Slashdot Mirror
Recording the Police
Bruce Schneier says "I've written a lot on the 'War on Photography,' where normal people are harassed as potential terrorists for taking pictures of things in public. This article is different; it's about recording the police: Allison's predicament is an extreme example of a growing and disturbing trend. As citizens increase their scrutiny of law enforcement officials through technologies such as cell phones..."
I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context. That being said, the same officer buddy is in favor of red light cameras, the nanny state, and airport scanners that see through your clothes. You can't have it both ways in a free and just society. You can't give the police the ability to watch everyone while denying the public the ability to watch the police. I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play. If the police officer is innocent he has nothing to fear from the surveillance, that's the line they have been feeding the public in general so it's fitting for it to fly back in their faces.
Targeted application of laws which are not generally enforced should be the most terrifying thing in the world to you if you worry about a police state evolving. The general lack of enforcement means that the public is unaware and/or unconcerned about the law, meaning penalties can be stiff, and that violations are common because the general public doesn't know any better. The upshot being that nearly anyone the police or judiciary doesn't like can be thrown into prison for decades, which is practically the definition of a police state, and the scary thing is that it already exists in the good old US of A. The wiretap laws are hardly the most commonly used for this purpose, but the ridiculous penalties (can easily be 100 years in prison if you have multiple offenses) make it one of the most terrifying.
Parent is absolutely right. I think the rule should be that ALL laws are applied in order of their severity at all times.
If there was a stupid law about being drunk in public and everyone who walked from a bar into a cab got a ticket during that 5ft walk... I bet the laws would be changed in a hurry. Yet, as it stands, a cop can selectively apply these ridiculous laws to effectively harass anyone they want.
The only way laws change is if the general public stands up to them. If they cherry pick people to abuse then they mostly go unnoticed.
In the British tradition, a police constable is a person who is paid to do the same duty he owes to the peace as a private citizen. We all have the duty to chase down robbers, and we just had a court case in Toronto (Canada) that underscored a shopkeeper's right to chase down, arrest and hold a thief for the police.
Regrettably, in some jurisdictions, including mine, a police constable is privileged and armed, without being under the same stringent laws as a member of the military.
Returning to the point of the article, some few wold like to prevent themselves from being photographed. They haven't succeeded, and one constable was just charged for beating up a spectator at the G20 summit, courtesy of citizens who did their duty and recorded the assault and provided the films to the newspapers, youtube and the courts.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net