Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Rights for the Public?
Ian Lamont writes "Mike Elgan has an interesting take on surveillance technology, and how audio and video recordings should be used in private and public life. He cites the case of a New York City Police Detective who was secretly taped by a suspect during an interrogation that the detective initially denied took place during the suspect's murder trial, as well as a case involving two parents in Wisconsin who slipped a voice-activated recorder in their son's backpack after suspecting he was being abused by his bus driver. In the first case, even though the detective was later charged with 12 counts of perjury, Elgan notes that the police interrogation probably would not have taken place had the suspect announced to the detective that he was recording the session. In the second case, the tape was initially ruled inadmissible in court because Wisconsin state law prohibits the use of 'intercepted conversations' (it was later allowed as evidence). Elgan argues that there should be no questions about members of the public being allowed to record such interactions."
A member of the public should have an absolute right to record anything said or done by a person in government or the police, when that event may later be used in evidence against him or her in court.
I agree that "recordings can be made without permission" for people in a position of authority: your boss asks you to do something illegal, you're threatened by a police officer, etc. but it's not as easy to judge for other recordings.
If surveillance camera are allowed, then why are people not allowed to hand-hold or otherwise have a camera on them?
If you complain about hidden cameras on a person, what about hidden cameras in a building, either with a pinhole lens, one-way mirror, or a dark dome over the camera?
Why should recording anything a police officer does during his working hours be bad?
If they want to make me having a camera on me illegal, make having any kind of surveillance camera illegal first, and then we can talk.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Trust. Remember that? Lost it a long time ago. No one trust anyone else. Spy, counterspy. When will it end?
He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference?
I think corruption in government by individuals (government is just a label) is far more damaging than all the other system created criminals. In the web content for Infinite Play the Movie (the movie that blends with reality) http://www.infiniteplaythemovie.com/ this is exactly what happens. Citizens start doing sting operations and monitoring individuals in government and major corporations. They then anonymously post it on you tube and the Internet for all to know. Transparency In Government is a requirement. Government does not own or pay for anything the citizens do. It is not the authority the citizens are, government is just a label it cannot think or make decisions. It is people with names that make the decisions that affect our lives and destroy a fair playing field. Individuals in government are the employees of each citizen.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
I think legislative representatives should be under total surveillance by the public during the conduct of their meetings with lobbyists. Every representative should have to hold some kind of open "court" that is recorded when they are doing their work. Fuck this behind closed doors crap. If it's not a national security issue, the public ought to know exactly what politicians are up to. Corporations and interest groups shouldn't be allowed to plead their issue to representatives of the people without the ability for the people to scrutinize their stated positions.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"Why not use required surveillance to expose or prevent backdoor wheeling and dealing? When our representatives meet with special interest groups, corporate executives or other people out to buy influence, it's not something that's personal or private for the elected politician. There should be special lobbyist meeting rooms with cameras running 24/7. If congressmen and others meet with lobbyists outside the rooms, they go to jail for corruption. This is the people's business, and we have the right to know all about those conversations." Absolutely great idea. Who in America besides politicians and shady corporate execs wouldn't be for this idea? Public servants' dealings should be public knowledge.
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend (yes yes, here's my geek card). Arguments often boil down to who said what. On rare occasions, there is a record of that, email for example, and I can show exhibits and win. I wish I could do it for voice, maybe something that records continuously the last half hour in my apartment.
I for one believe that greater transparency, and more information would lessen rather than increase conflicts. There is a right to keep things private, but there is no "right to privacy". More recording of information = good.
\u262D = \u5350
Large organizations (governments, corporations, etc.) can accomplish things, both good and bad, that are beyond the reach of single individuals. The larger and more powerful the organization the more oversight and restrictions are necessary to insure that the organization accomplishes good things rather than bad things.
This goes for surveillance, too.
A single individual should be able to record pretty much whatever he wants for his own use with minimal oversight or restrictions. A larger government, on the other hand, should have massive oversight and restrictions.
Other organizations fall between these extremes. A neighborhood watch organization requires more oversight and restriction than a single individual but less than a large corporation.
Steve Mann's been talking about this for years. Let's not waste time treating this approach as novel.
Since public employees are paid using my tax dollars, then I and every other tax-paying citizen have an absolute right to know what they are up to. Period. End of discussion.
A lot of police departments are starting to tape all formal interrogations to cover their asses, but what we don't get to see or hear are the "pre-interrogation interrogations" -- you know, those "he's not a suspect, he's not under arrest, we're just trying to get some information" interrogations?
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
We are all just people.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I hate to reply to myself, but I am not sure that everyone knows what a "pinhole lens" is for CCTV cameras, as I didn't know when I was buying this stuff.
A CCTV pinhole lens is a lens that has a very small front opening usually 2-3mm, and a narrow lens part that can easily be embedded into the back side of a wall and then be almost invisible on the other side.
An example is here, compared to a normal CCTV type lens. That lens is $20 from B&H, and the camera is $120 from NewEgg, so this stuff isn't very expensive. A "high quality" CCTV lens is $50-$100, so even the good stuff isn't that expensive.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Your average slashdotter would be the first to cry foul at surveillance by authorities, and yet raise the idea of performing your own surveillance and they start licking their lips and rubbing their palms together...
A policeman might be part of the big govermental boogeyman, but they're also an individual, with an individual's rights. Nobody would like it if a person came into their workplace and recorded them all day. Privacy is a right, and not being american I don't know if its in your constitution or not, but it doesn't matter, its a right nonetheless and one every person should be entitled to.
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
"More recording of information = good."
You'll sing a different tune when pictures of your penis get posted to the internet.
Canada has an interesting test for evidence. Would admitting it bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Maybe the principle could be extended to not admitting evidence. If not admitting evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, then it should be admitted. That would mean that evidence could not be excluded on a technicality.
http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/en/board/tribunal/chapter_3-3-2.shtml
As far as I can tell, the test of a recording's admissibility is: Was the recording device placed in such a place that a member of the public could have been in the same place? Could the member of the public have seen and heard what was recorded? In other words, the cops can't bug my bedroom without a warrant. OTOH, I can bug my own bedroom because I belong there. Telephoto lenses and shotgun mikes are sketchy. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Again, otoh, if one of the participants is wearing a 'wire' that may be fair game. The participant will testify to what happened. The recording will corroborate his story.
Guy: Officer, do you mind if I now turn on my voice recorder and record our conversation?
Officer: No go right ahead. Is it on? Good. Smack! Now listen you punk...
Recording speech should be like handling a firearm. If you are not harassing others with it, or using it to commit a crime, you should not be stopped from carrying it in public or using it in self-defense against anyone--even cops when they are behaving violently and illegally. You want to know why there is little justice today? I'll tell you why. Legal technicalities. The bus driver was breaking the law in a serious way. She had no good argument for why she should not have to deal with the recorder. Under a just system, the fact that her "privacy rights" (what bullshit, privacy in **plain view of the public**) were violated would be no defense nor would it be an argument for why she shouldn't be serving jail time.
The most specious argument along these lines is the one that if we didn't drop cases where the police really screw up, they'd have no incentive to not break the rules to get evidence. Excuse me? Anyone who believes that stupid line hasn't been paying attention, nor do they give two shits about the victim's right to justice. So what if another party screwed up? The fact is, the person still committed a crime against a private citizen. What's next? We allow a serial killer to get off because he "went good" for a while by mopping up a few child molesters? That's where this line of thought ends up going.
I think we should start recording customer service reps as they try to impose their fictions on us. If your really smart you can really burn through their illusions and expose their foolisheness. Then post it online for all to hear. They can also be very entertaining, I have recorded a few since they give us permission to do so for quality control purposes.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
(aside all shit laws) there is a freedom of information act, does the US have this?
I think we should start recording customer service reps as they try to impose their fictions on us.
Like this?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Guy: Don't taze me, bro!
I can has sig?
Let us say that theoretically it is possible to extract some kind of evidence from an advanced neurological scan that would show an event or even a conversation had indeed happened. Let's go further and imagine that some of the details of this conversation could be extracted. Further than that even, let us speculate that it can be possible to distinguish between false memory and real memory to such a degree as to make human memory admissible as evidence.
I bring up this situation because I think that one day, perhaps in the not to distant future, there will be human memory enhancements which will essentially record every moment of an individual's life. Blue tooth headsets now, data monocles not to far off.
Where does the line become drawn in this case.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
This is good as far as the Golden Rule does not apply. However, as far as the Rule applies, this can be bad. People are generally trustworthy. We need better (more efficient) ways of preventing crime than surveillance. In fact, surveillance has a way of creating mistrust. I believe that good (re)actions have a way of permeating the populace in such a way that it discourages crime. As far as surveillance helping to prevent crime, it does so primarily through deterrence. This deterrence is simply the threat of punishment. Since punishment itself doesn't necessarily do any good, and since it (punishment) can be painful, punishment itself can be criminal. Hence, the end of surveillance does not always justify it. Surveillance itself is a one-way flow of information. One-way flow of information is the same kind of thing as what happens when one is front of an interrogation mirror in an isolation room. Do you really want this? I hope not.
See http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us/ for examples of lack of accountability.
I think every one is realizing that a lot of effort is put forth to keep us divided with fictional issues. If one can keep it divided 49 49 then they only need to control 2% of the votes.
Right National Security, why then did defense work get contracted out to programmers in China if that is such an issue, cheap labor high profits is more important than National Security I suppose? In doing so China learned of some of our vulnerabilites.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
It's not about what you said, it's about what you *meant*[1]
;-)
... 5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 ..
Even if you "win" the argument, you'll lose. You don't date much, do you?
[1] Subject to HER interpretation.
cue flamebait modding
I say sorry. Reconciliation rocks.
A friend of mine was a teacher for a while, until a student with severe attention deficit disorder decided to record lessons in order to prove that my friend the teacher was picking on him. Here's the recipe: record what someone says, edit on home computer to make it say what you want it to say, play to parents, get parents to visit school with you, get teacher in trouble. That the school took the kid's word for it without any forensic analysis of the recording shows you what's wrong with the idea of surveillance for the masses - it can be incredibly easily fabricated, edited or modified by computer-savvy kids and the adults are clueless or powerless to stop the false accusations from flying. My friend gave up teaching soon after and went to make money at a tech company instead. What's needed is integrity checks in the recordings to highlight where omissions or changes are made, otherwise it's no better than hearsay.
Very simple legal way to record a conversation. Turn down the sound on your phone, call 911 and stick the phone in your pocket. 911 always records all calls. They may radio the cop once they figure out what is going on, but it will likely take some time.
...the rights of the people to perform surveillance shall not be infringed...
I've been thinking about a number of situations in which you might want to surreptitiously record what you say and hear, which makes me want to ask, what are the best suited devices and setups for wire-tapping yourself?
You just got troll'd!
Like it or not, ubiquitous surveillance is exactly the kind of society we're headed toward.
... now just flash forward ten years and try to imagine just how utterly impossible it will be to completely avoid the possibility of covert surveillance and recording.
With today's technology we have this
http://www.peppersprayinc.com/eyeglasses_camera.htm
and this
http://eyeglasscamera.com/
and this
http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/sunglasscam.html
and this
http://www.spycentre.com/body_worn_video.htm
-
Get used to it, because in a few more years anything you do that is interesting, annoying, or otherwise memorable will be posted to the equivalent of youtube, by somebody, within seconds.
When you are on the phone with any company, there is always this message, "This call may be recorded for quality assurance." In the USA you can record these conversations without notifying the company, because the implicit agreement is that if one party is recording it, you have permission to also record.
Yes, but there is the same problems with the government doing surveillance. Tapes can be lost or destroyed, and recordings can be altered (as you said).
What about a normal accusation against a teacher: what if that kid had said that the teacher had sexually assaulted the kid? There is no evidence, nothing to alter, but there is going to be some serious problems for the teacher, especially when that teacher is male. In fact an altered recording would be easier to detect than many other kinds of false allegations.
Yes, recordings can be bad, but not much more so than some other kinds of accusations, and they can be very helpful, just look at all of the tasering videos on YouTube. Most of them don't show the start of the incident, but some show a subject that is completely in custody being tortured with a taser. Would the government release any tapes they had made of those incidents, or would the tapes just be "disappeared"?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
"I love how so many people are all nostalgic about the good ol' days, like these problems just didn't exist before."
Well if you want me to accept that my perception of the past is flawed? Then one likewise needs to accept that people's perception of the present is equally flawed.
Anyway while the past wasn't perfect, from a numbers standpoint there were more trustworthy people then than now. You might want to ask your previous generation how things were back then, were one could leave one's door unlocked at night.
David Brin also explored this concept. IIRC, the book was called "The Transparent Society".
In thinking about some of the other comments, I wonder how many people accused of crimes have been able to subpoena CCTV footage from police cameras and private surveillance in the same way that police seem to be able to.
It seems to me only fair that citizens should have as much latitude to monitor the public affairs of our government employees as they do us. But we should also have equal ability to access surveillance footage that is taken of us all daily without our consent in order to clear our names or draw attention to police misconduct and the like.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
That's quite correct: the presence of obscured or hidden audio recorders must be disclosed in many States. However, there are a lot of loopholes. You can make records of various types of data (phone numbers dialed, when someone comes and goes, ...), and that's usually do-able. In some situations, you can record things if you "make someone aware" that they're being recorded, and you also assume that someone is consenting by participating (talking on the phone rather than hanging it up, shopping in a store rather than leaving, walking on the beach instead of going home, ...). "Making someone aware" is sometimes as simple as emitting a beep or series of clicks in a telephone call, or having surveillance equipment be visible. I think there might also be loopholes that let you record video in some situations where it would be illegal to record audio.
:)
Of course, I haven't done any fact-checking for the above, so I encourage someone with field-specific knowledge to correct/extend/rebut/... my statements
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Body found in basement
....sources say the man was beaten to death with a tape recorder.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
cameras everywhere will not create a big brother society
it will in fact bolster people's freedoms like never before
because the government doesn't have a monopoly on technology
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What if the police start to conduct their "interviews" in movie theaters?
if someone wants to think like a paranoid schizophrenic, no amount of reality will sway them from their task
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to record a conversation without both parties consent, barring certain circumstances. It is ironic that many of these state laws came about from the controversies of the Nixon era wiretappings. The laws were originally crafted to protect citizens, but a dash cam in my car, like the ones police have, would probably be considered illegal and inadmissible. In this day and age, maybe the laws need to be looked at again.
Our senses already provide a reasonably detailed record of what happens on a moment to moment basis. The only (relevant) difference between an electronic surveillance tool and your own brain is the ability to play back what happened to a third party. Thus, it cannot the recording per se that they are be objecting to. If it were, wiping your memory would be ok, and I don't think anyone would advocate that even if it were possible.
When you understand that they must be objecting to something other than recording, their purpose becomes clear. With electronic surveillance tools comes a lack of doubt about what happened. With only your brain as your surveillance tool, they can always deny what happened. This is not possible if you record an event electronically. The government's ability to create doubt is the key to why citizens are being restricted in their surveillance rights. As we know, with doubt comes power.
I believe every person should have a right to have a solid, verifiable record of ANY interaction they have with a representative of the government. Without this right, the government simply has too much power to create doubt when they infringe on our rights.
Yes, that is a good example. I would also make the point that AOL does not provide real Internet Connections as advertised. They are just a proxy and access the Internet for you.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
This is the first time I've gone to post a Brin/Transparent society reference on an appropriate /. story and found someone had beaten me to it.
Too bad Brin seems to have decided to jump on the software patent cart in his new venture...
I've felt since the Rodney King trial that the right of the public to know something shouldn't be absolute nor necessarily immediate.
Trials should be video taped and all tapes made public 60 days after the completion of the trial - jurors, not to be shown. Hostile witnesses should be given the opportunity to be hidden too. Also, plaintiffs should have the option to not be seen, unless they wish to - I'm convinced that ugly people are convicted too often.
Any conversion with any public official acting in an official capacity should have an implied right of recording, period. That goes for police, military, TSA, dog catchers, CDC, Presidents or government teachers and government garbage collectors. No exceptions. Just think how much cleaner governments around the world would be if they expected every conversation was recorded? Graff would be reduced tremendously.
Whilst we're on the subject:
Can people suggest some recording devices that they have had good results with? I've seen a lot of pen recorders on eBay, but haven't had any experience with them.
I've heard of a lot of various recording devices being used at trade shows etc where they have been on lanyards etc.
Any suggestions out there as I wouldn't mind getting one to play with.
okay dude. make sure to pack some sardines with the crackers. and install an air filter, it gets moldy in the bunkers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some teachers tape everything. Even at university, all conversations with students should occur with an open door (or with staff witnesses). Just the accusations can be pretty damning. If you don't have videotape evidence to the contrary, good luck talking your way out of the situation.
It's a win if not getting any pussy is a victory, dumbass.
From another point of view what if you were to say that every second of your life experience is copyrighted, subject to copyright and unauthorised recordings are not permitted or only permitted at the rate of $10,000 per second - if you do not agree do not record me.
Maybe I could have a terms and conditions/copyright notice tattooed on my forehead and say, "well your worship, the terms were in plain site for the officer to see".
Yes I know, it's impractical. It just irk's me that I am being recorded all the time, what about a camera jammer? no one says I have to _agree_ to being recorded - what if I'm just making sure.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
If you think I'm sexist, try dating women for a while. My ex, who is now batting for the other team, took only a couple of months to tell me, "Wow! You were right--women really are like that!"
Criminal, profit-driven fascists CREATE conflicts of interest.
FASCISM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile
VIDEO WITNESS OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY:
TVLicensing's Crimes and Thuggery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4WtgVbXbrc
Ron Sinclair, assaulted by David Clark, a BBC tellytax goon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKRyNYChYjI
There is NOT one law for them and another for us!
RR
The laws that most countries have in place to prevent eavesdropping were to stop authorities and government from recording conversations with citizens to entrap those citizens, not to prevent citizens from protecting or defending their innocence or their children.
A government official has the same right to _object_ to an unauthorised recording made by a citizen as that citizen has to object to an unauthorised recording of them by a government official, but in the former case, where there might be reasonable doubt regarding the charges against "joe public", joe public has the higher right.
Of course, if the recording doesn't introduce reasonable doubt, it's invalid anyway.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
I certainly think the public should have the rights to record anything that they can see or hear from their own perspective. That would place a reasonable limit on planting secret surveillance devices in other peoples' homes, etc. It also makes sense to others... if you are in a position where other people can hear or see you, then you should not be surprised when that person testifies against you for actions you do during that time frame.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The summary is factually incorrect. The summary states the tape was "initially ruled inadmissible in court" and was "later allowed as evidence" - the reverse is actually true. Please read the summary's linked articles. The evidence was originally allowed and then ruled inadmissable on appeal(the date on the CNET article is more recent than the Journal Sentinel article).
If the teacher also had a recording? This is unfortunately the best answer I can come up with. At many places of work there is 24/7 survalence. Its a public place (more or less) so there really is no expectation of privacy. Have the room recorded or taped for both the students and teachers.
At a movie theater that i worked they put cameras everywhere. Its was the only proof I had that I didn't take the money that management accused me of taking (3000 dollars). So its saved me once.
Its not a perfect solution, but i can't see anything else working really. Some type of digital watermarking to make forging hard would be nice. But then again I don't know of any workable scheme at this stage.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
This is more properly called sousveillance, not surveillance.
Surveillance = watching people from over
Sousveillance = people watching from under
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Firstly: I think public institutions, and people serving in their role as public employees (the cop interrogating you, but not the samy guy going to the bathroom, or off-duty) should be subject to public scrutiny. I also believe that al should have the right to record all of their own interactions, without notice, for the purpose legal argument (going to court and pulling out the tape). As odd as this sounds from people who know me, I'm all about accurate recordings. More, I don't believe that this should require disclosure, as it so often does at present. It's far to common for police or other agents to force remove/destroy recording devices when they know they are present, and certainly eliminates much of their probative value (people suddenly behave better when they know they are on camera). That right, however, should come with one catch. Illegal dissimination (putting up a recording of a private interaction with your girlfriend on the internet without consent) should carry a hefty legal penalty. This is, of course, simply my opinion. Actual laws allowing / disallowing recordings vary.
Granted. However, they are a statistical anomaly sufficiently rare as to render trying to create a relationship with one a foolish goal. If you get very, very lucky, you may find a relationship with one. Congrats to you on your luck. 99 percent of us will meet at least one sane woman in our lives (so we know they are out there and we stupidly get our hopes up) but there's a 99 percent chance she'll already be attached to someone else. Our relationships will be with the other women in the world, the ones who come from the stone-cold crazy 99 percent of all women.
The laws need to catch up to technology. With everyone having camera phones and electronic devices at their disposal, it's not hard to record or videotape an event. I do agree that a citizen should not be able to follow around a cop all day and video tape him however what is so wrong about a person saying to a cop during a traffic stop "hold on, let me turn on my tape recorder or turn on my built in camera". Likewise, police record interrogations so why would anyone be against the innocent until proven guilty citizen being able to whip out his own tape recorder or camera to maintain his own copy of the events that take place.
The problem with most of these gadgets is that they have one type mike, which may not always be the best for the circumstances you're in. Plan to buy a good but small mike, that has more influence on the quality than which device (IMHO).
Insert
Can you cite where defense work has been contracted out to China? That's a BIG no-no in my experience....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think all interactions with government and all business-related conversations should be legally recordable by any participant without the need for consent or notification.
In order to make these kinds of recordings stick, it might also be a good idea to have cameras and audio devices that actually cryptographically sign the recordings. Adding that to existing cameras or recorders is not hard, and it doesn't interfere with their normal operations. It just means that you can tell whether a recording is original or has been modified in some way.
Exactly. If Student A accuses Teacher B of improper conduct, and produces fabricatd / edited video/audio/photos/whatever to "prove" their allegations, pretty much the only defense the teacher has is to:
... well, if I show you two videos of an event, and they differ, then ONE of them is mistaken. It would at least introduce doubt as to the veracity of ONE of them. However, if there are more than two recordings, it's easy to show that one is the odd one.
... yeah. Record everything you can.
- prove the student's media evidence is forged
- show counter-point video.
The former is harder to prove, and might require many hours of expert witness testimony. The latter
It seems that the logical extension of this is to record everything. While you're driving, record the sounds. When dealing with other people, have multiple audio sources and a video source, so that each person involved has multiple CYA procedures in place. The feasibility of tampering with multiple sources (especially video from multiple angles) is less... or at least more time consuming. Of course, this doesn't really cover sound recording very well. =/ Not to mention the whole risk that your recorder might get destroyed in the process of a police beatdown/frisking/X-raying/magnetic-device-scanning (or lost in the evidence locker?). For civil suits, though
Scary.
This is an important point politically. Especially when one considers the long term implications of Moore's Law applied to surveillance devices. Video and audio devices that may cost $100 today and are able to store 1 hour of data, will someday cost only $10, then $1, then $0.1 and so on. Ditto, the storage capacity and communications capability will just increase exponentially.
Considering that trend, it seems inevitable that we will set up a classic clash between the power of central authorities versus individual rights. Especially when politicians figure out that they are just as vulnerable to being subjects of surveillance as everyone else, they will scramble to make laws to forbid us to do that. Against that is the difficulty, or near impossibility, of enforcing such laws given the ubiquity and low cost of the devices. It would resemble in many respects the ongoing war over music downloads.
I am reminded of a science fiction story I read once in which video recorders were as small and light as bits of pollen and they permeated every space where air was circulated just as pollen does. That seems like the kind of science fiction prediction that will inevitably become true some day.
Once we launch a trillion or so open source and non-passworded devices in to the atmosphere, there will no longer be any such thing as privacy for any politician or any peasant. The only solace for me and my personal privacy is that I won't live long enough to see that particular science fiction become real.
That's interesting, but I think the court erred. A restaurant is in the business of providing BOTH a service and the food/drinks one orders. The two are consumed as a "package deal" - but both aspects are present.
If you go to a restaurant or club, place an order, and the food/drinks are served to you, you're under an obligation to pay for them at that point in time. I'm in agreement that if I was forcibly ejected before I had the chance to finish my food or drinks, I'd probably want to fight paying for them -- but ultimately, I think you'd be at the mercy of management there. (To me, this is similar to a store selling you a product you decided you didn't want. You can ask or even demand they return it for your money back, but you can't just stop payment on a check you wrote them for it. They still have to approve your return, and while they probably would do so, they're probably not under LEGAL obligation to do so.)
Just like how a small retail store might weigh the pros and cons of refusing a return vs. the bad publicity that might create for them, the potential of a civil lawsuit they'd have to take out time to defend against, etc. - so a restaurant owner or manager would weigh those pros and cons if you determined you weren't going to pay for your food/drink order.
and suggest that people not only lobby for the right but claim the right, by recording first and asking questions later. While this won't always have the intended results, many cases will contain evidence so compelling that the illegality of the recording becomes irrelevant. Making exceptions for those cases will establish a precedent for the individual's right to record.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Well, a certain amount of time to consume one's food before being told to leave is also expected, and this restaurant didn't provide that, nor had anyone brought the bills to the various tables...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No, I won't be specific but the knowledge is first hand. It wasn't done on purpose blinded by greed and or ignorance. When programmers are hired via web cam there is no telling where they are. In fact if China wanted to steal our secrets they could simply provide cheap remote IT workers who would work as intelligence agents. Makes you wonder what they may have accomplished already.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)