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

It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[HTH NE1]

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.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[wish bot]

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

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[HTH NE1]

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?

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[trolltalk.com]

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.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[solitas]

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.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[trolltalk.com]

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.

What makes surveillance cameras special?

[corsec67]

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.

Re:What makes surveillance cameras special?

[Bryansix]

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.

It seems rather cut and dried against the argument

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Citizen Monitoring of Government Entities VOTEYES

[FromTheAir]

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.

Govenment should be under total surveillance

[Butisol]

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.

Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance

[Max Threshold]

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

Re:recording

[bcdm]

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

Re:recording

[Otter]

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.

A no-brainer

[Stanislav_J]

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?

The police don't like public evidence.

[Original Replica]

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

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the argum

[HTH NE1]

He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference? In the US? Not so much.

CCTV Pinhole/hidden lens explained

[corsec67]

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.

Ridiculous

[DCBoland]

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.

Re:Ridiculous

[JCSoRocks]

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.

Re:recording

[JCSoRocks]

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*

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

False accusations and the dangers of edited speech

[Loki P]

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 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:False accusations and the dangers of edited spe

[corsec67]

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"?

Brin

[Metasquares]

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

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.