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."

17 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet in practice, business owners can and do ban you for life from their premises for operating your own video camera. Even in places that sell their own disposable still cameras for the use of patrons.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by wish+bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even further - every 'public' surveillance camera should be IP based and available to viewing by anyone over the net.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    3. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When a business owner levels charges against you for some infraction against his business, when it becomes a matter of your word against his, and when he employs his own surveillance against you, why shouldn't you have your own record for when it gets brought up before the courts later?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop by solitas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, then, a case where the owner may not have any surveillance: if said business owner says "you're white (or black), no service, no sale, get out, or get shot", and you come back with a cop who hears something different from the owner (e.g. "he looked like he was sizing the place up for shoplifting so I told him to leave") then WTF are YOU gonna do and how are YOU gonna prove what REALLY happened?

      Places that have video surveillance may not have audio too - and a silent conversation onscreen won't prove anything one way or the other to a cop, depending upon your gestures/etc. - BUT remember that he'll note everything in his report anyway and then you can have that intimation of shoplifting on-record against you in their files.

      Maybe the example's a little extreme, but anything's possible.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  2. What makes surveillance cameras special? by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:What makes surveillance cameras special? by Bryansix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Police Officers should be surveiled anytime they are in public whether they are working or not. They should be held to much higher standards then the public they police.

  3. It seems rather cut and dried against the argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference?

  4. Citizen Monitoring of Government Entities VOTEYES by FromTheAir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  5. Govenment should be under total surveillance by Butisol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:recording by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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).

    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.

  7. A no-brainer by Stanislav_J · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  8. The police don't like public evidence. by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful
    With the advent of the cell phone cam, have you noticed the ever increasing number of police brutality videos? When a cop is caught breaking the law, do the other police officers maintain their vow to uphold the law or do they react like thugs in a turf war? This is a fundamental problem if we are truely a nation of free men who consent to being governed for the common good. If we are just a oligarchy with a happy facade then it's just the truth showing through.

    "It's critical that we retain the right to record, videotape or photograph the police while they're on duty. Not only for symbolic reasons (when agents of the state can confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing, you're treading on seriously perilous ground), but as an important check on police excesses."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html
    --
    We are all just people.
  9. Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the argum by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference? In the US? Not so much.
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  10. Re:recording by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm, in those situations the only way you can possibly "win" the argument is to forfeit. Proving that you're right doesn't work with girlfriends, wives, etc. Unfortunately, this is usually only learned through painful personal experience. Ex:
    Guy: Look, see, Wikipedia proves I'm right!
    Girl: I don't care, I can't believe you didn't trust me.
    Guy: but I knew I was right.
    Girl: You never listen.
    Guy: Yeah, I d...
    Girl: *cry*
    Guy: *crap*

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  11. Re:Ridiculous by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Like it or not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like it or not, ubiquitous surveillance is exactly the kind of society we're headed toward.

    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
    - ... 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.

    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.