Citizens Spy On Big Brother

An anonymous reader writes "Citizens of the world are striking back at 24/7 state surveillance by pulling out their cameraphones and filming inept officials, deadly healthcare lapses and thuggish cops. So-called Sous-veillance is seeing more and more people posting damning footage of official misdemenours to sites such as YouTube to shame them into action." I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.

Comments

You wonder?

[cayenne8]

"I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over."

Oh..that's simple...camera mysteriously gets dropped and smashed on the ground (probably while you are being slammed against the car), and you get charged first with obstructing justice...with more charges to follow later as they have time to think them up.

Re:You wonder?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like the guy who refused to give the cops the video footage of them coming to his door when he informed them that he had a camera and a tape and they arrested him and beat him? I mean, theres not much left to wonder about, welcome to Amerika.

Posted anonymous for obvious reasons.

Re:You wonder?

[betterunixthanunix]

Pretty much. Cops have a lot of leeway when it comes to knocking over your camera in the course of an arrest or ticket, especially at an event where there is already some misbehavior from the police. Try filming a protest where the cops start throwing tear gas; unless you have your camera affixed to a telescope and you're on a hill far away, chances are that a cop is gonna "firmly grasp" the arm holding the camera, and the camera will end up on the ground waiting to be destroyed. We had a protest a few months ago at my university that ended up like that; only one fragmented video escaped.

Re:You wonder?

[montyzooooma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzRczBk06M

Re:You wonder?

[wiggles]

Then you hear stories like the one about the 16 year old kid with the broken back who was tasered 19 times by the police for failing to stand up when ordered

Re:You wonder?

[cayenne8]

"Yeah, like the guy who refused to give the cops the video footage of them coming to his door when he informed them that he had a camera and a tape and they arrested him and beat him?"

Yeah, I'm not sure why this was modded troll either...I mean, this story was published on Slashdot awhile back. Actually, there are two of them on that subject here at a home and here filming a car pullover.

Re:You wonder?

[Bomarc]

Consider yourself lucky. I've had to deal with cops that committed perjury on the witness stand, threaten, fail to follow up on the with the most basic of calls (In one instance I had the information needed to detain a 'hacker' here in my own state, and the police refused to follow up); officers that won't take fundamental action....
I've had to deal with Judges that don't follow the law, and DA's that falsify information. (I've set a president in the state where a DA can present false information, which is objected to, and the defense is not permitted to rebut it)

Re:You wonder?

[mi]

Oh..that's simple...camera mysteriously gets dropped and smashed on the ground

No. What's more likely is that the officer starts acting with utmost professionalism, smiles, and fines you for various things, with which he would not have bothered otherwise. He is also going to take his sweet time issuing the ticket(s) — especially if you commit another folly by indicating, that you are in a hurry. (12 years ago I did that, and the pig took 40 minutes to issue the citation.)

If it is illegal in your locale to record people without warning, put a notice about recording on your window — he is not going to notice it, but you'll be covered — do not bring it to his attention. In general, do not argue with the policemen. All arguments should happen in court.

Re:You wonder?

[Jesrad]

"Dismissal from the department" is a heck of a way to mispell "getting a medal and commendations for his bravery".

Re:You wonder?

[WillAdams]

In a local case, the person who made the tape was accused of illegal wiretapping. Previous discussion of it here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/12/2050212&tid=123

Charges were eventually dropped though.

William

Re:You wonder?

[iconic999]

No reason to use two cameras if your camera is hidden and you do not reveal it's existence. There is no legal requirement anywhere in the United States to reveal that you are making a video or audio recording of public events. (Telephone calls are another matter and laws vary from state to state.)

Re:You wonder?

[doas777]

well that would be non-violent drug offenders, the fastest growing majority in our prison systems.

Re:You wonder?

[bluesk1d]

Yeah? What country does this happen in? It certainly isn't the US. I've been in LE for years and never seen or even heard of anything even approaching this level of misconduct. People love to paint law enforcement as some kind of maniacal, civil-rights violating machine and use them for their authority-hating diatribes. That simply isn't the case and, quite frankly, it gets old hearing it. I do my job with the utmost professionalism and have never had any kind of reprimand regarding conduct. As a matter of fact, all complaints I have EVER seen come into the department have been almost immediately ruled as unfounded when the video/audio is reviewed and found to basically be the opposite of what some d-bag with dollar signs in the eyes has alleged.

"I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over."

Outside the fantasy land of anti-establishment hippies, the response would be something like, "Oh why don't you save your batteries, there are already multiple recording devices active that, unlike yours, include the violation you are being stopped for."

Re:You wonder?

[Phanatic1a]

I don't know what happened to the guy in the first story, but the charges in that Carlisle case were dropped:

'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"

Re:You wonder?

[permaculture]

Some have theories as to why the Police are becoming more corrupt:

JACK NICHOLSON: My point of view, while extremely cogent, is unpopular.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Which is?

JACK NICHOLSON: That the repressive nature of the legalities vis-a-vis drugs are destroying the legal system and corrupting the police system.

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Let's talk about acting for a minute."

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm

Re:You wonder?

[encoderer]

Anonymous?

Whatever you say, 121.43.201.19.

Re:You wonder?

[Phiros]

The point of using two cameras is to see exactly how they would react when you inform them that you are recording. The second, hidden, camera is to record those actions in their entirety.

Re:You wonder?

[Toonol]

That case was not really related to this. He was withholding evidence he had been subpoenaed for in a criminal case, video footage of criminals caught in the act of vandalism. Maybe you disagree, but it's not like he was being beaten up by corrupt cops on the down low. The proper legal niceties were observed.

Re:You wonder?

[xappax]

Video recording cops isn't that dangerous. Me and people I know have done it as a policy, in a fairly confrontational way for years now.

Sure, the cops get pissed off, sure they threaten to arrest you, but if you stand your ground, don't interfere with their "crime scene", and make it clear you know your rights, they don't do anything serious.

You can learn about smart/effective ways to record the police here: http://www.copwatch.net/forums/

There's a lot of advice, but the main thing is to make sure you have someone else with you, preferably with another camera, to hang back and record any interaction the cops have with you, the copwatcher.

Re:You wonder?

[HungWeiLo]

I'm not sure. But traditionally, the Chinese system of civil service exams established as much as possible a meritocracy where everyone, rich and poor, strove to do well on the exam to obtain well-sought-after public servant positions (meaning positions of prestige, relative wealth, and power). Those who flunk the exam may have no other choice but to enter the merchant class or become a soldier (read: cannon fodder) for the emperor. Hence, a "good son" would have done well on the civil service exams, whereas a "bad son" (defined as one who is less gifted academically or less hardworking) would be more likely to become a soldier. In a way - not too different from the rest of the world even today. Police and soldiers, in nations without mandatory conscription, tend to generally recruit from the lower economic spectra.

Depends on the cop

[TubeSteak]

I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.

Almost all of them will ask you to stop recording.
Some will physically block the camera.
Very few will try to take your camera from you.

Police (and security guards) will do this with varying levels of anger and threats.

The only two things that matter are:
1. You are on public property
2. You are not filming/photographing something you legally cannot (like a port or inside a mall)

Re:Depends on the cop

[Tim C]

Exactly. Here in the UK there are a couple of reality TV shows that follow a team of police around, filming them as they go about their duties.

From time to time someone they're dealing with will demand that the cameraman stop filming, and the response is always along the following lines:

"He can film what he likes, we're in public"

Well, then that surely applies both ways, no?

Re:Depends on the cop

[Jason Levine]

I'd agree with everything you said and would only add the following link for a PDF outlining Photographer's Rights:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I keep a printed copy in my camera bag in case I ever encounter an overzealous police officer or security guard. (I wouldn't be rude about it, but would politely refer to the sheet detailing what my rights are.)

don't inform the cop you're recording him.

[jgaynor]

"I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over."

Beats me, but apparently it's more fun (and career-lethal) to film him without notification.

Don't record audio in Pennsylvania

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal to record audio in Pennsylvania without the permission of everyone involved. A car with two people was pulled over. The policeman noticed the passenger was running his video camera and asked the passenger if he was recording audio as well as video. The passenger was arrested.

illegal in some states to do that

[sckeener]

In some states it is illegal to film a government official.

Not that it will help them once it gets on youtube, but first you have to get it on youtube and not confiscated by the police.

What would you do if you filmed a cop beating someone and they asked for the video camera? If you answered anything but give the camera over, expect to be in pain and most likely jail.

Anybody remember Rodney King

[Anonymous Coward]

If a cop lies in court, he will get away with it unless you have ironclad proof of it. One good video, even if it doesn't result in the cop going to jail, can really stir up public indignation and put the heat where it needs to be put.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

Rodney Glen King (born April 2, 1965 in Sacramento, California) is an African-American taxi driver who, in 1991, was stopped and then beaten by Los Angeles Police Department officers (Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno and Sergeant Stacey Koon) after being chased for speeding. A bystander, George Holliday, videotaped much of the event from a distance. Part of the video was broadcast around the world and shows four LA police officers restraining and repeatedly striking a black man, while four to six other officers stand by.[1] There is no part of the tape that shows Mr. King attacking the officers, as some have claimed.[2] King had also been tasered by the officers.[3][4]

The resulting public outrage raised tensions between the black community and the LAPD, and increased anger over police brutality and issues such as unemployment, racial tension, and poverty in the black community of South Central Los Angeles. The four officers were tried in a state court for using excessive force, but were acquitted. The announcement of the acquittals sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

The other example that immediately springs to mind is the guy getting tasered to death at the Vancouver airport. That may have turned the tide toward preventing every cop from getting a taser. Now the public is really sensitive and taser stories get front page coverage.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

cop charges you w/wiretapping charges,that's what

[ClioCJS]

Does nobody else remember? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/220254

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[SatanicPuppy]

The original idea was Plato; he posited a social class of people in his ideal Republic who would guard over the regular citizens. He had ideas of trying to inculcate in them a sort of high-minded ideal of service which would keep them from being corrupt; even at the time it was considered to be a bit naive.

The latin quote is from Juvenal; a character in one of his satires was talking about hiring people to guard the chastity of his wife (daughter? can't remember), and stressing out because he was sure that she would put out for her guards first, so he'd need a second set of guards to watch the first guards, and so forth.

The problem is always the same; we rely on the guardians to be self-policing, and it doesn't always work. But when you open up the possibility of everyone stepping up and taking some of the burden of watching the watchers, it becomes possible to sidestep the problem. The watchers are being watched by the watched, in effect being policed by the people they are policing.

recording of a crazed cop

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happened in Missouri:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
or http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/19812-video-transcript-guy-pulled-over-crazy.html

Re:It so rare...

[hal9000(jr)]

Don't confuse using force to subdue a violent person at a public venue with using undue force. I have been to clubs, raves, concerts, protest rallies, ball games, and other public gatherings. I have not seen the police use undue force. Meaning, when someone gets out of hand, the police/security subdued the person by immobilizing them, usually with a pile, cuffing, and moving the person out of the way.

In the cases where I have seen police use batons or tasers, the person was striking out violently. That seems justified (or more justifiable).

Of course abuse happens, maybe more often then we see on the news because victims don't report it (fear of reprisal), but it is not, I believe, a common occurrence.

And people in authority who abuse their authority, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Traffic Stops

[nurb432]

This is why they have cameras in most cars now, in a sealed box that the patrol officer cant get into.

Hard to fake the evidence when you get get to it. It serves to watch *both* parities for when they end up in court.

St. Louis - Here's what happens

[zepoid]

The cop is a real d-bag, until he notices the camera. Then, he's just concerned with the driver's safety. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/madcop.video.ap/index.html Officer Kuehnlein vs. Brett Darrow The officer was fired.

The Light of Other Days

[jmoo]

This is beginning to remind me of the story "The Light of Other Days". In it the technology is discovered to allow anyone to view someone else, no mater where they are (Wormhole CAM). The concept of privacy is completely destroyed.

 

The Case of Brett Darrow

[not_hylas( )]

Q. I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.

A. The case of Brett Darrow, Missouri:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759&

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5591813350444656353&q=source:010563705515560372049&hl=en

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/100907Motorist.htm

Any other questions?, I got a whole folder dedicated to "official" ABUSE.

Related:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/128000201931?r=261000401931#261000401931

EyeFi to the Rescue (product plug)

[scorp1us]

The Eye-Fi products will help anyone in a situation where pictures are attempted to be deleted from a camera. By buffering images then transmitting pictures to the internet via WiFi, you can effectively remove the ability for people to confiscate film or memory cards.

All you need is a near-by wifi station... Which isn't too hard, but it would be awesome if WiFi devices (phones) had client that could receive as well. You and your friend could embed in a crowd and if the photographer is discovered, your friend's cell phone could be the backup. With the iphone, and other phones you could then automatically email images to others in near-real time...

The eyefi also somewhat supports GPS tagging too, which may help with authenticity.

(I am not affiliated with Eye-fi in anyway, other than having one on my wish-list)

Re:It so rare...

[mi]

Why do we have to prove anything to you, anyway?

To answer my earlier question: "What is the evidence?"

American Legal Guide to Recording Telephone Conv

[AioKits]

I am not sure if this will help, but I have mentioned it to people in the past as to if it is 'legal' for them to record something.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

This varies from state to state. The following is also helpful for noting particular oddities by state:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

If anyone knows if this covers video recording as well and if it doesn't has a link, please let me know. I like keeping a list of such things.

Re:Authoritarianism is a mental virus

[spun]

Is locking someone up punishment, is it an attempt at rehabilitation, or is it simply a means of temporarily removing a danger to society? I think it has been all three to various degrees throughout history and in different cultures.

Punishment itself can be seen as one of two things. It can be a form of rehabilitation, in which case we must judge it on its merits as a form of behavior modification, and I refer you to the works of B.F Skinner and other behaviorists for a treatment of that subject.

But it can also be seen as a form of moral righting of wrongs itself, as balancing things out on some kind of karmic level, and it is here the danger lies. There is no way for a finite intelligence to know if and how the universe is out of balance in a moral sense. Many philosophies posit that the universe can't be out of balance, and most religions say it isn't our place to judge God's creation and plan.

And as far as removing a proven danger from society, I have no problem with that at all. That isn't making a moral judgment, it is making a judgment based on physical safety concerns. Execution I oppose on purely practical grounds, one can never be absolutely certain of a person's guilt. You can't know if you might need them some day. And you can't know if someone can be rehabilitated and made a useful member of society, so it pays to keep people around.

Re:Quick Tip About Kids

[Eivind]

This is factually wrong. It -is- true that you aren't allowed to strike anyone, child or not. But there are exceptions, one of them is to avoid larger consequences, be it in self-defence or in defence of others.

There are -lots- of things you aren't allowed to do, generally, but which is nevertheless perfectly LEGAL in an emergency.

For example, normally you can't trespass. Guess what, if a house is burning and you smash trough a window to search for people in the house -- you're NOT guilty of trespass. (also not "destruction of property" for breaking the window or similar)