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."

5 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance by Max+Threshold · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you allow exceptions for national security issues, suddenly everything is a national security issue.

  2. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't be an idiot. How are they getting anything but a grainy surveillance cam picture? Ever worked with them? Even the 720x480x30fps images are pretty much useless for identification in most setups, because they have to cover too much area. So that's not going to work ...

    And if they ask you to leave for no valid reason, and you're a member of a minority group (black, gay, indian, breast-feeding, whatever)? think about it - they don't need the hassles and civil suits.

    Its the same as the signs that say "we reserve the right to search your packages." They can put them up all they want - diesn't give them the legal right. You can refuse, and there is NOTHING they can do about it. Even if they call the cops ... Just refuse, and tell them "Charge me first. THEN you can look. But be prepared for a false arrest charge!"

    Heck, you can even refuse to show your receipt to the stupid "Walmart Greeter" when you're leaving, and they have NO legal right to do anything. Trying to keep you from leaving at that point is unlawful confinement - aka kidnapping.

    Stores don't have a right to treat customers as criminals. Grow a backbone.

  3. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, you can refuse searches and they can't do much, but if they tell you to get out, you gotta go.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  4. Brin by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Informative

    David Brin also explored this concept. IIRC, the book was called "The Transparent Society".

  5. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    Come to Canada.

    1. Police asked someone for ID because he was crossing through a vacant lot.
    2. The person refused to co-operate, as he was not committing a crime.
    3. Filed complaint with the Police Ethics Commission
    4. PROFIT! Awarded $6,000.00

    Police still have to have reasonable grounds to stop people in Kanuckistan, unlike Amerika, which is why our cops aren't so heavy-handed, which works out better for them, since there's less likelyhood of an adversarial situation between the police and the average citizen. For the most part, we actually like our cops.