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."

Comments

Re:recording

[bcdm]

So, after the breakup, can you introduce her to me?

Re:Recording Conversations with Customer Service R

[jcr]

I think we should start recording customer service reps as they try to impose their fictions on us.

Like this?

-jcr

Re:recording

[syousef]

Believe me, this scheme fully qualifies you for that geek card, with nerd, dweeb and dork stamps on it. Producing transcripts is not going to get you a "win" in any meaningful sense of the word

Congratulations you win an ex-girlfriend! Features of your new ex-girlfriend include any time your name is mentioned bringing up your socially inept attempt to prove yourself correct in arguments. Your ex-girlfriend also includes high levels of resentment and generally thinking you're a loser.