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.
"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.
So, after the breakup, can you introduce her to me?
I can has sig?
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.
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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
Disclosure is balanced against the unwary. Privacy, while not a specific right in the US Constitution, has many theories of protection, starting with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th Amendments. These include right of association (do not give my conversation to someone I don't want to associate with), freedom of speech protections, right of denial of self-incrimination, and others.
The evidence in the suspect's discussion might criminally confess either party. The evidence in the school bus case also, with the additional onus that a private individual (e.g. not a government employee, a contractor in this case) has further protections.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
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."
Um, the "Provided..." part is impossible to meet, to start with: you never can tell from the tape itself what is excluded that might change the context (especially if it is an audio tape.) And the reason the evidence can be dismissed is the same reason illegally obtained evidence used by the government is dismissed in criminal trials: the rule exists because without that sanction, there will be a strong incentive to engage in behavior which has been deemed undesirable (the surreptitious recording of private conversations, in this case.)
That's not to state that I unconditionally agree that the behavior is undesirable or that excluding the evidence is always the right way to discourage the behavior, at least when its not an overstep by the government.
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.
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.
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
David Brin also explored this concept. IIRC, the book was called "The Transparent Society".
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
A friend of mine who was charged with drunk driving attempted to get the police tape of her subsequent interview at the station. It would have proved without question that the arresting officer who described "slurred speech and a disoriented state" was a liar. I can speak with authority on her condition, because I was her "one phone call" and saw her almost immediately.
The tape, of course, was "lost".
I'm certain this is not an isolated case. It cries out for some kind of legal accountability.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Producing transcripts is not going to get you a "win" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Sure it will--it's going to get the loser bitch to dump him, and then he'll be free to find someone SANE to date.
Sane women do exist, and it's sad and foolish to settle for anything less. And the kind of woman who twists positions so far that she needs a transcript to (try to) bring her back to reality is less than nothing.
I actually considered doing the same as this guy, once. Then I clued in on what that implied, dumped the bitch and moved on. Many years later, I'm very, very happily involved with a sane woman who when we disagree argues cogently and forcefully, and wins and loses with grace. When we misunderstand each other (who doesn't, now and then?) we both ASK and EXPLAIN rather than ACCUSE.
That's what adults do. Little snots who "win" arguments by saying "just because you didn't say that doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe you said that" need to grow up and get over themselves.
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).