Slashdot Mirror
Police Officers Seek Right Not To Be Recorded
linzeal writes "When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop. Judges, juries, and legislatures support the police overwhelmingly on this issue, with only a few cases where those accused of 'shooting' the cops being vindicated through the courts."
and the general apathetic public sleeps soundly.
When teachers didn't want to be tested as they claimed that testing was a poor indicator of someone ability. Go Figure.
Record anyways. Even if it gets to the point where video evidence a flagrant abuse of power becomes inadmissible, it's potential value in stirring public outcry far outstrips any consequences associated with the establishment seeking to restrict the publics use of video recording and their public servants.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
But I thought that people with nothing to hide had no reason to worry about surveillance? Does that mean that this statement is wrong, or does it mean the police have something to hide?
"But this one goes to 11!"
nearby police action. Thanks for your cooperation citizen, now pick up that can!
have the privilege of turning the telescreens off.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
While I'm sure some(most) of this sentiment is created by media exaggeration and selective reporting, cops have the persona of themselves being above the law.
A movement to remove recording them will only serve to propagate that idea, and remove one of the only tools that civilians have to combat any police abuse.
My other sig is clever.
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
Bureaucratic mother fuckers.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
And I'm sure getting rid of probable cause makes their jobs easier too. I guess I don't want their jobs to be easy. I want their jobs to be really fucking hard. That's what you get along with a badge and a gun... scrutiny. At least, that's what should happen but rarely does.
After all, if you have nothing to hide Mr. Office Sir, what's the big deal?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Judges, juries and legislatures support the police overwhelmingly on this issue
Honestly, why? What possible legitimate reason do the police have for wanting to keep things (at least things outside the station) off camera?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If this happens, who will watch the Watchmen?
Living With a Nerd
And now only the criminals will have video cameras
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
There's a lot of reasons why you can't point a gun at a cop.
There isn't a lot of drawback for a cop pointing his gun at you. (Filling out some paperwork)
While most people have become fine with that for weapons, the fundamental difference is that a Camera is not lethal. There is absolutely NO reason why Cops shouldn't be under the same scrutiny as the general public, and if they are allowed to use dashboard cameras, security surveilance, and whatever else at their disposal to help convict a criminal - then the populace should have the same ability at their disposal to defend themselves. Think of it as the right to bear arms.
So it seem one can avoid prosecution (persecution?) by setting up a tripod and a few lights and making it real clear they are recording?
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
If the entire, unedited video is posted I don't have a problem with recording. But if only selected portions are shown with the intention of embarrassing someone, it seems like a either libel or harassment (IANAL, so I don't know for sure). In general I believe that you can't record audio, because there is an expectation of privacy there.
held accountable for "violating" the same laws when they record citizens behavior without their consent for use as evidence. But somehow when it's a cop being taped, it's an illegal "unconsented" recording and people are going to jail.
This will be fair when those doing surveillance recording for law enforcement can also be sent to prison for recording in public places without individual consent. Until then, it's one more example of the way in which cops are increasingly generally subpar people, recruited from the less educated and less successful demographics of society, eager to hold a gun, and drawn to the profession precisely because they feel powerless in other areas of their life as a result of their general lack of merit, and thus need to abuse citizens in order to compensate for this lack.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The old joke is "How many cops does it take to push a suspect down the stairs? None, he slipped."
With a video camera he wouldn't have gone down the stairs.
While I understand the idea of being made nervous when a camera is pointed at me, I think its hypocritical sp? of them to have cameras on the public but object if the reverse happens. I've seen a few obvious gross abuses of authority on the part of police. Its not all that common but it happens and to outlaw John Q. Victim's only defense against criminals in authority is a crime in itself. If they don't want to be recorded, they may be hiding something.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
... that if a camera is like a gun, we can plead the 2nd amendment when things go wrong.
And people complain about Miranda rights. Miranda rights exist because of abusive cops.
But don't...
The police and the courts should bear the following in mind when considering the recordings:
"If the police are doing nothing wrong, then they have absolutely nothing to fear from being recorded".
Unfortunately the "recording" of police should not be left entirely to police owned CCTV systems. Because those systems can malfunction at the most inconvenient times, causing the images to disappear right when, for example, someone called Charles de Menezes gets shot in the head for his crime of wearing a jacket on a warm day.
While the police have a job to do, and most of them do a damned good one at that; they are still human beings. And as such not infallible and not immune to all sorts of temptation - from wrongly kicking someone in the face who probably deserved it (but deserving has no place in law), to covering one's or one's buddy's ass in an ugly situation, these things can and DO happen. People should not be punished for recording something that is happening - especially in a public place or in the privacy of the recorder's own home. The Romans coined the saying: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The government cannot be trusted blindly. There lies the path to tyranny.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
All states with heavy Democratic majorities in both Executive and Legislative branches. Still more Hope and Change...
Eventually such laws will end up before the supreme court in a first amendment (freedom of speech) test.
Then (hopefully) it will fail the constitutionality test.
If they don't want to be recorded, they may be hiding something.
Now now, be careful with that sword, it's double-edged.
When somebody invokes the authority of law enforcement, they assume the responsibility, too.
This person has the potential to protect and serve those over whom he exercise authority.
When somebody invokes the authority, but denies the responsibility and accountability, this is a situation with a "high potential for abuse."
This person has no potential to protect or serve. Only to abuse.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
This over the ear video unit is being used by some San Jose, CA cops after they beat the living crap out of a Vietnamese foreign exchange student who is suing for 6 million dollars now.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
From TFA: The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.
The 1st justification seems a somewhat convenient convergence of privacy laws with the intention of the police case, about the first time it's been argued in the police's favour. Given that they're usually opposed, how's that going to sit with the court? The second: Is that even an argument? If the objective is the truth, can addtional video evidence that hasn't been censored or tampered with in some way be argued to be a bad thing? There is a long record of cases being blown by the prosecution or law enforcement restricting the availability of evidence that is not the the benefit of the case they are making. How, if CCTV or police surveillance is to be admitted can we argue that similar evidence collected by a member of the public can not?
They took away Simon. Wasn't he the whole point of the show?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wonder if it would work in court.
Your honer, I did not consent to the traffic camera taking my picture as I ran that red light and move that the evidence be thrown out.
Same for the camera footage in the cops car? Wonder if it is automatic consent if the cop has a camera in his car?
then they have nothing to fear.
also prefer not to be on camera should we oblige them as well? as far as i'm concerned a camera in plain view in a public place can roll all it wants
If it's okay for them to videotape me in public, then it's okay for me to videotape them.
This is one of the most ass-backwards things I've ever heard of.
$ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
(Please dont mod me down, I am just a messenger)
When you point a camera, it is not just a passive device recording events. Instead, it can actually influence the events that it is recording. A witness at a crime scene may be hesitant to say exactly what he or she thinks because he knows the neighbors may see it. People may run away or refuse to come forward because they are afraid that they will be identified later on television and thus could become the victims of a crime. A lot of things happen in police encounters and sometimes a camera can have a chilling effect on the proceedings. Sometimes the influence of camera presence can benefit society by keeping police abuses in check. Sometimes it can be a harm.
Personally, I think the police officers only have their own benefit in mind when they ask for a ban on cameras.
In the Mass. Supreme Court case, there was a conviction for a person recording a police stop. The finding that it was illegal under Mass. law was upheld, but one of the comments from the Supreme Court stated there should be an exception and recording of police on duty should be allowed to be recorded.
Fight Spammers!
Like hordes of other Slashdotters, I learned logic from Richard Garfield's MTG.
"Your honor, I'd like to call Douglas Hofstadter to the stand." ...
Judge: "Why is he relevant?"
"He's an expert witness on Self-Referential paradoxes."
Douglas starts thinking:
"... Hm. If someone starts recording a site, they don't yet know if a police officer is going to enter that site for an incident that has not yet happened. Therefore are we getting into unmanned camera law?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm not surprised. This is generally a group of people who understand things, not people who just scream and rant and pitch a fit when they don't get their way.
Police -are- there to protect us. It's what we pay them for. Some of them go bad. Some of them make major mistakes. We need to protect against that. But 'fuck the police' is not an answer to the problem.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
The ACLU has taken at least two cases in that area.
The Maryland motorcycle case: "This prosecution by the Maryland State Police and Harford County State's Attorney is profoundly dangerous, and seems meant to intimidate people from making a record of what public officials do," said David Rocah, Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Maryland. "It is hard to imagine anything more antithetical to a democracy than for the government to tell its citizens that they do not have the right to record what government officials say or do or how they behave."
The video is on YouTube.
And yet when I complained the school district was illegally audio and video taping my daughter on the bus without our knowledge or consent, their response was "Oh no, that's perfectly legal -- everybody does it!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Right. That's why cops have video recorders in their cars. That's why cops have flashlights with video recording capability.
Sauce, goose, gander.
Show me a single case in the past 10 years where a police officer's family was killed by anyone besides the officer himself.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
... then they shouldn't have anything to hide. Isn't that what they keep telling us as a lame ass excuse for fluching privacy down the toilet? Shit or get off the pot you f'ing hypocrites.
this is why you record them from a distance without their knowledge.
The cop is less likely to smash some heads if you have a camera on him.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Part of the issue is that police officers rely on their intimidation as a tool, and being filmed makes that a lot harder to use.
Police regularly deal with unsavory characters who lie easily, sometimes know the relevant law, or have nothing to lose, and the threatening presence of a police officer (physically imposing, assertive, suspicious and armed) is a useful tool to put the people they're talking to at a disadvantage.
If police are filmed routinely (e.g. we all carry a Schneier Life Recorder) - setting aside outright murder, corruption and cover-ups, even standard practice becomes potentially embarrassing ("YouTube: Cops harass my 17 year-old daughter!"), and anything borderline could easily turn into a career-limiting stink.
No doubt this would make police uncomfortable.
If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear....isn't that correct?
I'm sure that playing this every night on the news would prevent this measure from becoming law. Cameras are either good or bad, the police can't have it both ways.
Nullius in verba
Hey, it worked for the Cold War, so how about using it here?
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
This is the worst possible situation. There should be no protection for police that assault people illegally.
The simple solution is for police officers to always assume they are on camera and obey the fucking law.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
No sir.. Those in positions of authority deserve no such protections... The Sword of Damocles hangs over their heads, where it belongs.
I once interviewed an old German immigrant who had lived in Nazi Germany during WWII. Ask him which of our freedoms is the most precious in America, and he will emphatically tell you that it's freedom of the press (I was expecting the right to bear arms or vote). But even a tyrant needs public opinion to some extent. And the easiest way to get that is to control what gets recorded and distributed and what doesn't.
The reaction is because of the Code of silence. Lying for your fellow officer is a lot more dangerous when there might be video showing that you're all lying.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Your country has a joke of a legal system. Soon mandatory ID fucking police state. When I was a kid I was brought up to think America was a land of free and brave people. What a fucking joke. You guys need some sixties again cuz your one fucking step past McCarthyism already. So fucking corrupt the stink is hard to bare.
If you're out in public where anyone can point a camera at you, it's the truth. There's a difference between what you do behind closed curtains being private and what you do on a public street being private. If a cop loses his shit and decides to beat your ass down for talking back to him in the middle of a public place, why should he think he should be immune from being recorded?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
In most states, audio free video is legal without consent.
It's audio surveillance hat has a federal expectation of privacy.
So, if the video has no audio, how can the eavesdropping/wiretapping law apply?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
We live in a big brother society. Everywhere you go, you are on camera. My city just installed cameras at every intersection, stating it was to help traffic flow analysis, and oh yeah it will also issue speeding an red light photo tickets. Now we are a small city so this was easy to do, but so far, traffic patterns seem the same, but there are a lot more flashes at the intersections now. But more importantly, did you consent to being filmed? I can even pull up the AMA website and watch and capture video from some of these video feeds. I dont remember allowing myself to be filmed.
Walk into a store, look up, again you are being captured on video. Did you consent to that?
Now try this, take your video camera, put it on your shoulder and walk into the local police station... Or even stand outside and take a picture. Google was able to do this all over north america, but I will bet if you stand out there filming for 10 min, you will be asked to leave.
At some point we have given up our right, if we ever really had one, to not be filmed without our consent. At one point, it might have been because we were still reasonably anonymous. Now with a few searches through facebook, I can get an awful lot of pictures to cross reference with my video.
And now the police are saying they should be exempt from all of this video. Fact is we live in a video captured society, and it is getting worse. I remember reading in a novel about a society that had every moment of their lives recored. This was held in a secure private data facility, and only accessed if a crime was committed. I see us heading in that direction.
Lastly, the police have a hard enough time keeping up with catching the criminals. I am on the side of if you are doing nothing wrong, what does it matter. That is why I dont worry about the store video camera, im not stealing. Yes partial editing or videos can be used, but then they are also taken in context.
I am sure...
Police arrest suspect.
Suspect strikes officer.
bystander starts filming.
police strike back, wrestle suspect to ground and handcuff.
Suspect gets video and charges police.
Would a judger really not take into account that the video started 1/2 way through an incident? And if the media started to sensationalize then its time to charge the media!
In fact in this situation, the police could turn around and use the video to support thier argument that they used "reasonable force". UNLESS they decided on a little payback for the the first hit. But then the police themselfs have sunk to the level of a street gang.
We live in a recorded society. Learn to make home movies or really good disguises.
No, seriously. They have a product that the cop wears to record their actions, it features a secure chain of evidence:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4271213
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERAXON.aspx
That doesn't stop Officer Smash from breaking the camera, but he would have to explain why the camera broke just before the unarmed suspect was shot multiple times.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Why should the police be allowed to beat, shoot, taze, kill, and arrest citizens... and do it all without the public having a right to witness and document it?
The police work for us. The citizen is their boss. We pay their salaries. We allow them to uphold the law. We as their boss, should have every right to make sure they do so, lawfully.
This is very scary. If the police have the right to not be filmed, then expect all kinds of abuses of the law to go unchallenged.
Do you think Rodney King would have had a case if not for the video?
How about the recent incident of the SWAT team storming some guys house, shooting his dogs in front of little children, dogs that were restrained and posed no harm. Feel free to youtube the highly disturbing video.
Do you trust the police to be honest when they are faced with jail time for abuses of power? Its a fact that cops stick together.
We the people have every right to protect ourselves from the government. A right to a fair trial. How can we have a fair trial when we are not allowed to document police actions?
The only reason for this is the abuse of power. They are paid by the public, so their actions should be owned by the public.
If you want to get good video quality in most lighting conditions and to be able to zoom in and catch cops doing their thing from a distance that makes it obvious who they are then you need to buy a good video camera.
Canon GL-1 and GL-2 are really good for this and are rather cheap in the used market for a near broadcast quality DV camera. you do not want HD because HD is not good in low light, and you want optical image stabilization with a long zoom. keep a tape recorded with junk on it in your pocket, and if you are chased by police, press eject, swap tapes, and ditch the good tape in a nearby bush or other items. If recording from a few hundred feet away, you will have a lot of time to do this and can plausibly act like you did not hear the cop.
If your video is good enough for TV broadcast, lots of tv stations will play it. plus when put on youtube it helps incriminate the officer as more details can be seen.
Stay a few hundred feet from the cops and you have not only time to ditch them, but they cant identify you. dress dark if at night, dress in drab colors if daytime... dont stand out.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I doubt there is any way to stop the people recording law enforcement in public, in the line of duty. This is legally distinct compared with recording activities inside the police station. Equipping cruisers and other vehicles with a Google Street-View type camera system would assist all parties in interactions. And proper software for combining video would also allow for unprecedented scene imaging. For the record.
This is so outrageous I can't even begin to enumerate why. Cops have cameras in their cars for traffic stops.. I damn sure didn't agree to THAT video being taken....I live in Lancaster county, and all of downtown is now under video surveillance, and I DAMN sure didn't agree to that. By this screwed up interpretation, every single day thousands of 'violations' occur, every time someone shoots a frame of film with a police officer in it. I do feel for the officers on duty, they have an almost impossible job to perform, but that does not exempt them from the same rules that govern the rest of us. This is just one more way a perfectly law-abiding citizen can end up in trouble with the law by doing absolutely nothing wrong. I would imagine the paparazzi are shaking in their boots, I don't think ANY of the shots they take were done w/ the permission of the celebrities they hound. The possible abuses of this kind of interpretation are endless....
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
Is it possible that our keepers want a complete lack of accountability? In that case, I want no traffic cameras and other municipal surveillance. Law enforcement officers are human, humans with power. As such there needs to be checks and balances. Without these we become a police state and the true power comes form those who wield it without accountability. If the police get their wish and can act as they see fit with no accountability, I might as well move to China... the food leaves a bit to be desired, but 20 years from now they will enjoy more freedoms than we will.
If this passes in 'two party consent' states. I'd start filing lawsuits against the traffic cameras. They didn't have your consent to take your picture. Depending on how letter of the law the judge reads this, they may become illegal.
People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.
--V for Vendetta
I have a bad feeling about this...
It is double-edged yes. It's just the other edge is already in your err... face.
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
But they also have the double-standard backward. We, the public are entitled to privacy, while the government should be transparent. It is a double standard, by design, and they have it completely backward.
Nano-itx carpc with WWAN IP bound to a dyndns account running FTP or shell access would be a good start.
Check it out..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
A lot of things happen in police encounters and sometimes a camera can have a chilling effect on the proceedings.
Funny, coming from a cop. A camera's "chilling effect on proceedings" pales in comparison to a police officer's.
Black lawmakers want to limit new ethics office
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100602/D9G3AVUO0.html
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Well Oxford defines a terrorist as:
terrorist: noun: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims
So the judges, juries and police officers are threatening citizen with jail time for observing there constitutional right to Freedom of the Press? Of course the media will never cover this as they see sites like you tube as a potential threat to their business model. If I see a cop breaking the law, you bet your ass the world will see it on youtube within 24 hours. As it's was published on youtube, that would certainly mean it was covered by freedom of the press. Charge me with illegal wiretapping or what ever bullshit you excuse you want, and I will do every thing in my power and beyond to see that your are held accountable for your act's of Treason and Terrorism. "There are many fates far worse than death", and Slashdotters can do all of them.
YouTube link to the irate caller who didn't like them to interrupt the season finale with a tornado warning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJdhmsfbPg&feature=player_embedded/
Fuck no. You don’t know what blackmail means.
If I ever taped the cops in behaviour that would negatively impact their public image, you can bet your last dollar that I won’t take it to the police, courts, or any such other thing. I’d go straight to the media.
That’s not blackmail. Blackmail would be if I anonymously mailed a copy to the department chief and told them that $10,000 in unmarked bills would keep it out of the evening news, and that would be unquestionably illegal. Straight-up putting it in the evening news, though, is fully legal and exactly what I’d be doing as soon as possible.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The whole fscking world is so rapdily turning into a panopticonist police state regardless of zip latitude/longitude, at this point I would almost welcome a massive stroke or coronary as long as it did me in proper and full. Seriously, what's the point of maintaining one's health (physical or otherwise) if the only long-term reward is going to be imprisonment (physical or otherwise)?
That sounds like a fair point. What about a distance limit, then? For example, you can't film within 15 meters of a crime scene or a policeman. That way, you don't bring danger to yourself or to strangers by bringing the camera uncomfortably close to the subject, but you can catch clear abuses of power.
This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
...as public officials, anything they do while on the clock is public record, and should be recordable by any means at any time. There is no sound logic or reason why they should be able to record us at will, but not the other way around.
People need to stop cowing to these people, and put them back in their place as workers for the public at large, not keepers of the public at large. They are elected officials, not elected rulers. We have given up far too much authority and power to all of these agencies, and they are abusing the shit out of it.
Sadly, I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon, the youth and young adults of today are far too enamored with self importance and giving up all kinds of information with stupid crap like twitter and the like. Lambs to the slaughter they are, and they blindly/happily march straight to the slaughterhouse.
Hello, is that you, Dr. Heisenberg?
Well for starters it is a cultural reference. Second even good cops are not there to protect "us". True all of the blame can't be put on the police officers that enforce the law, since some idiot had to write it first. But arresting children for schoolyard brawls is not protecting anyone, it is ruining their lives. Arresting drug users who were otherwise productive members of society is ruining their lives. Stealing people's cars because an idiot passenger of theirs had drugs on them isn't protecting anyone. Sitting on the side of the highway taxing people at a whim isn't protecting anyone.
Police do more harm than good in society. The only good thing they do is act as a deterrent for really bad behavior. It is nice knowing that after someone murders me (which the police won't be able to stop) that IF that person is caught they may spend 10 years in jail. So they at least serve a purpose as a deterrent. Then again all that I've ever been on the "good" side of the law was when my house was robbed and they filled out a police report for insurance purposes. The time before that when my parents house was robbed, they accused me of doing it because when the officer questioned me I didn't look him in the eye. Ass holes.
I watched half my friends in High School serve time in Juvee for drug possession, they were honor roll students and turned out just fine. The cops do nothing but harass. Can't even jump off a freaking bridge into the river without the police showing up to harass people.
You know a lot of it isn't the officer's fault, I get that, but for God's sake sometimes its better to just leave people alone. I haven't even gotten into all the dirty shit they do, just the legit things that don't make sense.
Really if you don't have money to defend yourself the entire law enforcement system walks all over you. I've watched people all around me get abused by the system, luckily for me I've kept my head down and all my courtroom experience is for speeding. The poor people in the courtroom, they are clueless. The entire system is set up to get you to pay your fine as quickly as possible, the forms even threaten you with jail time if you're found guilty - for a speeding ticket. You've got to have a lot of balls and character to see an invalid ticket to the end. They threaten and harass you throughout the entire process, they delay hearings hoping you'll give up. It is a total sham. Police are modern highway robbers and thugs. Occasionally they'll hit you with a lesser charge to make it look like they are being the good guy, but they never just let you off. They always have to be proven right, even with minor charges.
Hell they even arrest good Samaritans, try to find the owner of one of the bait cars to prevent auto theft and actually enter the car and you're busted for auto theft. Doesn't matter that you called the police 4 times asking them to investigate the strange car left in front of your apartment.
So when I say "FUCK THE POLICE" I mean it. I have a lot of resentment for what I've seen as a systemic abuse of power and lack of common sense when dealing with the public and especially the socially challenged.
BTW - Since you think the police are their to protect you, if they ever knock on your door, be sure to let them right in. If they happen to see an antique shotgun, prescription pills, alcohol with children present, porography of 18 year old girls, you name it they will no longer be trying to protect you. Also when they question you at an accident, because you had a rolling stop at a stop sign, or the most common speeding (which they can apparently tell just by looking). Tell me that they are there to protect you. The police protect through fear and intimidation, nothing else. There are no carrots, only sticks, and sticks with minimum sentences, because judges and juries can't decide that a crime was an accident, but still a crime and should only have 6 months instead of 20 years. So yeah, FUCK THE POLICE.
Oh, and you be
I want to be the person that records the people recording the police officers, that way everyone can be certain the people recording the police haven't edited the video or left out them provoking law enforcement.
Just pass a Federal law that says (subject to copyright limitations -- STFU, on any anti-copyright trolling, this isn't the place) that anything in any public-visible area may be recorded. A parking lot? A street corner? Front vestibule? My front yard? If the ABC or NBC news cameras can air it on television, ANYONE can record it. Pass that law, and specify that anyone in the space is fair game. Simple wording, and done.
Dude, where's my packet?
At the beginning of every encounter with law enforcement, clearly utter the simple phrase "You are being recorded." (Regardless of whether or not you actually have a recording device.) If they continue the encounter, they are obviously consenting to being recorded, and you are obviously not in violation of any wiretap laws.
It would be interesting to see if these states slap the same penalties on someone for making a "nannycam" video of their babysitter and catching them abusing their child -- obviously the babysitter has an expectation of privacy when they are in someone's home slapping an infant around!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
why should he think he should be immune from being recorded?
Because he's a cop silly. The whole reason he became a cop is to have special privileges.
First off, how can juries be in favor of something or not? Last time I checked juries are selected at the time of trials. So how can this be used as a point at all?
Second, aren't the police public servants performing their duty in circumstances not considered to be "private"? At least if it's happening on the street? That's in the public eye and therefore is allowed to be photographed/taped. I believe that's the same reason that releases aren't needed for photographs/videotapes taken when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Such as being pulled over by a police officer on a public street.
The second point is the most troubling to me. If I happen to be videotaping an event that has nothing to do with the police officers in the background does that make the entire process illegal? Or is it only when the police event is the main focus? Sounds like a slippery slope regarding what the intention of the person doing the recording was at the time.
Dash mounted cameras and their resulting video are in the possession of the very people who might be performing illegal actions and I believe those are admissible in court. Doesn't that indicate some sort of bias when it comes to trying to prosecute those people?
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these issues and how they can be intertwined will come along and explain how it can work and be fair.
I have been reading recently about what seems to me to be a disturbing trend by police agencies, prosecutors and legislatures to criminalize the ability of a citizen to record a police interaction. This is but one example: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/
While I strongly support the Sherriff and the other police agencies in Arizona, corrupt officers are not unheard of, and I strongly reject the notion that a citizen recording any interaction with any official of the state should be criminal.
What is your position on this issue and what can we do to prevent such onerous laws, such as they have in Massachusetts for example, from becoming law here?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Shouldn't the family that recorded this be facing the very same charges as someone who records police?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I don't think the situation is symmetrical. The whole point of our post-Enlightenment traditions in the West has been the understanding that Authority, if left unchecked, will naturally tend towards abuse. The Police, in all their forms throughout the ages, have always been the most visible aspect of abusive Authority. The ability of the citizen to make his fellow citizens aware of abuses by Authority is key to the preservation of liberal democratic values. If you give the Authorities any sort of free pass on this, you simply invite them to do their worst. If you catch them doing their worst (ie. we just had the fortieth anniversary of the Kent State Shootings), then there is some capacity to assure some degree of justice, and more importantly for the Authorities to moderate their own behaviors.
I'm not saying all cops beat perps, in fact I'm fairly certain that most cops are decent men and women who become police officers out of a sense of duty and a desire to protect society. But even the best cops can fall victim to the us-vs-them that inevitably occurs in such an organization. Once you have that, then they start to view a much broader swathe of society than just bad guys as being the "them".
Of course the police don't want to be recorded. In some respects it can interfere, because they may spend as much time worrying about whether swinging that baton may be seen as they do about public safety and even their own safety. But what's the alternative? If we first agree that society has a vested interest in assuring the good and proper conduct of the police, then it strikes me that bans on recording them are utterly incompatible with that notion. Liberty requires constant vigilance and what they're asking is that a tool of the vigilant be removed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Isn't the response of the law-and-order types to privacy complaints "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"? So if the police have nothing to hide they have nothing to complain about. In fact they could be helped in case someone makes a false claim against them.
The only real motivation they have is that they want to hide their actions. They are public employees and the public has a right to watch them.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
If you ride the Amtrak Southwest Chief from LA to Chicago, and are a white/hispanic male in coach, you will be stopped in Albuquerque, and your belongings searched (because you're obviously smuggling meth).
I had recently, just before my trip, read a bit on slashdot about people being stopped in Amtrak terminals for taking pictures, and being an artist, was duely pissed at that.
At Albuquerque, there were a couple of rail cops who stopped all of the above mentioned groups coming off the train, I was respectful, addressed him as sir, kept my hands in plain sight...
so when the officer asked if I had any weapons, I jokingly said "just a camera"...
Spent the next 15 minutes handcuffed, sitting on a rail with his partner looking like he was ready to kick me in the teeth while the first officer meticulously went through my baggage.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a vid of that should have been worth a few million dollars.
Instead I'm left with a funny story to tell people one of the reasons when they ask, why I don't explicitly trust cops.
(I do know some good cops, lots of them, but there's always "that guy" that fucks it up for them).
It already exists, its called Rate My Cop from the article.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
But the security cams can't be turned off from here. Live with it.
Have gnu, will travel.
The "protection from bogus accusations" is why the police have dash cameras, etc. There's a tv show that airs a sloppy drunk woman who later tried to say the cop sexually assaulted her, when it was pretty obvious she just couldn't stand. If footage shows abuses by the cops, oh no it's a different story. And the cops/prosecutors/judges all cover for each other, I think there was a newscast (or maybe just a youtube vid) recently that showed the abuses some guy received when he simply asked about filing a complaint against a cop.
I agree with the police and the courts. Police should be protected from recordings from the public. People don't think of the repercussions.
The officers that beat up Rodney King were clearly acting in self defense. There would be no other reason for the many blows with batons. These were upstanding officers. The camera did them injustice because they were clearly in the right. I think Mr. King had a bazooka strung on his back, or maybe it was an M16 under his sock. These are just minor details anyways. These were all things the officers saw and the camera really didn't pick up well anyways.
Tazering teenagers, senior citizens, mentally ill people there's nothing wrong with that.
This video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865# demonstates that interviews with police officers can easily be taken out of context. They are clearly acting in your best interest. Afterall, in these interviews, they may be able to have you admit to crimes you weren't aware of. This is clearly in your and your neighbor's best interests - it helps keep crime rates down.
I think the lobbing power of "COPS (filmed on location with the men and women of lawwwwwwwenforcment)" will defeat this hands down cold.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Fine no video = no ticket also then the jury will less to act on and jury reasonable doubt about why the video was missing / not on / why did the cop ask for it to be turned off?
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win. Being recorded takes away the possibility of getting away with abuse by just saying it ain't so. That's *a lot* to lose (for the cops).
So now they are working on making it illegal to prove that they lied by recording their actions.
Just imagine what the police report would've looked like for the BART shootings if there was no video capturing the event. Or the countless beatings, using tazers to torture etc.
Some police brutality on the tube for your viewing pleasure.
An earlier poster described police as "Unelected Thugs", which I do think is unfair to the police. When 90% the people you deal with professionally on a day to day basis are truly reprehensible lying shit bags, it is difficult to treat anyone else you deal with professionally with any amount of respect. This does not make such things excusable, but it is the reality of the situation.
Also keep in mind that not everyone is going to submit quietly to arrest, and when the police do use force, there is absolutely no way it will look good on camera.
Having said that, I do think that it would be a good idea for police to be recorded during every moment that they interact with the public. Doing this will do a great deal to protect the rights of those the police interact with, and protect the police from false accusations.
END COMMUNICATION
1 change the rules involved so that if a recording is not available the cops "lose"
2 require that any recording to be used as evidence (if provided to the police) have a copy given to the person that did the recording
3 require that the officer involved personally replace any video equipment and media that gets damaged during an arrest (replacement cost not depreciated cost or wholesale cost)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Just give the police a better recorder! A camera, microphone, radar, quantum flux detector, or whatever mounted where most appropriate like the head for a camera and microphone. This information becomes a public record of the event. Let people record what occurs when police interact with them! The police will also have their own impartial witness to the event. If you ever go to court the individual with the better information wins! Solved.
Shh.
Right now, there aren't going to be a lot of people that have heard of this kind of legislation. Of those that have heard it, the typical response will be, "Well it's not my state."
So, as vigilant citizens of America, I consider this to be a call to arms, metaphorically speaking. Rather than go pick up our guns and join in ranks of various bat-shit insane militia parties, how's about we all go buy cameras instead? For a couple hundred bucks, we can all get easily operated, simple, sturdy video cameras that we can start carrying with us. While some of us may not have that kind of money, I would wager that quite a few 'dotters do. So, as citizens of this society, I would suggest that, if you can swing it, you do some research, cough up $300 bucks, and buy yourself a nice, simple, mobile video camera. To get you started on the research end, look into hero cameras and flip cameras. I am sure there are better models out there, but I don't know of them yet.
Anyways, once you have your nice, new, shiny video camera, carry it with you in your car or on your bike everywhere you go. If you end up having some interaction with a police officer, simply place the camera discreetly on your dash board or in an empty seat or some such thing and turn it on. Video tape every interaction that you have with any police officer over every issue, no matter how trivial the matter seems. If this is done often enough, by enough citizens, the videos captured will start percolating onto the internet. The cops that do end up abusing their power on camera will be revealed in large quantities. More and more citizens, both intelligent and unintelligent, will begin to understand the problems caused by making it illegal to tape figures in a position of authority. There will be a public outcry and we will see laws like this repealed.
So, I say that now, we citizens of all 50 United States must take a stand and peacefully disobey such ridiculous notions that police officers cannot be video taped in public. If we all start doing this, even in states where it is still legal to video tape officers, this kind of legislation will come to the spotlight and the public will scream. This sort of vigilance and action is our duty, in my humble opinion.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
But it needs to go both ways. GET RID OF TRAFFIC CAMERA'S FIRST. You record us, and ask not to be recorded? That's so funny.
Is it though? Is the workplace really private? How many millions of workers already have cameras pointed at them throughout the day, or most of the day? Every worker in retail, every worker in restaurants, most workers in office buildings. You'd almost have to ask "how many regular workers DONT have cameras pointed at them".
If this many workers are already being recorded in the workplace, I think police officers would be one of the LAST workers we would want to take cameras off of. As much for the officers' defense and pursuit of criminals as for prosecuting officers for wrongdoing.
How will that prevent said head-smashing if you are far away and recording him without his knowledge?
Surely this issue can be settled by appealing to ever greater heights in the judicial system.
Even if the SCOTUS handed down an adverse ruling it would at least shine sunlight on the issue.
The cops work for me. I, the citizen, call the shots. Wake up people, tell your local organized criminal cops to take a hike because this is YOUR country, not theirs. I'm fed up with all the pussies who surround me with their whining and bitching. Be part of the solution.
The first category are clearly a tiny minority, or the second wouldn't be tolerated.
As for the third, they're closer to the second than they'd like to think.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
>leftist
??
I think you put your hands on backwards this morning.
Performing your state-sponsored job duties in public spaces, on the other hand, is quite different.
I realize the absurdity of that, but the broadcasters NEVER interrupt commercials, they always interrupt the content that we are given in metered doses between "product indoctrination sessions"
Sheldon
It's can also be shown that people are more likely to lie when being questioned by the cops.
Should we not permit cops to conduct questioning?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Shouldn't storage, cameras and batteries be getting good enough to record a whole day?
I say fit all the police officers with cameras and have the case relevant information stored. Selecting which parts of the days video to use is done by a supervised independent party.
Leaving no room for word against word. Just check the videos, cops seldom work alone.
Should also make for higher court throughput and less people getting harassed because the cop can get away with it when he is cranky.
Cameras in general should also be welcomed because it cuts through the bs.
4 - add a rule that any sign of tampering with the video renders the video as "not available", thus automatically rule 1
Insert
The public pays the salary of public servants, like policemen. You don't get privacy from your boss checking up on your work, especially when interacting with a client. Furthermore, anyone entrusted with the use of lethal force should be held to the highest standards. Personally, I trust the police (in general), but I'd like to constantly verify that they're worthy of that trust, and eliminate the ones that are not.
this is why you record them from a distance without their knowledge.
The cop is less likely to smash some heads if you have a camera on him.
Is there any reason that two directly contradicting statements get modded insightful not once, but twice?
How is the cop less likely to smash some heads if you are recording from a distance without their knowledge
?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Apparently cops are unlike all others in that the truth will not set them free. As cops are a part of government my premise that no government can live in honesty is pretty much being proven. Governments are like fungus. They prefer a dark place to do their thing.
If it is held up in a court of law that both parties must consent to being recorded, then I say all in-car police cameras must be ripped out and destroyed. I don't think I ever remember a police officer asking me if it's ok for his in-cab camera to record me as he pulls me over.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
These people are public SERVANTS. They need to be held accountable more, not less than the average citizen. Otherwise we continue this slide down to a authoritarian society. All any officer needs these days to invade your personal property is "probable cause" loosely defined and even less defensible such as a broken tail light. I don't need to describe this do I?
Police are not to protect, they are there to toss your ass in jail. That is it.
consequently all traffic, speed and red light cameras in those 12 states must now also be illegal as they don't seek the consent of the driver and all passengers prior to filming.
Or, more appropriately for this story, we just had the 40th anniversary of the Jackson State shootings as well.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
While I don't disagree with any point of yours particularly, I would like to mention that trust is something that should be earned. I don't automatically assume that any random stranger is somebody I can trust. I don't trust, immediately, a person as soon as I shake their hand. As I get to know somebody new, and as I watch them interact with myself and others, I can formulate an opinion about them in one way or another. Through such observation of their actions, I can determine whether or not that person can be trusted by myself.
So far, such scrutiny has been a very useful tool in preventing myself from getting completely boned (that's not to say that I haven't been boned before, but it does help). So, my standing theory regarding trust is that, if you want my trust, you have to earn it by demonstrating yourself to be a respectable person.
I hold my government officials and police officers to the same standard. If they want my trust, they damn well better earn it. If a police officer that stops me for a traffic violation wants me to respect and trust him, he needs to demonstrate to me, at least to some extent, that he is not a total douchebag. If he is not capable of doing this, I will mark his name and badge number down and file that information away for my own purposes if the issue of my trust in him is ever raised again (such as, perhaps, in court or in a future interaction). That's not to say that I will be belligerent, merely that I do expect those in a position of authority to demonstrate their right to be their. They have to earn that position. They have to earn that badge. They have to earn that authority.
That said, yes, at some point we do have to trust some part of our government. That does not mean we have to trust the individuals working in that part of the government. That does not mean those individuals are exempt from the constant effort of earning said trust. Asking to not be video taped is a good way to lose credibility in my view. It just serves my opinion that the police, along with many other government employees, truly cannot be trusted. Does this mean that I think our government should fall or that our society is a house of cards? No. It simply means that my trust does not lie, implicitly, in the individuals that make up our government. Rather, my trust lies in a set of ideals that are used to check the government and the respective employees of the government (checks and balances, the right to vote, jury duty, and so on...you know, all that stuff in the constitution).
So yes, we do have to start trusting in our government somewhere. However, that trust does not have to be given blindly on faith, nor does it have to lay in the individuals holding power in the government. Rather, our trust should, in my opinion, be placed in the ideals that were meant to establish a government which is governed by the people. Legislation that prevents the documentation (even if it is biased documentation) of public interactions with figures of authority is not going to earn my trust (nor, I suspect, the trust of many other citizens). Acting in a respectful manner, and allowing yourself to be video taped (open yourself, knowingly, to public scrutiny) is a very powerful way to gain my trust. The courts, juries, and police officers are welcome to choose and support whichever of those two options they want. Suffice it to say, however, that one option will result in my trusting the police more, and one option will result in my trusting the police less. That is one of the many consequences that legislators need to understand when considering this kind of legislation.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
...then I don't want you taking my tax money. It's only fair.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Yes, the first amendment applies to states, counties, etc., but I'm pretty sure you cannot convict a public servant of treason for violating the constitution, otherwise surely we'd have seen one already.
A charge like murder has lesser variants like manslaughter when unintentional. You could argue that a charge like treason should have lesser charges called maybe "offense against freedom" for constitutional violations that were subtle or unknowing. Just like manslaughter never carries the death penalty, an officer who commits the "offense against freedom" of beating up a guy with a camera would merely serve jail time, not be killed.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Adding this situation to the recent SCOTUS decision regarding Miranda rights (a suspect must now clearly voice his decision to remain silent rather than being implicitly silent by his silence...make sense?), where does that put America on the Police State scale?
*sigh*... Mixing metaphors already? Also, I'm not sure if the parable of the Sword of Damocles really portends where the sword belongs.
While I agree with the majority of us (seems like a high percentage of slashdot users are anti-Establishment) that this does seem like a move first made by the SS or the Gestapo, I think there is a fair counterpoint: the sad truth is that YouTube and modern journalism in general can grossly misrepresent accounts of encounters by editing or simply showing a few seconds of footage (Los Angeles 1992 ring any bells?). If a policeman's career can be ruined even by false accusations generated with a cellphone video and a pirated copy of Premiere, and we can all agree that this is wildly unfair treatment for people who actively choose dangerous, low-paid jobs necessary for our society's survival with little or no gratefulness by that society, what is their recourse? A law requiring YouTube and the press to show objective, balanced views of these incidents? Good luck with that.
Since they say recording them is illegal wiretapping, I guess when they make a traffic stop (which is recorded by their vehicle camera, often with audio provided through their radio mic), they are illegally wiretapping during the arrest. Seems pretty simple to me. Since they have set a pretty clear precedent in Illinois that recording an arrest (even for your own defense) is illegal, then it pretty clearly is illegal to record an arrest in support of the prosecution.
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win.
Wow... you have never served on a city jury, have you? Trust me, the cop will be naturally distrusted by a group of twelve of your peers if you live in a major metropolitan area.
http://www.cuapb.org/HomePage.asp
Communities United Against Police Brutality is a non profit organization in Minnesota that has a whole pile of listings from people that have either died or been abused in the hands of Police. I am pretty sure all of the people listed on their site and the families of those affected would have something to say about this ridiculous idea.
I had read about this the other evening and was really disturbed. My first reaction was the tired and cliched "if you're not guilty, then you have nothing to worry about."
The thing to me though, is that after they started putting cameras in police cars it was trumpeted as being such a great thing for the officers. How the cameras have saved so many officers and/or brought criminals to justice, that otherwise may have gotten away with their crimes. Think about all of those shows with police car footage, where someone gets pulled over, shoots a cop, and drives off. The storyline is something like "if it hadn't been for dashboard cameras, this officer's killers may have never been brought to justice."
But things work both ways. There have been some grievous abuses of citizens by the police, that may have never come to light if someone hadn't been there with a camera.
There are good cops and bad cops. I've had encounters with both types. Fortunately for me I've never had my skull cracked open by either. But I feel like, if we don't have the option to record our encounters with law enforcement on the same level that law enforcement has to record their encounters with us, then we are all in trouble. From the police standpoint, I can see the argument that a citizen's recording could be biased or doctored as it doesn't have the same type of safeguards that police footage is supposed to have. But again, this works both ways. I don't know if there is citizen oversight or some type of neutral chain of custody for police dashboard video, but I've heard more than a few accounts (first hand and news stories) of video becoming "lost." To me it's not right that the people in authority are the only ones with a copy of the tape. Citizen or cop, there can be bias and misuse either way, but this can be compensated for by combining videos from both as well as eye-witness accounts to reconcile the stories to gain a more accurate description of events.
In addition to having a camera available mounted in their car, the police also have the option of calling for backup to assist on the scene. As a citizen (I've been arrested before) I've never had the option of calling for backup/witnesses to my arrest. In a one on one encounter with a police officer, who is there to guarantee my safety and tell my side of the story? As far as I've ever experienced when it comes time to go to court, you already have a strike against your credibility because, to have an encounter with the police means that you had to have been doing something to get their attention. What hasn't really been brought up is why you've gotten their attention. Did you actually do something to warrant their attention or did the officer have you pegged for some other reason. The way you look, the car you drive, the people you know, the places you go, etc.
As someone already pointed out, a lot of authority amounts to trust. Who do we trust to safeguard our liberties and protect society in general. As people we mainly have to trust each other. I could create a nightmare for some random stranger right now by calling the police and making some false accusation. There are laws against this, but in the time it would take to sort this out, damage would be done. In the same way, a rouge police officer could do the same. I could have an encounter with the police right now and levy some accusation against an officer. Again, in the time it would take to sort this out, damage would be done.
I think that the police and citizenry are both well served with the right to record our interactions with each other. It could only stand to increase the amount of trust we have to place in each other and be an effective deterrent to any possible abuse of that trust by rouge authority. The best possible thing to happen right now for the police (nationally) would be for their union to stand up, support and encourage the rights of the people to record the police in the course of their jobs just as the people have encouraged the police to do the same.
Redundant facts in the course of figuring out a crime certainly could only help to serve justice and any differences between the facts (recordings) would strengthen a case one way or another. Why should the police be the only arbiter of the facts and evidence?
Very appropriately modded, thanks!
I can see how there would be situations like that, but I still wouldn't want to trust the cops to make that judgement call without any kinds of checks...
But still, interesting perspective.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
A good protest to this is to stand around in areas where there are a lot of surveillance cameras holding a sign saying "I do not consent to being video recorded" This kind of works both ways, doesn't it? If there is a legal precedent being set by cops using this clause, civilians could use the same clause to discount evidence gathered by cctv, couldn't they?
As I read TFA, it is the recording of video/audio (or both) that is illegal. Thus, there is possibly a legal hole to use, although I must admit it strikes me as being most unpractical.
Suppose I see some police officers doing something they shouldn't and point my video camera at them. Only my camera does not do any recording, it just broadcasts whatever it sees and hears. In a location where it is legal, somebody else records the signal my video camera transmits. As I see things, this would be legal. Does anybody know?
(And FYI: IANAL)
Exactly. They say it to us already, so it's about time the second edge started cutting back.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
He was the only thing that made it remotely tolerable when I was forced to watch it.
The Police, in all their forms throughout the ages, have always been the most visible aspect of abusive Authority.
Really? When Sting said "Don't stand so close to me", I didn't realize I was compelled to oblige. Poor Roxanne, they must have put her away for a long time.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
If they don't want to be recorded, they may be hiding something.
Now now, be careful with that sword, it's double-edged.
It is indeed.
The distinguishing factor here is that the police are public servants. "To serve and protect." When they are on the job serving the public we have a right to know what they are doing. It is necessary so that we can independently verify they are indeed protecting us and not abusing a position of power.
I may need a new foil hat, but perhaps it's because more people switch channels to avoid adverts than the other way round?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I RTFA and this is really bad. It seems that since they only want to prosecute video where the police office in question is doing something that makes him look bad this is the reverse of "equal protection" and as such will create a rift between concerned and active citizens and police. In other times and places, this is referred to as a "police state". I don't think it could hold up as Constitutional, but given the actions of the courts in the last 9 years I just don't even know.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
For those questioning why this is such an issue. take a look at this headline in South Florida "2 ex-Hollywood cops arrested in video frame-up case"
MiamiHerald.com: News 13 hours ago Two former Hollywood police officers were arrested Wednesday and charged with doctoring a police report in 2009 after one of them crashed into a vehicle of an alleged drunken driver.
while this is the minority, it's exactly this type of crap that justifies why we should be capturing this beloved moments on video.....
They're not just public employees, they're public servants.
You can't get much more public than that, can you?
It's rather obvious why they want taping to be illegal: Cloaking their donkeys
It's likewise obvious why judges supports this: The police provides them with work and thus income.
However, it's far from clear why politicians and other right-wingers support it. They must have something to gain by it, but darned if I can think of what that might be.
People working for the government are also part of the public. There is a line that's crossed when it stops being about the government and it starts being about the individual.
You see it on Reddit and other similar sites. Someone finds out the name of a police officer, someone then digs a bit and finds his address and phone number. The officer and his (entirely innocent) family then have to deal with harrassment and death threats (realistic or not, imagine your 8 year old daughter answering the phone to one).
Sometimes these videos are genuine cases of police brutality but the vast majority of the time its a video of some kid or young guy who edits out the actions that caused him to get arrested out of the video and just cut to him being incapacitated and arrested.
Being restrained physically never looks good, especially if the person is young or screams/whines noisily but this is something actually done, not only for the protection of the officer, but for the protection of the suspect too (if you're struggling and unrestrained, you're going to fall over and with your hands cuffed, you'll probably crack your skull on the pavement).
Personally I'd like to see a compromise. Videoing a cop is fine but there should be a requirement for the video to be treated responsibly, ie given to the press or the courts. Not heavily edited and posted on youtube to demonise someone doing a by-the-numbers arrest.
Term limits for cops?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It should be equally double edged. If they want to record us, then we should be able to record them. Otherwise get rid of all the stop light cameras, security cameras, and everything else.
Not if you want a professional and well-trained police force.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cops need to be held accountable for their actions whether being recorded or not. They don't want to be accountable or recorded and neither does the legislature - hence the support. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=police+video+recording+tampering
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
The question is, does this mean YOU have to give consent to be recorded by the police? It seems to me that if that's the case (which it should be) and the only evidence of you committing a crime is the tape, it should be thrown out for the same reason... Now you get away and get to sue the police department for violation of wiretapping laws
Since I've been riding a bike for more than just a few years now, I've frequently come this close \~\ to getting killed more than two handful of times. So my idea is some new technology. Here's how it works:
For cars, particularly for police cruisers, they have a dome mounted on their roof. It has 4 points of view from it. This goes to several things: A) a recorder that records everything that unit has been through through its shift, B) a computer which scans license plates as they fly by and checks DMV records for warrents or other offenses. This then pipes that info to the display in the cruiser which displays the front/rear view cameras. On that display the car's license plates which are offenders have different color coded frames, varying according to the level of bad. (A more expensive version is that of a HUD that projects the framing colors of the license plates on the actual windshield in real time so the officers don't even have to look away). C) Attached to the officers a lapel mic which sends back info to the recorder so all communications is recorded (and no more of that crappy lo quality police radio stuff).
Similar units can be mounted on motorcycles and freeway signs.
There are MANY reasons for this, primarily those such as cars flying by so fast that I can't get a license plate, just a rough time estimate and description of the vehicle. So at some point that car should pass something with such a camera and have it recorded. Or how about that time when a nissan sentra broke the double yellow line of the car pool to get in front of me @ ~ 6 AM. In doing so they kicked up a piece of metal that looked like a wide L bracket made of heavy metal. That which flew by my head not more than just inches. A little to the left and my head would have come off. Yeah, I remember you CA license plate 2VEH1** after 7 years.
So for people like me, we have a way to get those who almost kill us on a daily basis. But, for the rest of the population, you have a way to protect AND defend yourself. I heard that the City of Compton is trying to get their own Police Department again. Who would think that's a bad idea right? Well, it was disbanded for a reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_Police_Department_(California)
Who watches the watchmen?
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
"The cop is less likely to smash some heads if you have a camera on him [and knows it]."
FTFY
IANAL, but couldn't recording police fall under protection from Right to Petition?
By banning this activity, it reduces the publics ability to say "Hey Government, you fucked me!" and be able to back it up?
No sig for you!!
So what the police are telling you they need there isn't a ban on recording the police, it's a ban on recording private citizens.
But that's not what they're asking for, is it?
They monitor us, we monitor them. That's fair.
They monitor us, we can't monitor them. That's unfair.
They don't monitor us, we monitor them. That would also be fair, because WE PAY THEIR FUCKING SALARIES.
If they don't like it, they're more than welcome to forgo their special extra-legal privileges in exchange for less surveillance.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I laughed out loud.
Yeah right. They don’t need the video to write you the ticket. You will be convicted unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are not guilty.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Then the cops should record everything they do and keep the recordings for a few years, so they can show the whole truth, when these things happen. Plus, anyone should be able to obtain and keep a copy all footage of them that the cops take of them. On top of that, all surveillance cameras viewing public space should have publicly accessible live streaming feeds at all times.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Well, the don't want camera's off. I'm sure they would be very adamant about that. Just, they want control of the cameras. CCTV, DashCams, even the new "Officer Safety Cameras" that they want to start deploying in PA, are all controlled by the police. All footage is recorded and managed by the same departments that record it. So they are monitored themselves. Not a bad concept, ie Internal Affairs, except for the fact that there is _no_ oversight of this. Up until now, this has not been too greatly called into question, as citizens have taken their own video and stills and provided third party documentation. So if a police officer steps across the line, that footage can find it's way to the media/youtube.
As a local editorial said: "Ever try to subpoena the footage from a DashCam? We have 8 times. Of those eight attempts, 3 actual subpoenas were issued. However, in each instance the tape had been 'erased' for reuse. However, in one of the instances, the police were able to produce a DashCam tape that was 3 and a half years old as evidence. When questioned as why they had a 3 and a half year old tape but could not produce a 2 month old record, their response was 'the older tape had been misplaced and as such was not erased on schedule'."
On another note, how do you know if you took a picture of an undercover cop? Shout out "Everyone who is an undercover cop, raise your hand?" Yup, that should work.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
The two replies to this post of mine make so much more sense now. :-D
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Not true. In Denver they skipped the commercials in the Lost season finale to update the status on several tornado watches.
Tornado warnings (and other imminent emergency warnings) are different, and by federal law must be aired regardless of what content it interrupts.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Not because it is a bad book, on the contrary it is one of the all time best novels. I loved it. However, geeks seem to think it is some perfect prediction of the future and any and every thing they don't like that the government does must be compared to it. To me, that speaks of a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for the book.
So, in the case of these cameras this is purely a state recording issue. Some states are two-party states. What that means is every single person in a conversation has to be aware it is being recorded, or it isn't legal. That is why all those 800 numbers tell you the call may be recorded. This is a pretty silly system for many reasons, not the least of which being that police can pull shit like this.
However many states are one party. This means that so long as someone involved in the conversation is aware of the recording, it is legal. So, you cannot listen in on your neighbour's phone calls, but you can record you own. You can't plant a bug in your boss's office, but you can have a recorder on your person.
The answer? Well people in the two-party states need to have a chat with their representatives about changing the law. That fixes the problem right there. I live in a one party state so none of this applies to me. I can have my house and car bristling with cameras and that is completely fine.
None of this in any way relates to Orwell's novel. Please stop trying to paint everything as being done by an evil "big brother" entity and take the time to actually learn about the realities of the situation.
"Sadly though, there are a lot more 30-100 year olds out voting for more police power based on media brainwashing than 18-29 year olds who know about the abuses of power, thus those who care about removing abuses of power always get outvoted."
Are you seriously claiming that 18-29 year olds are somehow more in tune to what's "real" in terms of abuse of power than those over 30?
Oh you sad little boy.
I know it must not seem that way from your perspective - that of somebody who only recently got big boy pants and tie shoes - but lots of us over-30 "seniors" are plenty networked.
Besides, some of the greatest abuses of power are perpetrated by gray haired old men.
Probably didn't occur to you that there are plenty of people who were teens in the 60's who can show you actual scars from police brutality. So get on your tricycle and go away. Come back when you've got some experience of the world that doesn't come out of a rectangle on your monitor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Everyone is aware of the police car cams used in traffic stops, but many also are equipped with voice recorders which they turn on at the beginning of every encounter. Some even have personal video recorders. These recordings may be obtained through a freedom-of-information inquiry, although the departments may resist or deny they exist.
I think a reasonable law would be to make any recording equally available, which is implied if you are prosecuted (defendant's right to view evidence). Same with the unavoidable recordings that are made when calling customer service, both parties should have access to that recording. Also if someone is recording you, you should be allowed to make your own recording of that encounter. The few times on a customer service call where I announced I might also be recording the conversation "for quality assurance purposes", I was transferred immediately to the completely freaked out boss. I mean really, every conversation he's ever had at work was recorded, and suddenly it's scary?
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
This is generally a group of people who understand things, not people who just scream and rant and pitch a fit when they don't get their way.
Wait, what? I must be reading the wrong comments. (G)
"...how you're looking at it?"
"Well, if you play the tape in reverse you see us help King up and send him on his way."
Apologies, Mr. Hicks.
I want to see the person who thought that it was a good idea to mention cameras and guns in the same sentence with any implication of equivalence or relationship between those things, as applied to pointing them at cops.
And shoot him.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I dunno about wearing uniforms at nonviolent protests. Why should they, if they're not starting anything? Wearing a uniform in a situation like that is usually a catalyst to bad behaviour. Emotions are running high in the crowd, all it takes is for one moron to decide to mouth off just a liiiiiiiittle too much, or think he can use the anonymity of the crowd and toss something, and everything can go to hell in a handbasket.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Please do!
If you have the camera on them and they know it, they won't smash heads, but might later when there is no camera.
If you are recording and they don't know it and they smash heads without just cause, then the evidence can be used to get the police officer(s) off the streets for good.
This.
As long as they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about. Right? Right? Isn't that the argument used by all the people that support the patriot act bullshit? The only cops that don't want to be recorded are obviously the ones that are doing wrong.
Casca
I'm not talking about there being too much traffic. I'm talking about mob action, like 15 people going at once from one side of a 4-way stop instead of waiting in sequence, or a mob of bicycles crossing at a red light, cutting off traffic.
In that case I'd tend to agree, they shouldn't be doing that. I bike, and I don't like when pedestrians or bicyclists (or anyone else for that matter) disregard traffic laws because it happens to suit them at that moment. Auto traffic is obligated to yield to bicyclists and pedestrians under various conditions - cyclists and pedestrians in turn owe it to drivers to follow the rules that apply to them.
Bow-ties are cool.
I'm almost certain all police vehicles have a frontal camera for precisely that reason, but most times don't release it to the press. In a civil or criminal action, you are certainly free to request it during the discovery phase of the trial, and you can use it during trial (if properly authenticated). (Yes, I am a lawyer.)
But, as was the case in 1992, if the news media has the entire clip but only choose to show a small fraction of it, in an effort to create more a salacious story and sell newspapers or increase advertising revenue, there really isn't a point to it being freely available.
I'm also not sure how I feel about all cameras in public locations streaming to the public at all times: that seems like a slippery slope to invasion of privacy. It would certainly be a godsend for every stalker... well, ever. Imagine if facial recognition software got to the point where as soon as you stepped out into public, you could be immediately recognized and your movements tracked? Minority Report presents a decent idea of how that would go over. What about the grocery that had a security camera with a nice, clear view of your child's elementary school? The ATM across the street from Taylor Swift's apartment building? Street-level cameras streaming data that Google could use to track individual license plates and datamine their traveling habits? A fundamental religious group who sets up shop across the street from the strip club your bachelor party is at? Realtime viewing by your boss, your mother, your shady government organization, your terrorist attacker, and everyone in between? Like I said, I'm not certain that full public disclosure is the goal here.
Geez with the lack of respect you have for the principals of our laws and democracy I really wish you had stayed over there. Beat up demonstrators? You go to fucking jail, as it looks like that prick officer will.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=126386819
What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
You mean that wasn't GP's point? "If we the public have got nothing to hide, we should allow ourselves to be filmed 24/7, eh? So by your own logic Mr Police Officer, you must have something to hide."
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Wow... you have never served on a city jury, have you?
My question to you is... how on earth have you? Were they not careful enough to weed you out for your anti-authoritarian tendencies?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Technology changes, I'm sure there already are many devices that can record images without being intrusive (and in the near future your shirt might record images, who knows). So what is the problem here, having a camera stuck in your face or being recorded? Because you can be recorded without having a camera stuck in your face.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
You may be right, however in the jury instructions I was given last week, the judge was very clear that a police officer is a witness like any other, and it is up to the jury to determine the believability of the witness. I was a potential juror for a criminal trial and they stated several different ways that a police officers testimony was not to be believed as more or less important, more or less truthful, or more or less relevant than any other witnesses testimony.
In reality some jurors may choose to assign more believability to a police officer's testimony, but we were warned not to do so.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
...land of the free.
This is absolutely ridiculous for 1 reason-- In a court case, the word of the officer trumps that of a citizen if they are in disagreement. Therefore, a camera is the only defense a citizen would have against a corrupt police officer. Obviously not all cops are bad, but retarded laws like these perpetuate what corruption there is.
I would be more inclined to give celebrities protection from being filmed/photographed when going about their lives before I'd give it to the police. Celebs are not public employees, and how many famous people's messed up issues stems from being in the spot light 24/7. Police on the other hand are accountable to all of us. Heck, here in Canada there was a case of a guy being tasered to death and it was caught on camera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident
It should read "Police want to limit your right to video record them".
http://www.unfocus.com/
If the police are not doing anything wrong, what do they have to be afraid of?
The terrible abuses in the Camden PD would never have come to light had it not been for video surveillance.
Do we really want to condone criminal behavior by the police? Can a "good" cop justify hiding or ignoring criminal behavior on the part of police officers? Can any elected official? Any judge? If they do, they are just co-conspirators.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Where I live most police officers "retire" after 20 years with a 50% annual salary of their final employment year, paid until they die. Many of these officers will then take another police job in another town for *more* than they previously making, at the age of 38 - 42, they are also highly sought because of their 20 years of experience. Others who are sick of law enforcement will go into detective type work. Where I live there are a ton of insurance companies and they love to hire former detectives to go after insurance fraud.
This may seem an appropriate use of resources in an inner city where there is a need to retain police officers, and also compensate them for many years in a stressful situation. I can assure you, however, that this need not apply to my nicely wooded suburb in Connecticut.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
The blockade is not illegal under international law, and where is the UN ruling on this? The UNSC has not decided this.
Many people seem to be making a distinction between 'criminals' and cops who illegally arrest, assault or harass people. A criminal is someone who breaks the (criminal) law. There are laws against illegally arresting, assaulting and harassing people. It doesn't matter if they are cops or not, when they break the law by doing these things, they *become* criminals. They've just got badges too.
There were a huge number of scumbags in Rampart- a lot were wearing gang colors, others police uniforms.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
So if I go become a cop in one of those three states where it is illegal to record an on-duty cop, then I go Rodney King on someone and if it is recorded, I can arrest the people recording it?
SCORE!
Where do I sign up??
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
This is called corruption and failing to oppose it is how democrasy dies. The more I see shit like this the more I'm certain that your politicians, judges, and police all need to be rounded up and tried for treason and corruption. There's just no excuse whatsoever. A police officer in public should be fine with being videotaped in 99% of circumstances. There's no suggestion that what they do in private is to be recorded.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If the United Nations Security Council didn't approve it, its not a binding UN resolution. Too bad, so sad.
Of course it can influence the events it is recording, your relative is absolutely correct. The police officer might decide that kicking that person in that teeth after a long day isn't such a good idea after all.
Trust me. The TV station has no control over EBS alerts..
That system to completely automated.
I ran master control for a broadcast TV station for 7 years.. We had plenty of times when the EBS ran a test or an alert right in the middle of a commercial break. All you can do is write it up and move on with your day.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
I'm absolutely shocked that this has the backing of judges and the like. The police, at least in certain areas, are absolutely corrupt and/or absolutely racist. There is no way for a person to defend themselves against them other than a camera. If anything it calms the police down because they know it could end up everywhere. All this is is a way for them to hide their improprieties.
www.unofficiall.com
The best solution is to take recordings themselves. Camera dashes are great for traffic stops, but you want to take it further. Then, when someone posts to YouTube the footage of a beatdown by police, you post the 5 minutes before that where the guy attacks you. Or replace YouTube with a court of law as need be. Problem neatly solved. Biased recording is an issue but so is police brutality, more and more (how many videos do we see of police attacking protesters with no provocation at all? It's kind of scary how bad things are getting in my short lifetime)
I'm normally against surveillance, but have no objection to police recording what they see, especially if it's deleted on a rolling basis.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
When teachers didn't want to be tested as they claimed that testing was a poor indicator of someone ability. Go Figure.
Most teachers don't complain about being tested on their subject matter -- maybe a few, but not most. Testing on subject matter is standard practice for getting a secondary certificate these days... not just in the context of the dual education/subject degree you generally earn while you're working towards certification, but there's actually tests at the end to certify. Heck, in some states, you have continuing education requirements for a long while afterwards. This is all par for the course.
What teachers do complain about is having how students fare on standardized tests serve as a metric for their performance. Everyone knows standardized tests are somewhat problematic metric of even student ability, but most people are willing to accept it as a starting point while trying to work with varying cases. So, just like you sometimes see higher grades than test scores would indicate awarded to students who diligently complete their homework, take extra credit assignments, consistently participate in classroom discussion, and in general work hard, you'll also see colleges accept students with lower standardized test scores who show a similar pattern in their schoolwork and extracurricular activities. (And you see people succeed in life that way, too -- my girlfriend says her rocket scientist father actually struggled quite a bit with math, but he's know since he was a kid he wanted to be freakin' rocket scientist, and he worked hard and he's a highly respected guy at Aerojet who's worked on stuff from the NASA New Horizons project to fielding calls from the Mythbusters team).
But when you take something that problematic and then use it as an indirect metric for something else, the problems are magnified. There are too many confounding factors. What the student population brings to the table is quite simply as important as what the teacher brings, and what the larger system does to support or work against teachers is a big factor as well.
You might be able to use tests that measure only aggregated student improvements as a minor part of an overall program including human assessments from other professionals, continuing education/training, feedback from students and parents, and organizational reviews for schools and districts. But any teacher who complains about a merit program that focuses on standardized testing is only acting on good sense.
Tweet, tweet.
This.
is Monty Python's Flying Circus?
For folks who want to record the cops (or anyone else) and be sure that the footage will get to the world instead of being destroyed when they steal your camera phone: check out the Gandhicam project. This is an app for your Android phone that lets you take pictures or video and automatically send it to the net, either by HTTP upload or by email.
This doesn't stop them from filing criminal charges afterward, but that's why you donate to the ACLU and the EFF.
"I don't know why people say a double-edged sword is bad. It's a sword. With two edges." -Kamahl, pit fighter
It's not really a double standard. It says, "We the citizens will give you extra power over us, but only if you subject yourself to increased scrutiny and standards of conduct. If you aren't prepared to make this sacrifice, choose some other occupation."
They already have cameras and video recorders on US and that very (false) argument is invoked by law enforcement and legislatures all the time. At the least, the dash cam (whose tapes routinely disappear when they might help a citizen against a cop). In some places they also have cameras with recording in various public spaces. Red light cameras are also getting quite common.
Not only should citizens be allowed to record police activity, but the police should be mandated to have video cameras with microphones installed on their person while they are on duty. It is fully within the law to record anything that happens in public. Police have cameras installed in their vehicles. This should be extended to force them to have cameras/microphones installed on their helmets and/or jackets. Police are in the unique position where they have lethal weapons on their person and regularly have the right to use those weapons. Arguably it is the public's right to know exactly what happened to cause a police officer to use their weapon. We pay their salaries through property taxes. They are public servants. They also regularly break the law through corruption, intimidation, and outright lies. This has been proven over and over and over. We need not look far to find every day corruption of police and collusion between police and the court system that they regularly report to. It is in the best interest of society for each police officer to be under constant video and audio surveillance. Anything less is negligent by the city government. There are procedural rules in place right now in federal civil cases where the courts require email evidence from parties to a civil lawsuit. Lawsuits have been dismissed and companies have lost lawsuits on the basis that they were unable to produce email evidence to either it not existing or it being deleted. It is only natural that police should be able to produce video and audio evidence to support their claims of interaction with the public.
Even if I bought this, which I don't, it doesn't apply in any of the situations we're examining here. The incidents mentioned in the article were all about *surreptitiously* recording the police and using it later. Obviously if a trained observer doesn't notice the camera, it's not going to have the effects described here.
Then those cops should be pushing for constant recording of their actions. It's a lot harder to poke holes in a videotape than it is a person's testimony.
NOW when i tell you im a gonna beat you to death kill your family and chop up your relatives , you wont have any proof i said it. OH and the DRUG deal is back on guys ...WHAT can't ya hear.....
Think of it as the right to bear arms.
A-men.
We've recently seen a lot of enthusiasm for expanding the right to carry the deadly weapons of the industrial age, as a means of protecting oneself from criminals and as a last means of protecting oneself from the abuse of state power.
But the thing is, short of organizing an armed revolution, firearms are terrible at protecting you from the abuse of state power. Any confrontation between you or even you and your posse and law enforcement that escalates to firearm use is going to mean a significant number of you dead. They've got what you've got and more.
You don't get anywhere without a majority of the local population on your side. And you can't do that unless you can wield the non-lethal weapons of the information age. That used to mean "the press" or "the media," but now it can be you. At least, if we're willing to stand up for our right to keep and bear these weapons of the information age with the same enthusiasm as generations have stood up for both the 1st and 2nd amendments.
Tweet, tweet.
Create a new Federal program of officers that only enforce Constitution and civil rights violations by civil employees.
So if they see a cop violate your rights, the cop gets tazzed tackled shackled arrested and hauled away.
Just out of curiosity, why doesn't Egypt open their borders to Gaza up? Surely they aren't in the employ of the Zionist Entity?
Oh yeah, that's right. It's because Gaza is run by Hamas, and they're fucking crazy.
I'd be really angry about this if it was happening in Britain. A video camera is about the the only protection you have sometimes. It reminds me of a case in the UK where CCTV caught police beating up a non-resisting returning soldier from Afghanistan.
I also cornered a minister, Andy Burnham, in 2005 about ID cards. The Blair Govt at the time had already legislated to abolish elections (twice), lied to the public about WMD in Iraq and was set on building the kind of digital surveillance network that would have the Stasi drooling. They had eluded any kind of democratic debate and were forcibly ejecting protestors from their public events. The only way to get any kind of accountability was to challenge them in front of a network TV camera.
The minister refused. I boomed "What have you got to hide?" in front of the camera and you can see a minder trying to block the BBC's footage with his hand.
People on here have probably heard about the tragic state of the UK constitution and demolition of our rights. We have a new Govt now along with a fairly reliable promise to restore them.
I don't agree with a ban on filming cops. they are operating in a public place, we have the right to film it. I sympathize with the added stress it must put on them in an already stressful job, however the alternative allows for far worse abuses.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This.
is Monty Python's Flying Circus?
Or, it's my misunderstanding an Internet convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
Of course no country will directly aid the Palestinians as long as the US backs Israel. I do feel sorry for both sides of the conflict. For the Palestinians because it's hopeless for them and for Israel for the day when the US is no longer willing or able to back them. So many problems could be solved if they found a peaceful resolution.
I am surprised that nobody has asked the question of what happens if the media records the police. Can the news not record the police? Wouldn't that go against freedom of the press? If it does, how are the media any different than a normal citizen. Any citizen can report news.
Do these laws then interfere with freedom of the press? Do these laws interfere with my ability to petition the government for redress of grievances? This seems to go against the grain of the first amendment.
Please take the cameras off. We are having enough trouble with Deputy Trudy Wiegel as it is.
... with cheap easy technology.
Every cop should be recorded while on duty and the videos should be posed for all to see.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Alot of countries aid the PA. Egypt, Syria, Iran, heck its easier to list the Islamic countries that don't aid the PA.
Jordan. Why not Jordan? Because the PLO tried to overthrow the country in 1970.
But what counties will attack Israel? Iran and Syria are the only ones that openly back a proxy against Israel.
I've been to the PA and Israel, I'd say there is more momentum for peace in Israel than there is in the PA. The PA still educates their children in favor of pushing the Jews into the sea.
This whole event was unfortunate, but personally I'm completely behind Israel in the whole matter.
Please avoid deliberate sensionalist terms like "guns", shooting and weapons in this context. In any case, my body (including my eyes and my brain) are my property. The police has no right to force me to keep them shut, unless I violated someone else's rights. Same thing for my camera. Filming, just like watching, is doing nothing wrong by itself.
Civil disobedience. If they get the legislatures to pass anti-camera laws, use them anyway. Get hidden cams and post incriminating stuff to P2P networks. If they get what is very clearly a power grab by the police, that is our best defense against police abuse.
The cops don't want cameras keeping them honest? Tough cookies. Cry us all a damn river. If it were not for cell phone cameras, a BART policeman in Oakland would not have been caught shooting and killing a restrained young man. If it weren't for cameras, the LAPD men who beat a handcuffed Rodney King would not have been found guilty of civil rights violations (they should have been found guilty of excessive use of force) or fined millions in damages.
They have every advantage in the courtroom that isn't afforded to us mere citizens, and they have the audacity to claim that no one should keep them accountable? Give me a fucking break.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Yep, you guessed it... Terrorism.
It was in the same place on all channels. Not placed there just for that show...
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
If you do not do anything illegal you do not have to fear.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
This is evidence that the public does not trust the police, not that the camera changes testimony.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Instead, it can actually influence the events that it is recording.
Well, it can. So does a rain shower or Paris Hilton. That doesn't mean that we make these things illegal.
Sometimes it can be a harm.
Yeah, but not as much harm as a police state.
I've heard of cases where people were charged for taping their arrests or interactions with police. I'd say if an officer compels an individual to not record the proceedings, the officer should be charged with obstruction of justice. The recording may have information pertinent should the case end up in court.
Egypt has opened their borders up, but only temporarily:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-opens-gaza-border-following-idf-raid-on-aid-flotilla-1.293560
And there are plenty of countries, and even the UN, who have called the embargo on Gaza to be illegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#United_Nations
Israel doesn't care and the US routinely vetoes any and every UN resolution against Israel.
The Palestinians live essentially in a modern-day ghetto. Palestinian airspace is controlled by Israel, and they routinely fly drones and fighter jets over homes, causing people to panic. Israel also blocks the three-mile shore using their navy. There are only 80-some humanitarian items that are allowed in, and food / medical supplies typically expire by the time they make it into the region. Building supplies are always discarded by Israel, since all humanitarian aid goes through Israel first. Without building supplies, Palestinians cannot rebuild their homes that were destroyed by Israeli bombs or bulldozers, and can only use existing rubble from other destroyed buildings. Try living like that for the rest of your life.
Economic embargoes causes despair, and despair causes people to commit desperate acts. Israelis know this very well. If you recall, the state of Israel was founded through terrorism, with the Stern Gang leading the way with hotel bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations until the British gave them land. Back then, Israel did not have the modern, sophisticated military that they do today, and having suffered through the holocaust, they saw no other way.
Hamas may be crazy, but the only people Israel can blame for Hamas' existence are themselves. Israel supported Hamas during its infancy to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#Before_1987_.E2.80.94_Palestinian_Islamic_activities_prior_to_the_creation_of_Hamas
While I personally feel that the people of Palestine can do much, much better than Hamas, they're only going to cling to whoever is going to offer them support and protection. Even so, the actions of Israel are disgusting, and to think that the very same people who had to endure living in ghettos in Western Europe are now essentially doing the same thing to other people is mind-blowing. Israel hopes that by employing collective punishment against the people of Palestine, they can force them to overthrow Hamas. This hasn't worked, and it's caused even the moderate factions in Palestine to get angry at Israel.
I hope for a peaceful resolution to all of this so that both sides, Israel and Palestine, can live as neighbors.
Best "String" Ever!
If they don't want to be recorded, they may be hiding something.
Now now, be careful with that sword, it's double-edged.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I think that the original statement was meant satirically. Though... It's hard to tell.
first off SO WHAT if it is an act of war? So is firing rockets into schools and houses. Israel is in a legal state of war with Hammas. Until there is peace I would expect war like actions from , well from both sides. I might ad that the current war was declared first by the Palestinians. Second. Those people on the blockade did not give a dick about getting the actual aid to people. Israel had offered to ( as it had done many times in the past) turn the "Aid" over to UN peace keepers to distribute fairly, after checking the cargo for weapons and terrorists. Why was this not good enough? Well the UN certainly distributed the aid in the past, so activists had no reason to think that the people who needed it would fail to get it. Actually Hammas wants to be the ones who distribute aid. That way they can SELL the food, medicine, etc and use the money to finance the war with israel. This use of international charity to finance a war is criminal, but nobody seams to care. Also they use the "aid" to help them stay in power by distributing food and medicine through and to those who support them the most. Speak out against a suicide bomber, well maybe your diabetes medicine from the red cross/red cresent might not make it to you this month. The fact that Israel has a very god video of the whole deal showing clearly the armed uprising by supposed "peace activists" should be enough to prove that this whole thing was never about distributing aid to people in need.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
... you didn't need a camera to convince people the cops were abusing the people. Sadly, in Nazi America, you do.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Right, whatever. Israel has been a massive bunch of assholes to the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, granted. Again: why is Egypt opening up the borders a notable event? It should be open all the time to their starving Arab brothers, no? What about the Jewish communities of the rest of the Middle East? They're doing great, right? None of them got dispossessed? Oh wait, they pretty much kicked them all out.
Everyone in the Middle East is, or has been, an asshole to everyone else there. Jew, Christian, Muslim; Hebrew, Arab, Persian, Kurd: there's enough history of assholery there to fight forever.
I really don't give a fuck what the UN says, because it's an organization that says that people are represented by governments that have the authority to speak for them on equal terms with all other governments. You think Fiji is the equivalent of Turkey, let alone the US? No. It's not. International relations consist of what you can get away with.
Incidentally, my personal view is that all of this is fallout from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it won't be fixed for another century at least.
If you are going to rage like a two year old at least try to sprinkle a little bit of truth amongst your one eyed rhetoric. Thankfully the Israelis did use cameras. You can see those innocent peace loving protesters: http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk#p/a/u/0/bU12KW-XyZE The middle east conflict is not black and white. While Israel deserves criticism for some actions it is as important to acknowledge that Hamas has no Nelson Mandela. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. As the government responsible for Gaza its being treated the same way as the rest of the world is treating North Korea. Despite the fact that the millions of Koreans affected are civilians. It is also important to use words like Genocide in context. Keeping in mind true genocides like those inflicted in Rwanda, on the Kurds by the Turks, currently happening in Zimbabwe. If you consider introducing a little balance to your squealing then your valid points might get a little more support.
I'm no scientist, but isn't there a theory that simply by observing something there's a chance you are changing it's behaviour? I have no citation, but I've certainly heard it more than once, and it seems to apply to this whole situation. My 5c worth.
Legal authority and moral authority are two very different things.
Desmond Tutu doesn't have any legal authority.
The head of the UNRWA himself said he's not representing a political organization when he spoke.
Similarly, the United Nations, as a whole, doesn't have any legal authority over Israel or international affairs in general other than what is authorized by the Security Council. To say any action at all is "Illegal under international law" is to show you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as international law, merely a piecemeal set of treaties and agreements that Israel has sole discretion in enforcing and obeying within Israel's sovereign borders.
Saying that the public is the "boss" of the police is like saying that shareholders are the "boss" of a random corporate peon. While it may be true in a roundabout way, that does not mean that the public is the best judge of whether the police are doing their job.
/. crowd)
The way things are now, the police are responsible to the civilian government, which *itself* is responsible to the people. The civilian government is chosen (in theory) by how well they understand the job of their future subordinates. However, said government does have a great deal of autonomy and a specific job description, so when they are elected, they have some authority with which they can do their jobs without being in constant danger of being "fired." As do police officers. They do have SOME accountability as they are now. (I know, I know, not a popular sentiment with the
That being said, the measure of which they do their jobs is in part how safe the public feels (especially as crime has been trending downward), so banning cameras is STILL a bad idea even without considering the First Amendment. It's just that the average member of the public does not have the qualifications to judge a police officer's performance.
They are also responsible to the state for their use(or abuse) of their privileges. They should be recorded at all times while doing so. That such a thing isn't INSISTED on by the legislature implies that the legislature does not feel responsable, or accountable for such abuses of the system. What that does say about the system, I leave to the reader.
I don't care if it's been written many times here, any unaltered recording of police procedures conducted in public must not be prohibited from being recorded.
Fair Police have nothing to fear from an objective record, and citizens have nothing to fear from police who agree to be observed.
>>I'm almost certain all police vehicles have a frontal camera for precisely that reason, but most times don't release it to the press. In a civil or criminal action, you are certainly free to request it during the discovery phase of the trial, and you can use it during trial (if properly authenticated). (Yes, I am a lawyer.)
I tried that in California when I got pulled over for speeding when doing 55MPH in a 70. (No, not lying about it.) I thought the cop confused me with another car and wanted to pull video camera footage. The CHP ignored my request, and the cop said there wasn't a camera anyway, and even now I don't believe all cop cars have cameras - the Police Unions blocked it, IIRC, unless they could be *disabled at will by the cop*.
Given that I was acquaintances with Sam Knott, I think there's a very good reason why cops shouldn't be able to disable their cameras at will.
I can't seem to find that device on the apple store, or on the at&t website, or on walmart.com ... so how exactly is your advice relevant to the average person who happens to find themselves in the middle of a police encounter?
You're looking for Qik.com .
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's all well and fine for you to type this while sitting comfortably at your computer sipping a hot beverage
It's OK to realize you're one kind of person or another. If you're not the brave and disobedient type, you can sit behind your computer and donate to those who are doing the field work:
http://cdevolution.org/
It takes both kinds.
If you're ordering gear from NewEgg, just use:
http://newegg.freetalklive.com/
to automatically donate ~1% of your purchase to the fund.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Politicians are afraid that if video recording is proved successful at keeping the police from abusing citizens, then their turn is next: their every action and word will be recorded for the benefit of the people, and the people will realize their limitations.
A lot of things happen in police encounters and sometimes a camera can have a chilling effect on the proceedings.
So the best thing to do, as a private citizen, would be to film the police encounter secretly, and only reveal the film if there was any kind of abuse. That way, we minimise the risk that witnesses keep quiet, or that the criminals take revenge on them because of the filming.
Did anyone notice that there was not one reference point to any of the claims or stories mentioned in the article? or were you too busy reacting in a rage of fury by posting some 'Orwellian police state' comparison? 1000+ comments so far? I guess the social engineering aspect of the article worked, and even duped the slashdot crowd. Not surprising, these days, especially coming from a gawker site. What a loathsome bunch of mudslingers.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
If the cops are doing nothing wrong, then why do they have issue with being recorded? Isn't that the exact same logic they use against other people? Why are they afraid...after all, they're all noble, upstanding members of society and would never abuse their power... right?
I really don't give a fuck what the UN says, because it's an organization that says that people are represented by governments that have the authority to speak for them on equal terms with all other governments.
Not even close to true. Consider: UN Security Council. Thank you.
Incidentally, my personal view is that all of this is fallout from the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and it won't be fixed for another century at least.
Now this, I agree with.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Citizens are under electronic surveillance all of the time. Why not the police too?
"If they are not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about" can be thrown at the police too. Not just citizens wanting to lead their lives out from under a microscope.
The money going to Israel is realistically the only thing keeping the Israelis from actually going to war with the Palestinians. So, essentially we're saying we'll give you a bunch of blood money if you don't actually go after the population continually attacking you land for the past 50 years.
Israel is a bunch of Polish, Ukrainian ,Lithuanian and Dutch invaders. It is "Their" land no more than South Africa was rightfully the Boers, or Bombay rightfully English.
Might does not make right. Your fake "hebrews" will finally pay for blaming the victim of their crime of aggression.
The TRUE descendants of the Biblical people DO live in Palestine - their forefathers converted to Christianity and Islam - they are today known as "Palestinian". The diaspora story is a lie. It has no basis in the historical record, nor archaeological evidence.
Stern and Irgun ripped this country from it's natives with terror that makes your vaunted Hamas rockets look like what they really are: Estes model rockets.
When Israel implodes on its own festering vileness, evil, corruption and hatred of humanity, the whole world will celebrate - except in the US, where worshiping the MYTH of Jewish historical victim hood is the real state religion.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
No such thing as International Law? Is that what Zionism teaches, these days?
During the pre-dawn hours of May 31, 2010, the Israeli Navy attacked the six civilian vessels of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The attack took place in international waters against ships flying under national flags of countries with which Israel is not at war, namely Turkey, Greece and the United States. The ships were carrying civilians from more than sixteen countries.
Salient points:
Since no state of war existed at the time, the attack on these vessels constitutes an act of war against those governments under whose flags the vessels were sailing.
The attack falls within the purview of the ius ad bellum, those laws which govern the resort to armed conflict. Israel's action does not fall into the category of the ius in bello or the laws which govern the actual conduct of war.
Because this attack was carried out in international waters, the status of the relationship between Hamas, or any other Palestinian body, and the state of Israel is of no relevance whatsoever. Likewise, neither the blockade of Gaza nor Israel's claims and legal interpretations regarding it has any bearing on its acts of aggression in international waters.
This is not an act of piracy. Piracy is an act of aggression carried out in international waters by individuals and not by states.
The following internationally binding treaties, charters, and agreements are relevant to the attack by Israel:
1. Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(3) Crimes against Humanity: namely murder...deportation, and any other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war...in execution of or in connection with any crime...whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
2. 1907 Hague Regulation Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
Chapter II - The Exemption from Capture of Certain Vessels
Article 4. Vessels charged with religious, scientific, or philanthropic missions are likewise exempt from capture.
Salient points:
The standard for judging the Israeli acts is objective and not subjective. It is irrelevant what Israeli ministers, generals, admirals, or soldiers thought or intended. The test is in what they did.
What they did was engage in acts of war using weapons of war in international waters against vessels that are protected not only in peacetime but also in times of war.
Israel has therefore committed both crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
These are crimes that have international jurisdiction. Israeli political and military personnel can be named in trials held in any and all countries of the world. If the Israelis do not attend the trials, they can be tried in abstentia, and those decisions in which the Israelis are found guilty can be executed anywhere in the world.
Because unarmed civilians were murdered by a preplanned military attack, capital crimes have been committed. While it would appear that the international community no longer finds capital punishment civilized, the punishments for these capital crimes can be multiple life sentences.
These crimes give rise to damage claims for huge sums of money and Israeli accounts can be blocked using decisions finding them guilty.
The unarmed vessels were on a philanthropic mission, carrying civilians and humanitarian supplies. Even if Israel were in a state of war with any of these countries, it would be prohibited from capturing the vessels according to the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907.
Conclusion:
It follows, therefore, that Israel
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
In a criminal trial with a jury, perhaps.
Traffic court is an entirely different ballgame.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
They don’t seem concerned about that where I live.
Cops take their cars home with them, supposedly to give the neighbourhood the benefit of seeming to have the additional cop presence.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
There are already laws against defamation. If the protections against defamation are inadequate, then it needs to be strengthened for everyone, not for the police in particular.
Israel is not a party to or signatory of the Hague convention of 1907, your citation is meaningless.
Similarly, the Charter of the Nuremberg trials isn't international law... It specifically pertained to the aftermath of World War II, and was signed by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia, it's not applicable to the current situation, and isn't even "binding international law" in any situation.
Learn what the hell you're talking about instead of just blindly parroting someone else.
I don't understand your position. Apparently you are against invasion of privacy. But you cite examples where the invasion of privacy happens. It looks like that someone can invade our privacy but not everyone. So is there same selected class of citizens that is entitled to invade our privacy? Who gave them that right, and why the public does not deserve the same?
Yep...the cops have a definite chilling effect on my public ganja smoking. Dastards.
None of the cops around the neighborhood where I live:
1) mow their grass
2) give a shit about the appearance of their property
or
3) is ever IN the neighborhood while on duty
...I'm not sure our Supreme Court can be counted upon to curtail the power of the police.
...a good, solid post on the technological and logistical methodologies of subverting the corporatist establishment.
Well done, friend.
A Zionist will lie to God's face.
Israel IS a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention, on Aug 12, 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/35D52356F487FC85C1256402003F9563?OpenDocument
The U.N. Security Council has already weighed in on the blockade (of which the flotilla attack is one part), attacking it in Resolution 1860 for collectively punishing the people of Gaza. The resolution calls for "the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including food, fuel, and medical treatment." The criticism of the embargo as illegal is heavily rooted in the logic of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 3 of which mandates that states take all possible steps (even when formal wars have not been declared between two states) to protect noncombatants. Behavior that is expressly prohibited includes any actions that are a threat to individual life (9 civilian activists were killed in the flotilla attack). The taking of hostages (including the more than 660 seized by Israel) for political or military purposes is also prohibited. The blockade is illegal in that it violates the legal principles behind the Geneva Conventions, which were created for the general purpose of prohibiting states from engaging in collective punishment against civilians during times of conflict. Israel's collective attack on the civilians of Gaza (and its refusal to even acknowledge that they are under assault) represents a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio06042010.html
Israel's blockade of Gaza violates the mandate of UNSC resolution 1860. Period.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
How many of us hit record? We should.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The perpetrators of the holocaust were the banks that extended credit to the Reich for the Wehrmacht.
Stern and Irgun were allied with the Nazi's, until at least El Alemaign.
Create a demand for Zionism?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Well, we don't have that now, so at least they'd be cheaper...
Learn to love Alaska