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.
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.
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
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!
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.
But if only selected portions are shown with the intention of embarrassing someone, it seems like a either libel or harassment
If this were the case we could yank all mainstream news off of the air.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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
To quote the brilliance that is Spider Jerusalem (c/o his creator Warren Ellis, of course)
"Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right and you can blow a kneecap off the world"
Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
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!
Except he didn't disobey orders -- he was on a bicycle down the street and couldn't have heard orders from a foot officer up the block -- nor was he doing anything different than all the other cyclists -- and Officer Patrick Hogan was convicted of assault for what he did. He also lied about it until the video came out. Nice of you to leave out the facts, apologist bootlicking shill. And oh, he was a jock in high school. Figures. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_nypd_fires_rookie_cop_caught_on_youtube_.html
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
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.
Hey, it worked for the Cold War, so how about using it here?
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
No sir.. Those in positions of authority deserve no such protections... The Sword of Damocles hangs over their heads, where it belongs.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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/
Hello, is that you, Dr. Heisenberg?
Try recording a police officer in Europe doing something unflattering and posting that video on YouTube; you'll get prosecuted for invasion of privacy. Europeans don't even allow you to record and publish murderers and criminals.
The only thing that's different in the US is that in the US some people actually still complain about their erosion of civil liberties. In Europe, they're effectively already gone, but the people don't even notice.
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.
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...
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).
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
*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.
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.
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?
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.....
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
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
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
If you aren't a total and utter liar, why are these still up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6THfDGy1hN4&feature=related
Liar liar die in a fire.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"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.
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 -
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 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.
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
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!"
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.
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.
Europeans don't even allow you to record and publish murderers and criminals.
Yes, god fucking forbid we protect the rights of those who are still presumed to be innocent. Or aren't you referring to the fact that we disallow the publishing of names and faces of folks when they get arrested?
Try recording a police officer in Europe doing something unflattering and posting that video on YouTube; you'll get prosecuted for invasion of privacy.
Well, yes, the same thing happens if you film *me* and do the same. One of our civil liberties is privacy, even in public places. You don't get to record me without my permission and vice versa.
In Europe, they're effectively already gone, but the people don't even notice.
Wow...and you base this on what exactly? My free speech seems to be working just fine. I get to do a lot of stuff you guys can't even dream about. The only thing I can't have is a gun and that's historically something nobody but the 'Merkins gives a shit about anyway.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.