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.
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
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
While I agree with your sentiment, in reality you may not know your rights are about to be violated by a police officer or when your boss is going to ask you to break the law. If recordings can be made of conversations you have with people in authority then it follows IMHO that all recordings must be legal to make, not necessarily legal to use in court. Now the line must be drawn as to what is admissible. I don't know. If I was trying to catch the molester of my child and I recorded a conversation of his underage friend talking about drinking, would that be admissible in court? I don't believe it should be. But it brings up lots of interesting questions.
TODO create witty sig.
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?
Your average slashdotter doesn't have the opportunity - the responsibility (according to some) - to taze, beat, shoot, and otherwise injure or subdue citizens. Additionally, most employees are monitored by their boss because their boss works in close proximity to them. This isn't the case with police officers. They travel all over the city, county, state, etc, on their own. As taxpayers and citizens within their jurisdiction we are collectively "their bosses". It's our responsibility to speak up when things aren't being handled correctly. *That* is why you should have the right to record what they do on their job.
When they go home they can do whatever they like. I have no desire to watch them eat, sleep, whatever. But when they have a gun on their hip, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them responsible for their actions. When you lose the ability to audit your government and the forces it uses to control its citizens you will quickly find your freedoms taken away.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
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.
What if the police start to conduct their "interviews" in movie theaters?
You seem to argue that if the evidence is true (perhaps merely convincing?) or appears to be factual in nature then the ends (i.e finding the truth and convicting or acquitting) justify the means of collection and that is the point upon which I strongly disagree. It is fortunate for both you and I that we do not live in a country where "the ends justify the means" when it comes to collection a presentation of evidence in court. The founding fathers recognized the dangers of "the ends justify the means" and put language into the Constitution to provide protections against collection of evidence "by any and all means necessary", even when that evidence may be the deciding factor in securing a conviction.
Finally, some laws really are stupid and should be changed, but the appropriate venue for such agitation is the legislature and the ballot box, and not the generally courts (unless the law itself is argued to be unconstitutional).