighborhood. When I came back to my car, a person was walking around it, looking in each of the windows. I asked him why, he said, "I'm a cop, I'm supposed to".
Around two in the morning, I had to go home from campus (Lan Party =)). A police officer pulled me over on the way out. Her stated reason, "It's suspicious for someone to be getting their car out of the parking lot this late at night." The traditional image of police is protectors, but to be honest, they are just paid to arrest people. There is a very big difference. A highly visible police patrolling the ghetto does us more good than a traffic trap. One actually lowers crime, the other gets arrests.
Police are fighting terrorism and crime, so therefore are above any kind of accountability?
No way!
Next, we could see the US military operating secret overseas prisons!
I wish the Cruz family the best of success with their legal actions against the police. This will be an interesting test of the US Constitution and judiciary.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The police only have to read you your rights if they want to question you and then later use your testimony (the results of said questioning) as evidence.
If you're caught red-handed doing something illegal, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that the police might just not bother. If they don't want to ask you anything, then they don't need to make you aware of your rights. (At least not right at the scene of the arrest, like you're familiar with seeing in movies.)
I have known numerous people who have been arrested and never read their rights at the scene, because there was no reason for the police to question them; the evidence was so overwhelming (e.g. simple drug possession, DUI) that the police didn't care what they had to say and weren't going to ask them anything. Whether this is official procedure or not I can't say.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
I'm in the UK, and I've seen this and worse happen for years. At an anti capitalist demo (I'm not a loony, but I do think some of the issues raised at those demos need to be raised - like subsidising the third world out of the world markets etc... but lets not go off topic)I've been charged at by police on horses FOR NO REASON AT ALL!.
And yes I've seen cameras blocked, and their owners arrested. I've seen the unlawful detainment of hundreds of demonstrators (I would have been one of them, if I hadn't been light on my feet, and had a friend to help me over a piked fence. Ironically the fence of the Royal Courts of Justice I believe).
So its not news, that there's a problem. But whats the solution?
I propose that a form of open source decentralised government evolve that slowly but surely makes the centralized government more and more obsolete. Leaching the power from centralised government will force them to be more democratic, and less hyopocrytical. I hope.
Of course "what about the money"?!?!
Well - taxes can be legaly sidestepped. Previously it was only the rich who could afford off shaw accounts etc... With this shiny new interweb of ours, we can build open source solutions to tax, for the masses!
So - imagine a karma system generating elected, regional education 'node leaders', for home and comunity eductator to amasses comparible resources as those in state schools. Now health, security, transport, energy,....
Yes this might sound wacky, but there's nothing stopping us trying. And I'm sick of the winging in here. YES your government is crap! Do something!
Because you can - or because you should?
Sure, you could say it. But you'd be wrong.
Parent worse than flamebait. More like: (Score:-1, Traitor to the American people)
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
10.Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
At the very least they have to tell you that you may retain a lawyer and, if I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled they must also tell you that you have the right to remain silent. I don't know where you get this idea that the police in Canada don't have to tell you your rights, you see them do it all the time on the Canadian version of Cops.
Why not "Traitor to sentient beings of the universe, wherever and in whatever form they might be"
Some criminals wear badges, which is why police departments have an internal affairs divsion, to find and remove bad cops from the force. These sound like cases for IAD to me, big time.
..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.
Now maybe its just me, but there does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. So they drove up the street a ways, pulled over, and began trying to find out where they were on a map while trying to call the girl's father on a cell phone. A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing"
I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.
Now I know for a fact that most cops are decent men and women who treat citizens with all due respect, despite having to be human-garbagemen and spend much of their time doing what I call "white trash patrol." Just watch a few episodes of Cops and you'll know what I mean. But even so there are a few who are bad apples, and unless they're culled from the force then you end up with situations like these, or worse.
The last thing any police department should be interested in doing is making themselves the enemy of the public. The police depend upon public goodwill to do their job, and to come home alive at the end of their shift. If the police do not have the trust of the public, then they will not have the cooperation of the public. This is already the case in urban slums where calls of "five-O!" cry out day and night warning the residents that a police car or officer is in the area. When the police become a nuisance equal to that of the criminals they are supposed to be pursuing, then the public will treat them with equal disdain.
In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the US are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
No no no no no.
Under constitutional law, you have ALL rights. Law dictates limitations or prohibitions, it does not grant them. A law doesn't have to explicitly state you have a right.
Laws are subtractive, not additive.
This is a common misperception by the public at large.
The US has become a defacto fascist state. Much like Nazi Germany last century. Starting wars without valid reason. Protecting governments that involve in state-organized terrorism (Israel). Bush and his gang and their counterparts in Israel are committing war crimes at a rate of which Hitler would have been jealous of.
... What deeply saddens me is that most of the European governments don't give a shit about what's going on in the world. They are very afraid of upsetting the their US or Israeli "friends". Israel continues to abuse its victim role of the second world war genocide. It's like in 1984 where the victims of the past became the butchers of today.
But that I already know for a long time
"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.
Of course it's obstructing, because the officer had to leave the original scene to arrest some kid causing problems down the street.
How many stories do I need to read on Slashdot, Digg, Fark, Google News, Wikipedia about things like this before people start doing something about things like this?
If all you're doing is sitting here on Slashdot bitching about it, shame on you. If it's so important, get off your arse and do something about it.
I believe you can be charged for resisting police. Police could be in error arresting you and sometimes circumstances play a role in the arrest - "wrong time, wrong place". They usually free person soon and apologize if it was their fault - about that happened with Cruz. No apology though... Kicking a cop is worse then run away. That allow them forcefully restrain you, perhaps kicking you and beating with batons - do you want it?
There is a difference between arrest and detainment, but it depends on local rules.
This is what you get when the government keeps taking away liberties everyone takes for granted.
Next time when you vote, please remember that it's not just 'the bad guys' when they mean terrorists.
Since the term terrorist is used pretty wide and broadly, it may mean you next time you do something 'the authorities' inappropriate.
it seems that this stupidity is contagious. There's been a big issue in the media here recently, but this story pretty much covers it. In a nut shell, that old chestnut "think of the terrorists" has been dragged out. Now the management put out the signs, but the general consensus from people that should know is that this directive is neither binding, nor enforceable.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
You don't have to welcome the Big Brother but LOVE the big Brother. And you will.
Second, what was Cruz doing before. I have seen to many incidents of small incidents escaltating because of bystanders getting involved. Once the riot has started the police is blamed for letting things go out of control but if the police orders the crowd to disperse then they are fascists. A no-win scenario for the police.
This leads to the third question, does the (US) police have the right to tell people to go inside/disperse? I am not a lawyer but I think they do. If the public doesn't have to follow police instructions then things would quickly become impossible "STOP, or don't, whatever you feel like".
Fourth is that journalists have a right to photograph and this is usually accepted with press-photographers only being hit by riot squads say every other riot. In general it seems the police is all to aware that trying to supress the press only leads to more attention. But how does this translate to every citizen having a camera? What if under-cover agents are present? SWAT teams and similar typically wear camoflage not just to hide but to protect their indentity. This is offcourse not possible for under-cover agents. Even drug dealers would notice a customer with a face mask. Does the police have the right to stop photographing in these circumstances?
Fifth, where was cruz photographing, in his back yard or on the street. Furthermore if the police wanted to arrest him why shouldn't they have the right to come on to this yard. I smell rats when two sides seem to quote bogus laws. Imagine that it was true you could not be arrested on your own property. If photographing the police is illegal (I don't know) then surely it doesn't matter from where you do it?
Sixth, was cruz really just an observer? Offcourse he is just an innocent angel harmless standing in his own garden just taking a shot of some police cars. You wouldn't expect his parents to admit that he is a flunky for the drugs mafia and trying to photograph undercover agents to warn other dealers? To often I read stories like this and then when you dig a little bit deeper you learn that much more was going on. It just sets of an alarm in my mind not to take everything this guy says at face value.
No I don't blindly trust the police but so far we only got the neighbours of drug dealers confused and unlogical accounts of what went on. Just because your neighbours deal drugs don't mean you are a liar but when you can't keep your own accounts straight and claim non-existent law (the police has a right to arrest you no matter were you are) I don't trust you. Remember, we only got their word for it that he was just arrested for using a camera phone. It may be true, it may not be. Yet I find it typically of slashdot that very few question the account given. I too would like to use this as an example off out of control police powers BUT precisly because I want to believe this I have to skeptical. If a story confirms what you want to hear you must be extra doubtfull or risk falling in the yes-man trap.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What is the "new law" in Pennsylvania that criminalizes photographing police? Please cite it. This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beynd photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !! Our general defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury--provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy--but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.
Reading the article, he got in trouble for recording conversations, not for taking video pictures. In his state, it against the law to record conversations without warning all participants. The legal question will be whether the warning stickers on the outside of his house are sufficient.
I think the real crux of the conflict between the police and the populace is that they only really see each other when something bad happens.
I only ever talk to police when I'm about to get in trouble (usually a speeding ticket). The police don't always see the greatest members of society. The see the drunks, the druggies, the traffic offenders, the murders, and so on. So we have two groups that only ever see each other in a negative manner.
The story would be different if it were talking about Mr. Cruz were taking a photo of the policeman and his neighbor sharing a joke. Wishy washy I know, but would you rather talk to a cop when you're a suspect or would you like to wave hello to a friendly officer as he patrols your neigborhood?
I think both sides need to realize that no every person who made a minor traffic infraction is carrying 10kg of hashish in the boot and that people understand that not every cop is some neo-Nazi violent psycho working for Big Brother then maybe the serious situations like this article won't happen or if they do, they get settled more respectably.
Sure, Canadian police are angels and never do anything wrong. For example, spraying photographers with pepper spray or arresting photographers at a rally or slapping a handcuffed woman Etc. Etc.
"just deleting the pictures (or confiscating the memory card so it can be securely erased down at the station) ought to have been sufficient"
What right do the police have to delete my own data?
Grr! Arg!
Aren't you forgetting something?
What difference does it make if he was on his own property or not?
Taking a picture from your lawn or from the sidewalk next to your lawn is just as legal.
So big deal if he was not on his own property when arrested. He still should not have been arrested.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
ISTR a Slashdot story a year or so ago about just such a camera--but for video, and comments in the story immediately realized the potential for avoiding confiscation of photos at protests and such. Unfortunately, it is indeed an idea whose time has come.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Pretty much none.
They are public servants in the end. If you have a problem, raise it at an open forum for the community. If no one listens, educate them until your fingers bleed or find someone who can do it with/for you.
However, I fear this nation's apathy has got the better of us to the point where we don't know what's no longer right or wrong. So much is obscured by agenda that one can pretty much get away with anything when it's in their favor. What happened to: "this government of the people, by the people, for the people" Abraham Lincoln
One last thing. If someone wanted to use that photo for a vendeta they would first have to identify themselves to get that information, therefore incriminating themselves. Considering legal fees and other expenses I doubt anyone would want to make things worse for themselves not to mention an attempt of acting out a federal crime. To get access to a photo of the cops that arrested them seems foolish when they could just get a copy of the arrest warrant listing the names of the officers involved in the arrest. Any legal action is recorded and obtainable by the public. Go to http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ or your local city hall and pay the fee to get a copy of it.
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
8 04,5.html
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I firmly believe that the terrorists won with their 9/11 attack.
One attack, a few thousand people killed, and your country's civil rights are now being violated like never before "for the sake of security", and your constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
That's a common trope meant originally to shock people into think about what they're giving up for security, but to be honest, the terrorists couldn't give a damn about our civil rights at all. What the terrorists want is for the US to pull out of the Middle East, leave Israel to fend for itself, leave the Middle Eastern regimes that are not theocracies (like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) to fend for themselves against Islamist movements at home, and to reestablish the Caliphate.
If the US were to become a 1984-style eternal dictatorship where the very humanity was crushed out of our souls, the terrorist wouldn't care at all so long as we weren't in the Middle East anymore. The fact that our slide towards militaristic authoritarianism is being bolstered by fear of Muslims and desire to kick over more of their territory actually represents a significant loss for their agenda of getting us out of the Middle East.
We're not winning the "War on Terrorism," but neither are they. We're losing civil rights and world prestige, they're losing lives in droves and seeing us become more entrenched in their backyards. This conflict is many, many decades from being resolved, but right now it's a lose-lose battle.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
... though presumably unintentionally and ironically in his own family.
... this at least according to reliable family sources who knew Karl and the wife's family very well.
One could argue that living out his socialist dream in London exile was one way to test whether his utopia could hold together. However, in the process of sharing everything with everyone, the money that his wife's family sent to support them was squandered, and several of their children died of hunger, malnutrition, and preventable diseases. After all, he had no steady income and thus had to leech of his wife's family.
Being a former law enforcement officer, always resist away from the officer. Resisting arrest is not USUALLY a stand alone offense. Resisting arrest toward the officer, better known as assault on an officer, is always a stand alone offense.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Believe it or not, this tactic is routine among police. I have seen police shout at anti-war protesters who were on the sidewalk to get on the sidewalk, then drag them off the sidewalk, and then charge them for disobeying a lawful police order.
I've also seen police box protesters in, order them to disperse, and since they can't, arrest them for failure to disperse.
I've seen these tactics many times. Sadly, they mostly get the charges to stick, and these guys get criminal records (probably the punishment the cops are trying to inflict).
Lies about crimes
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.
Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public -- a mall, office-building lobby, etc. -- permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).
In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.
Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.
Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.
Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.
Know your rights, and don't tolerate this supression.
Try cops killing you while you are doing something perfectly legal, and the cops get away with it. It's ironic that the cops want to install cameras everywhere (because one of YOU is a criminal), but it's not ok for you to tape them.
Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.
Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"
Obviously there would be privacy implications as well, but it's kind of inevitable that this will occur someday.
("Oh yeah, and there's six other people taping this right now. Don't bother looking for them. You won't find them. At least two of them are sending it outside the country.")
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Either the ideas described in the quote are valid, or they aren't. It doesn't matter who said it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I agree, in principle, with your third point, but do you know what effect this is going to have on slashdot readers? Personally, I'm going to carry my digital SLR with me just to snap photos of police officers in areas where I expect this to happen. Bonus points if they damage my equipment in the act, making an easier entry to a civil suit.
This is a fight that we can take to the streets by exercising our rights. If someone has the incident report (from which we can pull the offending officers' names), let's get some Philly flash mobs to photograph these officers in action. Just make sure to keep your distance and avoid harassing any officers. Oh, and be ready to be arrested. The sort of police officers who do this sort of thing are scared children looking for a place to exert power.
You are just 70 years behind Europe. What took you so long?
Nice leap. A man in New Hampshire is *charged* with violating a wiretapping and eavesdropping law. Another man in Philly gets busted by the cops for taking a photograph, which raises a big stink and likely will backfire on the police department.
The NH case is being reviewed. The man arrested in Philly was released, and the family has requested an inquiry. Don't be surprised if the police department is forced to apologize.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how do these two cases lead to the assumption that America is in the grip of jackbooted thugs?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
A fellow I used to work with (he's since moved to other employment), was getting ready to move down here from Chicago, so being touristy, he took pictures of lots of things. He noticed a caravan of black SUVs. He made the mistake of taking pictures of them, as well as when taking pictures of a building, apparently, the security camera was in the picture. One of the SUVs promptly drove up onto the curb where he was. He was detained and questioned several times over the span of a few hours..
: zweck.unixhosts.us/terrorist/+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk &cd=1&client=firefox-a (Please use this googlecache link to NOT take down his site :) )
The whole story is here: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QXT0jj75xr4J
Actually it is a big deal because you can't be arrested in your own home without an arrest warrant. Cops can attempt to use deceit to get you to leave your home, but they can't physically drag you off your property. So the arrest, on it's face, was a violation of his rights.
It's perfectly legal for papparattzi to stalk and abuse any member of the public they want, because when you are in the public domain you have chosen to open yourself to surveillence. ... but when a public organization run on your tax dollars, operating in a public place has a picture taken, you go to jail.
You have NO REASON AT ALL to complain. You brought it on yourself.
- Americans chose to give up their constitutionally protected freedoms in the name of 'security' (as defined by your government). That choice happened when Americans allowed the Patriot Act to stand above the constitution.
- Americans didn't overthrow their government as is their constitutional responsibility when their government destroys their constitutionally protected rights.
You're just adjusting to the consequences of your actions. Deal with it.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
i actually find it rather disgusting that you'd say something like "Who the fuck is he to do such a thing". we, as Americans, should be more focused on the safety of our President than an extra 20 minutes commuting to work in the morning!
Yes, I'll say it, "Who the fuck are you?" The president of the USA is a servant of the public that's who he is, the public who pays his salary. He's not King George, as much as he'd like to think he is.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You also can't legally arrest someone on bogus charges and make up fictional laws to back up your actions, but it seems they did that too. So it seems they screwed up on many fronts.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
As far as I can tell from the article, there never were formal charges filed - just threats, and the "crime" he was being charged with changed every time he was asked, especially the charge under the non-existent "new law" about photographing police with cell phones. That didn't mean they didn't have to write something on the forms when they stuck him in the can, but they didn't formally file charges or arraign him, probably didn't even schedule an arraignment. Basically, the cops lied a lot. The "You're lucky there wasn't a supervisor on duty, so we could just let you go" was also a partial lie - if there'd been a supervisor on duty, the cop would have had to do more formal charges and paperwork for the supervisor, or else the supervisor would have thrown out the arrest right away. My experience with police lying is that they do back each other up, and in most cases a supervisor would have let the arrest continue, so the guy really was lucky, but he might have gotten a good supervisor who didn't want to put up with it (or didn't want to do the extra paperwork), which would have been better.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And what about TJ doesn't present a bit of a contradiction? A slave owner - indeed a slave-raper - who beleived that "all men are created equal", for crying out loud.
Yes, slavery was another contradiction in TJ, though he owned slaves he didn't believe in slavery. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he wanted to include the right of all men to be free but because others had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Everyone should own a gun.
Why some people in the field make bad choices those in the office are much less willing to "ask" (nicely or not so) for the video after the fact. Remember, get the video and distribute it as fast as you possibly can.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Army != Navy. Note the particular wording of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-13; emphasis mine):
It was evidently intended that armies be raised in an ad-hoc fashion, but that there should be a standing navy. Therefore, Jefferson's use of the navy was not a contradiction of his position against having a standing army.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz