Court Case To Test Legality of Recording the Police With Your Cell Phone

suraj.sun sends this excerpt from Ars Technica: "If you pull out your cell phone to make a video of police officers arresting a suspect, are you 'secretly recording' them? 'No' seems like the obvious answer, but that's precisely the claim that three police officers made to justify their arrest of a Boston man. In arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Wednesday, the city also denied the man's claim that his First or Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The case will be an important test of whether the Constitution protects individuals' right to record the police while they are on duty. Many states have 'one-party notification' wiretapping laws that allow any party to a conversation to secretly record it. But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent. The police arrested Glik for breaking this law. For good measure, they also charged Glik—who did no more than stand a few feet away with his cell phone—with 'aiding the escape of a prisoner' and 'disturbing the peace.'"

Comments

Checks and balances

[Nethemas the Great]

It's a good thing the US was founded with the notion of check and balances so as to prevent abuse of power...

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't someone already appeal that law? Seems like it, with all the BS going on like this today. I sure hope a judge throws this crap out and displays some anger about this kind of crap, but sadly the cops are probably friends with the prosecutor and he is golf buddies with the judge, and as such checks and balances ends up just being more lip service to keep us minions quiet and paying our taxes.

Re:Checks and balances

[Joce640k]

How can anybody even think it might be illegal...? I don't get it.

Re:Checks and balances

[sakdoctor]

These are secret police

Re:Checks and balances

[Daniel_Staal]

Some have. But it's not a national law: It's state-by-state. Some states have even passed legislation explicitly allowing recording of the police. (I think in other cases the state courts have smacked down the police, and no one's pressed it further.)

Massachusetts hasn't. So it's being an issue there, and because of the way the case was brought up it can be attacked on Constitutional grounds.

Re:Checks and balances

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Not to mention that most judges are former prosecutors.

Re:Checks and balances

[Daniel_Staal]

You are doing something the policeman on the scene doesn't like. They will try to find a way to make it illegal.

Re:Checks and balances

[Idbar]

You mean personal checks (or cashier checks from big banks) and well balanced accounts?

Re:Checks and balances

[naz404]

The police are public employees, they are salaried with taxes you pay them. Therefore, you are their bosses and they are working on *YOUR* time. You have the right to record and monitor what they do at work.

They're your goddam employees and you have the right to make sure they don't engage in shenanigans on YOUR time.

Moreover, one of the judges in one of the states (forgot which) already ruled that it is legal to record police who are on active duty because during then, they're "in public space", and not subject to the same privacy laws with wiretaps, etc. This was covered in a previous slashdot story.

Re:Checks and balances

[Dyinobal]

I dunno if I should mod you funny or insightful and I'm disturbed the the implications of that.

Re:Checks and balances

[PNutts]

It's a good thing the US was founded with the notion of check and balances so as to prevent abuse of power...

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, so I'll just say constitution, state constitution, elected officials, charges dropped or dismissed, citizen filing suit against police, and federal court not dismissing suit. I'm good with the story so far because I don't expect rank and file police to be constitutional lawers. My hope is this action removes the fog and recording police is legal everywhere and that the police understand it, too. And if it's civil disobedience to record an abuse by the police, then so be it and we should still do it.

Re:Checks and balances

[LinksAwakener]

Technically, you do in fact need consent from both parties being recorded (in this case, Glik and the officer both need to agree) in order to record anything. However, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to record any law-enforcing arm of the government under the idea of protecting one's self from said government (the Constitution and Bill of Rights both suggest this in different ways, i.e. right to bare arms, freedom of press/speech, etc.). But I suppose this is the entire debate, isn't it?

Re:Checks and balances

[infodragon]

In the event it is deemed you are secretly recording police officers then the exact same argument should be made to have every camera removed from the state. Any traffic cams, police cams, store cams... EVERYTHING! Somebody does something criminal and is caught on tape... hmmm... that's illegal wiretapping. Our judicial system goes out of the way to protect the rights of the criminal, but slaps around the bystander? Push back from another angle and expose the stupidity. Though if I thought this would work I might as well smoke a crack pipe!

Re:Checks and balances

[ColdWetDog]

Not to mention that most judges are former prosecutors.

And virtually all judges are lawyers. And lawyers are trained in arguing cases from BOTH sides. It's what they do....

Re:Checks and balances

[betterunixthanunix]

Let this be a lesson to all those people who, when confronted with an overly broad law, say, "Well, yes, you could go after innocent people with this, but the police would not do such thing; they need this law to make it easier for them to get the bad guys." Laws should be narrow, precise, and low in number; nobody should ever be confused about why they are being arrested, and nobody should ever be surprised to find out they have broken a law. The police have far too much power, and far too many ways to justify arresting someone, and we should be talking about ways to solve that problem, rather than making it worse.

Re:Checks and balances

[Obfuscant]

How can anybody even think it might be illegal...? I don't get it.

You mean other than there is a law in MASS that says that both parties involved in a recording must give consent for it to be legal?

I'm pretty sure that if a cop's supervisor tells a cop that there is a law that makes something illegal, and he goes to the books and looks it up to verify, he's probably going to think that it is illegal. I know that if a cop tells me something is illegal, and I can go to the statutes and find that yes, there is a statute saying it is illegal, I am going to think it is illegal, too.

I read the law, and I don't think it is a twisted interpretation of what it actually says to believe that secretly recording a police officer is illegal under the provisions as listed. It simply is too broad in defining terms, and you don't get to apply a knowledgable /. kind of definition of things when the law itself contains the definitions.

SHOULD the district court "throw the case out"? Of course not. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. You want a ruling that says "this is nonsense, the law is unconstitutional" or whatever will make the law invalid. Simply throwing the case out will let the lower court decision stand.

Yes, I think it should be legal, too. An obvious exception to the MASS law should be "recording of government employee identified as such while acting under color of authority". The law (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99) does not contain such an exemption, although it does contain many others.

Re:Checks and balances

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Is that why when most cases involving cops go to trial they excuse the jury? So it's just the cop, the prosecutor, and a former prosecutor?

Re:Checks and balances

[similar_name]

I found this interesting.

which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested

Let's all hope they don't rule that you have a right to record the police with the stipulation that you have to be obvious about it.

Re:Checks and balances

[jimrthy]

You're almost definitely doing *something* illegal. That's the biggest reason there are so many laws on the books.

Re:Checks and balances

[jimrthy]

The argument here is whether this qualifies as a secret recording. They decided long ago that using "real" video cameras is perfectly fine.

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno if I should mod you funny or insightful and I'm disturbed the the implications of that.

I guess that depends on how it turns out. If the courts, in fact, throw this out, then the checks and balances worked (Insightful). If they uphold the arrest, then funny (for certain senses of humor).

Re:Checks and balances

[jimrthy]

Just for reference, that's pretty much *exactly* the question here.

Re:Checks and balances

[anegg]

The police do as much as possible to retain as much control and power over all situations as possible. To the extent to which they have to restrain themselves from using the force, attitude, and their ability to play fast and loose with the law in order to avoid being provably (via photographic, video, and especially A/V recorded evidence) shown to overstep their actual authority in order to be the sole authority in any situation and to take what ever measures they deem most effective to not only remain in control, but leave no doubt as to their control, they view that as a direct attack on their ability to do their job. For them, that means taking any steps legally possible to eliminate the threat, including charging a bystander recording an incident with bogus crimes such as in the referenced article. I think that from their point of view they are discouraging such actions or even "getting even" with the people who take such actions, and as long as they do so legally (i.e., making charges which might not stick but for which charging they will not themselves be held to have violated the law), they haven't done anything wrong even though they know the charges will be thrown out (as these were).

My own point of view is that the ability for citizens to directly and provably monitor police activity has been too long in coming. I have heard of too many incidences where when Joe Public runs afoul of what a police officer wants the law to be, Joe Public loses. I have always believed that the US is a nation of laws, not men. At the lowest level this means that the same laws apply to all citizens, regardless of whether they are a police officer or not. However, courts tend to favor the testimony of a police officer over another citizen, and only in the most egregious circumstances seem to even begin to hold police officers to the same standards that other citizens are held. I know that a "dirtbag" will say anything in court to escape conviction, and so I understand (even if I don't like) the tendency to believe the police officer and not another citizen, all things being equal. However, A/V evidence has the benefit of being far more objective than any eye witness, especially those personally involved.

Regardless of wiretapping laws, concern over being exposed, etc. I think that the right of citizens to monitor the actions of other citizens placed in positions of power should be upheld in order to prevent the abuse of those positions of power. I think there is sufficient evidence of such abuses to outweigh other concerns.

Re:Checks and balances

[TheLink]

The biggest reason there are so many laws on the books are because most laws do not have a stated lifespan/expiry, and there is no "de-legislative" body dedicated to removing/repealing laws they think should not be there :),

The legislature has the power to repeal laws, but they are usually too busy making laws...

Re:Checks and balances

[Cwix]

Look up the difference in one party and two party states.

In a one party state you dont need permission to record anyone unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like they are alone or they are in their house.

IANAL

Re:Checks and balances

[anegg]

I'm fairly certain that police in Massachusetts use car-mounted cameras to record the public. Why can't the public record them?

In fact, the only notice that should be required is for the police to be told that "All citizens have the right to record you and you may be subject to such recording at any time you are on the job." That would constitute the notice. If they have trouble remembering it, perhaps the watch officer can repeat it to them every day as they start their shifts.

The idea of "consent" to the recording is interesting... for instance, if you call a company that records calls for "quality purposes" you are deemed to have consented to the recording if you don't hang up. By the same token, I would say that under the circumstances I outline above, the police will have been deemed to consent to the recording by not quitting their jobs.

Re:Checks and balances

[Gerzel]

Indeed the rich write the checks to throw off the balances.

Re:Checks and balances

[Toonol]

In certain locations. In other locations, consent is not needed. In my state (Oregon), I don't even need permission to secretly record any phone calls I make.

Re:Checks and balances

[Gerzel]

The problem with narrow and precise means that you need more laws to cover all of the things that should, justly, be illegal.

It is a balancing act like so many things in life.

Similar to the US small government arguments. The US will never have a small government, nor should it as it is a large nation. There is a lot that the US government needs to cover and should be doing. While I agree that as a whole it should be reduced there are many places where it should be expanded and many more that should not be reduced.

Re:Checks and balances

[Gerzel]

Indeed, I would like to see at least a review body to go over old laws.

Or at least make it so a law has to be reviewed at least once after it has been in effect for a number of years before it is made permanent.

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't take their picture, you'll just have to start shooting them.

Re:Checks and balances

[demonlapin]

IIRC the key distinction is audio recording. This is why security cameras do not have audio.

Re:Checks and balances

[j00r0m4nc3r]

The police are public employees, they are salaried with taxes you pay them. Therefore, you are their bosses and they are working on *YOUR* time. You have the right to record and monitor what they do at work.

Can I make them come in on Saturday to work on some TPS reports? Oh, and Sunday too...

Re:Checks and balances

[suutar]

Hmmm. That might fly... does the wiretapping statute in question specify that there has to be audio involved?

Re:Checks and balances

[M. Baranczak]

If the cops could see the guy recording them, then obviously it wasn't secret. So this law shouldn't even apply.

Re:Checks and balances

[LifesABeach]

What does Law Enforcement do that they would feel intimidated by photos of their actions? Wouldn't continuous filming of Law Enforcement be of superior evidentiary value? For example, the arrest of Rodeny King; oh, now I see why Law Enforcement requires that cameras turned off. And of course the Civil Rights confrontations of the 1960's show ample president of how Law Enforcement was treated unfairly by out of state reactionaries.

Re:Checks and balances

[betterunixthanunix]

The problem with narrow and precise means that you need more laws to cover all of the things that should, justly, be illegal.

We are way past that point right now. We live in a world where people can go to prison for possession of certain comic books. You can be arrested and imprisoned for growing a plant. Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves. Court cases often come down to arguments about a person's "intent" and not what the person actually did. It is becoming uncommon for defendants to face only one criminal accusation.

As I said, nobody should ever be surprised when they are arrested -- people who break the law should not have any doubt as to whether or not what they are doing is illegal, unless they never had access to a single book or television. "Narrow and precise" does not mean "so extremely narrow that the law is meaningless," it means a legal system with clearly defined boundaries between "legal" and "illegal." There will always been edge cases and situations where it is not entirely clear if a law was broken, which is why we have a system of appeals, but for the most part people should be able to say with confidence that they are not in violation of the law.

While I agree that as a whole it should be reduced there are many places where it should be expanded

Where do you think our criminal code needs to be expanded? I cannot think of any such category of behavior, but maybe I am not creative enough.

Re:Checks and balances

[black soap]

My proposal for simplifying the legal code:

1) A bill must be read aloud, in its entirety, by sponsoring congressman, in session, before it can be voted on.

2) Automatic 15-year sunset for all laws.

1 would make the laws shorter, and prevent stuff getting "snuck in," plus would make the laws with more sponsors easier to pass,

2 would mean that any law not important enough to be revisited every 15 years would not be important enough to be a law.

Also, I'd like there to be a penalty for passing laws that later turn out to be unconstitutional.

Re:Checks and balances

[aix tom]

Another thing I have been dreaming about is a system where you need, say, 2/3 of the votes to create a law, but only 1/3 of the votes to repeal a law.

Re:Checks and balances

[EastCoastSurfer]

Denver has has quite a few police scandals with officers beating people up and being caught on film. A new chief is trying to change perceptions by equipping every officer with a small camera that hangs on their shirt and records anytime the shutter is slid open. Hopefully it goes through and gets more use by other departments.

Re:Checks and balances

[imric]

Boehner, is that you?

Re:Checks and balances

[h4rr4r]

Which means they will close the shutter when they are beating people. What they need to do is record the officers whenever they are on duty.

Re:Checks and balances

[dyingtolive]

While I agree that as a whole it should be reduced there are many places where it should be expanded

Where do you think our criminal code needs to be expanded? I cannot think of any such category of behavior, but maybe I am not creative enough.

Politics.

Re:Checks and balances

[memnock]

It's kind of odd to me that all the people who argue for security cameras say that they're taping what's "in the public already." In other words, you can't expect any privacy when you're in the park or on the road, etc. Yet, here it seems that the argument is that there is an expectation of the opposite. Which is it supposed to be? If it falls to the there being some kind of privacy after all, when will they start taking down all those surveillance cameras?

Re:Checks and balances

[xmundt]

A good thought there, but, of course, a pipe dream, because there are so many lawyers making laws that it is exactly like putting a fox in charge of the chicken coop. Having said that, though, I have advocated for years that the only amendments to a law should be something that directly applies to and changes the law itself.
          Part of the problem with the white elephant of legislation these days is that it is far too easy, and far too common to have a collection of totally non-related laws attached to a law that a lot of people want, to ensure that they all will get passed. We have all seen it happen, and, that is one of the reason we have laws that are 1000+ pages long...
          The system is certainly off balance, if not completely broken...yet every side wants to keep it because they can leverage it to their advantage, no matter what might be best for the country...

Re:Checks and balances

[jimrthy]

*shrug*

I happen to totally agree with you. But common sense doesn't have anything to do with the law. After all, the Supreme Court has found on multiple occasions that "shall not" actually means "unless it's reasonable."

Re:Checks and balances

[L0rdJedi]

Similar to the US small government arguments. The US will never have a small government, nor should it as it is a large nation. There is a lot that the US government needs to cover and should be doing. While I agree that as a whole it should be reduced there are many places where it should be expanded and many more that should not be reduced.

The phrase "all politics is local" originally referred to the fact that as laws and other things got further away from you, they had less impact on you. A federal law cover very specific things so it covered very few people. A local law covered far more people, but as soon as you left that area, you were no longer affected. The is the whole point of a Constitutional Republic in the US. Establish ordinances and laws at the local and state level because those people know what's best for them. Establish a very few laws at the Federal level because they will impact everyone.

Being a large nation doesn't mean we need a big government. It means our citizens need to care about each other in their local communities and not keep depending on the federal government to come to the rescue every time there's a problem. That thinking gives us 2700 page bills. Small government local thinking gives you much smaller bills that are far easier to read and digest.

Re:Checks and balances

[sconeu]

You've been reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" again, haven't you?

Re:Checks and balances

[bhtooefr]

In fact, the solution to the bad guy problem is to have the tools to defend against the bad guy when it happens, leaving the police to be janitors, essentially.

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we need a large Federal Government? The job of the Federal Government is clearly laid out in the Constitution, yet it has been allowed to usurp rights away from the state. Education, Healthcare, etc... aren't listed as powers granted to the Federal Government, and as such are things that individual states are supposed to deal with.

This has been a rising problem since the technically illegal war on the South during the American Civil War as the states always had the right to secede from the Union if they found it no longer to their taste. Yes, firing on Fort Sumpter gave the North the needed excuse to fight...

Re:Checks and balances

[currently_awake]

1- The USA is a collection of states, each with its own laws and government. The federal gov only has a small number of exclusive powers that require a government so why would they need to be big? National defense, international trade, interstate commerce, regulating the banks- I'm not seeing a big government required. 2- don't police cars have cameras in them? Isn't filming in public places legal?

Re:Checks and balances

[poopdeville]

Although overly-broad laws are a serious problem, the real problem has little to do with them.

The police are not trained in the law. They are trained to a 350 page handbook, and are trained that if they have any doubt that an action is legal, to arrest or fine, and let the Courts sort it out. They are trained to hide behind their badge when they are wrong.

This is a classic economic externality. It costs a policeman or woman nothing to arrest or fine someone they will probably never see again. But doing so imposes enormous costs on all of us, through the direct costs of defense, and the social costs of operating courts beyond their capacity.

Re:Checks and balances

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Where do you think our criminal code needs to be expanded? I cannot think of any such category of behavior, but maybe I am not creative enough.

Actually, he never said it needed to be. He said that the US government as a whole should be expanded in certain areas.

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

"right to bare arms"

WHAT!! You mean I might not be able to wear my wife-beater shirt?

Say it ain't so!

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

Most corporate behavior outside of a few narrow sectors is *way* under-policed.

And then there are other kinds of Fraud.

Re:Checks and balances

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

While you have a legitimate argument that I agree with, you also have to consider the reasoning behind such a wide range of laws - the sheer number of ways that people skirt the law did a good job of forcing a new law into existence to(try to) prevent it. I think that the various laws people are now complaining about are likely useful to the general populace in original intent, but have since degraded or been abused into something that people see in a bad light(and with reason). Am I wrong?

Re:Checks and balances

[AlamedaStone]

our citizens need to care about each other in their local communities

That would be great, but it flies in the face of many deeply-rooted inclinations of modern society.

To quote one of the greatest minds of our time, “Oooh, look at me Marge, I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man from Happyland who lives in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!

By the way I was being sarcastic...”

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

The police do as much as possible to retain as much control and power over all situations as possible. To the extent to which they have to restrain themselves from using the force, attitude, and their ability to play fast and loose with the law in order to avoid being provably (via photographic, video, and especially A/V recorded evidence) shown to overstep their actual authority in order to be the sole authority in any situation and to take what ever measures they deem most effective to not only remain in control, but leave no doubt as to their control, they view that as a direct attack on their ability to do their job. For them, that means taking any steps legally possible to eliminate the threat, including charging a bystander recording an incident with bogus crimes such as in the referenced article. I think that from their point of view they are discouraging such actions or even "getting even" with the people who take such actions, and as long as they do so legally (i.e., making charges which might not stick but for which charging they will not themselves be held to have violated the law), they haven't done anything wrong even though they know the charges will be thrown out (as these were).

My own point of view is that the ability for citizens to directly and provably monitor police activity has been too long in coming. I have heard of too many incidences where when Joe Public runs afoul of what a police officer wants the law to be, Joe Public loses. I have always believed that the US is a nation of laws, not men. At the lowest level this means that the same laws apply to all citizens, regardless of whether they are a police officer or not. However, courts tend to favor the testimony of a police officer over another citizen, and only in the most egregious circumstances seem to even begin to hold police officers to the same standards that other citizens are held. I know that a "dirtbag" will say anything in court to escape conviction, and so I understand (even if I don't like) the tendency to believe the police officer and not another citizen, all things being equal. However, A/V evidence has the benefit of being far more objective than any eye witness, especially those personally involved.

Regardless of wiretapping laws, concern over being exposed, etc. I think that the right of citizens to monitor the actions of other citizens placed in positions of power should be upheld in order to prevent the abuse of those positions of power. I think there is sufficient evidence of such abuses to outweigh other concerns.

That's because the US is rapidly becoming a police state.

Re:Checks and balances

[hairyfeet]

As someone who has a scar on the back of his head and a shoulder that hurts when it rains because of a cop that started with, and I quote "God damned niggers and fucking hippies, I don't know which I hate more" (BTW said "nigger" was a baptist minister I was taking to a revival to raise money for the homeless) I can say the reason why cops want to be able to throw your ass in jail if you dare to take their picture is a hell of a lot of them are roid raged "bullies with badges" that frankly took the job to get off on being absolute fucking pricks.

For a good example of why they want the cameras stopped I'd suggest you watch the largest gang in America and then you tell me what makes the actions in the video ANY different from the large scale intimidation tactics done by the brown shirts and the black shirts in times past? And before anyone says Godwin you watch the video and tell me that isn't large scale intimidation designed to suppress those that the blue shirts consider "undesirable". As I said I still have a scar from being a white person with hair the wrong length associating with a race the blue shirt considered undesirable.

Re:Checks and balances

[Lexx Greatrex]

You can cite local laws until your face turns blue but the documentation of events occurring in a public place by any member of the public is protected under the US first amendment as well as an incredible body of legal precedent.

Re:Checks and balances

[Ginger Unicorn]

Is this an actual thing, or just your juvenile wank fantasy?

Re:Checks and balances

[therefore]

True, but you can't make an audio recording of conversations (i.e., not on the phone) without all parties agreeing in Oregon. Whether that applies to police is an evolving standard -- the most recent case, it was decided in favor of the recorder.

Re:Checks and balances

[cavreader]

What the hell does this mean "go to prison for possession of certain comic books" . Explain how you came to this conclusion. Please include the context of accusation and all the other facts you have conveniently ignored. Again I think you are leaving out a couple of facts with this beauty "Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves". And "intent" is a key provision in many laws. Laws like killing someone. The intent can decide whether the person is convicted of murder or manslaughter which have clear differences in sentencing guidelines. This "people who break the law should not have any doubt as to whether or not what they are doing is illegal" assertion says more about idiots committing the crime than it does about the law.

Re:Checks and balances

[Arterion]

Often, there must be federal laws to protect citizens' freedoms from their state and local governments.

What you suggest is like turning a game of herding 50 lions into a game of herding 5,000 cats.

Re:Checks and balances

[russotto]

What the hell does this mean "go to prison for possession of certain comic books"

Comic books with drawn pictures of naked underaged persons, I would suspect. The Supreme Court has struck this down on several occasions, but still people rot in prison for it.

Again I think you are leaving out a couple of facts with this beauty "Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves".

The only salient fact he's leaving out is the word "naked".

Sticking your head in the sand won't make the problem go away.

Re:Checks and balances

[cheekyboy]

It might be hard to proove you didnt murder someone, or hide evidence, etc.... but its probably hell of a lot easier to preplan a fake intent in detail, so your outcome of your crime is the same, but if you faked your intent just right with enough planning and 'sly evidence' , then you can skew the conviction outcome.

Consider it a mathamatical problem, beyond the intellectual grasp of the lawyers/DA.

Re:Checks and balances

[betterunixthanunix]

What the hell does this mean "go to prison for possession of certain comic books"

No, that was not an exaggeration:

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/27/manga-collector-face.html

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Did you think I was just making it up? Or were you not paying attention to the sorts of laws that have been passed in the United States?

Again I think you are leaving out a couple of facts with this beauty "Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves".

No, actually, I left nothing out; just ask these teenagers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479803,00.html

Oh, sorry, that was a Fox News link. Here, something less fair and balanced:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/

Note that the three girls who took the photographs -- photographs of themselves -- were arrested, as were the boys who received them. Not one of the people arrested here was over the age of 16.

This "people who break the law should not have any doubt as to whether or not what they are doing is illegal" assertion says more about idiots committing the crime than it does about the law.

Oh yeah? Are you sure that you have never committed a felony? These people were pretty sure too:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/

Did you remember to check all the paperwork relating to your hobbies? Obviously importing orchids without doing so is something you can go to jail for, right?

Re:Checks and balances

[ChrisMaple]

The sentence is ambiguous. Whether "expanded" refers to "lot" or "US government" is not explicit, nor is it obvious from context.

Re:Checks and balances

[ChrisMaple]

Every legislator voting for a law must write out that law, longhand, with pen and paper. The writing shall be video recorded, and the recording made part of the public record. The video recording shall be made in such a manner that both the law and the legislator can be unmistakably identified.

Re:Checks and balances

[cavreader]

OK the examples you referenced all fall under child pornography statutes. Which is a little more involved than just "possessing a comic book" or stating "Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves" while leaving out the small detail that the pictures were of naked minors in your argument. You started this thread off bitching about unjust laws while purposely slanting your accusations and leaving out some pretty important details and contextual information to make your argument. And the story about the Orchids is disturbing but anecdotal evidence does not render the entire system of laws invalid or unjust. And you were condemning the system using misleading descriptions and 1 example of an unjust prosecution based on the seriousness of the offense. There are all kinds of laws that should be removed entirely or at least updated to reflect the values and morals of an ever changing society. But there are legal remedies in place that allow the accused of any crime to challenge the charges in leveled against them and there have been a lot of instances where a law was invalidated by the court system. The legislative and judicial branches of government are designed just for situations like this. No system of law is perfect and there will always be cases of injustice but that is no reason to condemn the entire system.

Re:Checks and balances

[DaleSwanson]

My proposal for simplifying the legal code: 1) A bill must be read aloud, in its entirety, by sponsoring congressman, in session, before it can be voted on. 2) Automatic 15-year sunset for all laws. 1 would make the laws shorter, and prevent stuff getting "snuck in," plus would make the laws with more sponsors easier to pass, 2 would mean that any law not important enough to be revisited every 15 years would not be important enough to be a law. Also, I'd like there to be a penalty for passing laws that later turn out to be unconstitutional.

I've long been a proponent of sunset laws. But I really like the reading aloud idea. May I also suggest that no one may vote unless they were present for the entire reading. Our congress people already freely admit to not reading laws they vote on.

Just to give some idea of scale. Wikipedia says 150 words per minute is typical for speech. The Patriot Act copied and pasted into Libre Office is 56k words. Which works out to about 6 hours. Not as long as I'd like for something as long as that, but still an improvement.

Re:Checks and balances

[tragedy]

The point about the teenagers is that the pictures of naked minors were pictures they took of themselves. Leaving aside the question of whether mere nudity constitutes pornography, the generally accepted reason that child pornography is considered bad is because it cannot be made without a sexual assault on a minor. In this case, however, if they were being victimized, it was by themselves. If we extend laws about sexual contact with minors to allow the victim and the perpetrator to be the same person, then a good 90% or more of us are surely guilty of numerous counts of statutory rape due to the fact that most of us started masturbating before we reached the age of consent. I suppose, actually, that even those of us who never masturbated have still taken our clothes off, seen ourselves naked, touched our own bodies in ways that would be considered some sort of sexual abuse if an adult were doing it to us. So, prison time and sexual offender registry for everyone then?

Re:Checks and balances

[thePuck77]

And when those laws exist, along come the "populists" and their "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem!" rhetoric and make sure those laws are changed, repealed, or never really enforced. It's always argued in this appealing, underdog rebel kind of way, but when you look behind the scenes there are always entrenched politicians and corporations who stand to gain from deregulation.

Re:Checks and balances

[Z00L00K]

I can't help to wonder about the validity of that law compared to the "freedom of speech", there should be a "freedom to listen" too when it comes to dialogues and statements made in an environment where what you say can't be expected to be private.

And what if I don't record it myself but broadcast it and have someone out of state recording it?

Re:Checks and balances

[thePuck77]

Because all of the things you just mentioned require vast infrastructures and resources, in addition to laws to govern all that regulation. You just answered your own question.

Re:Checks and balances

[naz404]

I said *on active duty*. When they get off work (go off-duty), they return to their private lives and it doesn't count anymore.

Re:Checks and balances

[thej1nx]

It is how it SHOULD be, if not for apologists coward losers like you.

Re:Checks and balances

[thej1nx]

while leaving out the small detail that the pictures were of naked minors in your argument

Are you retarded? If kids take naked pics of *themselves*, that is a heinous crime according to you? Shall we throw all the kids into the Jail to be sodomized since their masturbation acts can also be considered rape of a minor? Apparently according to geniuses like you it doesn't matters that there was no victim since they themselves did it.

And apparently any criticism of overreaching laws or of having any checks on the kind of laws we have is supposed to be a "condemnation of the entire system". When did he propose that we should scrap all laws and let murderers go free? Did you fell on your head as a kid or something? All he said was that the current system is broken and is due for a major overhaul and we should only allow very specific and narrow new laws. Because as far as assholes like you are concerned, laws have stopped being about justice and more about revenge and powerplay. God forbid any guilty should go free, even if we have to throw a bunch of innocent kids into Jail. Right? Would you have liked spending your life registered as a sex-offender as a kid, just because you were a bit immature and took some naked pics of yourself?

There is a reason why kids generally cannot make legal contracts and are not treated as adults. They are too immature! Does the concept drill itself into your thick skull? I am sure it is the favorite fantasy of psychopaths like you to imagine 3 year olds being jailed for committing some "crime". But world is probably better off with nutcases like you locked up in mental asylums rather than kids being jailed.

The juvenile laws are there to just take care of kids that have committed serious crimes like murder or rape, and need to be separated from society till they become mature adults. And laws against minor pornography is to protect the children from exploitation by adults. But apparently for idiots like you, the laws are an end to themselves and cannot be questioned! Moron!

Re:Checks and balances

[BasilBrush]

I'm not the OP, but...

What the hell does this mean "go to prison for possession of certain comic books" .

Anti-child pornography laws. They should be there to protect actual children from being abused in the creation of it. So of course any photographic CP image should be illegal. However the laws have overstepped the line into thought crime, by making cartoon or computer generated images of this kind also illegal.

"Teenagers have been arrested for photographing themselves".

Another way that the CP laws overstep the mark. They should be there to protect minors. However a child photographing him/herself naked is criminalised. The absolute opposite of protecting minors.

And "intent" is a key provision in many laws. Laws like killing someone.

If only that were true. It's certainly not true in the UK...There were a could of senior citizens arrested recently on the grounds of intent to perform street theatre on the following day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOli98fgBP0&feature=player_embedded

Re:Checks and balances

[ScrewMaster]

interstate commerce

Interesting that you should mention that, given how the Commerce Clause has been contorted, stretched, twisted and carried far beyond the Founder's intent.

Re:Checks and balances

[ScrewMaster]

Some have. But it's not a national law: It's state-by-state. Some states have even passed legislation explicitly allowing recording of the police. (I think in other cases the state courts have smacked down the police, and no one's pressed it further.)

Massachusetts hasn't. So it's being an issue there, and because of the way the case was brought up it can be attacked on Constitutional grounds.

I don't know about this particular issue with regards to cops in my State, but as I've mentioned here on Slashdot before, the police here are immune from any consequences to false arrest, among other things. You can't even take them to court if they work you over and it comes out later that they got the wrong person. The reasoning used to pass that law was, I understand, in the category of "well, the police need to be free to do their jobs." Why that means they have to be held unaccountable for actions taken while on that job is beyond me.

Re:Checks and balances

[The Archon V2.0]

In this case, however, if they were being victimized, it was by themselves.

It gets even weirder when the prosecutor wants the kids tried as an adult. Yeah, so an adult is being tried for photographing a naked child and the adult and child are the same 16-year-old. I've yet to figure out what sort of twisted mind would think that makes sense.

Re:Checks and balances

[cavreader]

Boy I riled up a nest of bugs with no reading comprehension skills and probably no other characteristics that would indicate intelligence. Lets review some of your pearls of insight. The kids taking nude pictures were distributing them to their classmates. I never said they should be prosecuted as if they were out selling children for sexual pleasure. I never said anything about charging them as adults or minors. I never said the picture taking episode was heinous. I only said it would be a situation that could fall under child pornography statutes and it was dishonest to leave this detail out of the example given. "When did he propose that we should scrap all laws and let murderers go free?" I never said anything like this. Are you sure you were reading what I wrote? Condemnation does not mean destroying anything. I can see where you got confused since the word condemnation is sometimes used in executions but condemning also means spouting negative appellations against an object or idea to draw attention and suggest a remedy. But here is the thing. If you condemn something you should not use misleading statements such as people getting arrested for merely looking at a comic book with no mention that it wasn't just a normal comic book but one with questionable imagery that rises to the level of child pornography. Purposely using inaccurate and misleading statements like this revels nothing but unthinking zealousness disguised as truth . Using lies of omission, regurgitating patently flawed reasoning, repeating falsehoods, on purpose or in ignorance over and over to the point where the actual facts have all been forgotten and you are left with nothing but animosity. Attacking those who do not share your simplistic world view also spreads like a virus all over the world which then leads people in this situation to actually believe people were being arrested for owning comic books. On top of everything you then go on to attack things I never said or implied. I clearly admitted there were unjust laws on the books and that there is a system in place to deal with it. It is also a system that is continually tested and modified over time. But of course that would be meaningless to you because you probably think history started when you were born 10 years ago. It is not a perfect system nor will it ever be 100% perfect but name something that is. Your other mutterings and insults touch on a subject that I also never commented on or specified an opinion on whether those involved in the incident should be charged as an adult or minor. "But apparently for idiots like you, the laws are an end to themselves and cannot be questioned" I never said anything at all about not questioning laws. I did specifically say that there are unjust or misguided laws that should be removed or modified. You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension abilities. I hear they really push that skill starting in the 6th grade so it will only be a few more months till you can take advantage if this. "But world is probably better off with nutcases like you locked up in mental asylums rather than kids being jailed." This beauty does nothing but shine the spotlight on your immaturity and no doubt feeds you self righteousness illusion you walk around with.

Re:Checks and balances

[hoboroadie]

Maybe someone could sponsor a bill making it explicitly legal and protecting our RIGHT to record our "public servants" at "work". ...ROTFL

Re:Checks and balances

[thej1nx]

Mate. The nest you riled up was due to several amazing pearls of wisdom from you.

a) Apparently you still fail to grasp the basic concept that kids will be kids. Nothing a kid can do, short of actually molesting, harming, raping another kid should ever fall foul of any laws that are directed towards adults in order to protect the kids. Apparently you do not want them prosecuted them as adults, but your constantly harping on the fact "but they were showing their nekkid body to other kids!!!" seems to imply that you do want them prosecuted by law somehow nevertheless! Actually you were brandishing the fact about "they were child pornographers!" as some kind of excuse for kids being charged. That is EXACTLY how it came across as. And once someone called you on it, now you are trying to be dishonest and do a complicated dance to save your face. All GP said was that no law should allow jailing or charging of children for taking and distributing any pics of themselves(naked or otherwise). Either you agree, or you disagree. Stop trying to weasel your way around this. If you disagree, please tell us how jailing and registering these children as sex-offenders for life is protecting them from harm.

Which part of "kids are NOT adults" are you unable to understand? The laws you harp about are directed towards adults, you idiot! Stop acting like they are meant to apply to kids as well! The rest of us rational and sane folks think that the police officials and DA that did this were total scumbags! Do let us know what terrible harm was done to anyone if some kid let someone else see himself/herself nekkid. If some older person coerced them even in the slightest to do it, they deserve to go to jail for life. But seriously! Once in your life, sit down, and actually use the grey cells to actually think about why you are so keen on seeing these kids prosecuted. since when is it a crime for kids to be kids? If they did something that is not accepted, it is the job of their parents to teach them. At the worst, you may hold the parents responsible for the actions of the kids and punish THEM instead.

If it has still not filtered through, there is NOTHING criminal whatsoever about a kid sending naked pic of themselves to friends. At most you can inform the parents and request them to take corrective measures. No one is being harmed in whatsoever way by kid's action. It is YOU who is intent on harming them by suggesting that it can somehow fall under child pornography. And before you try your clever dishonest dance of "i wasnt implying they should be held responsible", if you don't think it is a crime, or that they cannot be held responsible, then no crime was committed and the entire fact is irrelevant.

b) Pornography is pretty much legal in USA, in case you were trying to find something wrong with pornographic comic books. There are indeed laws that prosecute even imaginary drawings involving children. On the other hand, sex abuse laws related to minors were defined to protect them. "Them" to most sane folks, who are not blabbering, over-zealous idiots, means REAL children. If someone wants to *fantasize* about imaginary children, while the idea is offensive, yet trying to punish them for it, is basically being a thought police. You are wasting public tax money on solving a problem that has no victims, and punishing people basically just out of fear that they MAY commit a real crime someday. A comic book no matter how offensive or questionable, is just a comic book in the end, as long as it contains no real photos, or no drawings/images(i.e. computer generated) that may be mistook for a real child. Feel free to prosecute folks who are conspiring to actually commit a sex-crime. Feel free to chemically castrate folks who get convicted of harming any real child. But please stop wasting the world's time to protect imaginary children, just because it offends you somehow. Lots of things are offensive in this world. At best, put folks who possess such comics on a watch-list or something. Jailing them for no actual harmful c

Re:Checks and balances

[thej1nx]

This is a continuation of my comment below...

Allow me to introduce you to the amazing concept that child pornography statutes should NOT cover situations where no child was ever exploited/harmed by someone else.

Since your reading is selective I will post tragedy's comment for you.

"The point about the teenagers is that the pictures of naked minors were pictures they took of themselves. Leaving aside the question of whether mere nudity constitutes pornography, the generally accepted reason that child pornography is considered bad is because it cannot be made without a sexual assault on a minor. In this case, however, if they were being victimized, it was by themselves. If we extend laws about sexual contact with minors to allow the victim and the perpetrator to be the same person, then a good 90% or more of us are surely guilty of numerous counts of statutory rape due to the fact that most of us started masturbating before we reached the age of consent. I suppose, actually, that even those of us who never masturbated have still taken our clothes off, seen ourselves naked, touched our own bodies in ways that would be considered some sort of sexual abuse if an adult were doing it to us. So, prison time and sexual offender registry for everyone then?"

Feel free to answer that.

And so-called inaccurate statements are hardly inaccurate. They just point out the nonsensical situation that such laws create. The "hidden details" are meaningful only to nutcases like you. For us rational folks, it seems stupid that idiots like you would prefer to apply child pornography statutes to voluntarily self-taken photos and jail and harm the very kids you are pretending to protect with such statutes. It also seems idiotic when you foolishly try to protect imaginary drawings/imaginary children from sex-abuse by jailing folks. But then again, for nutcases like you, who accept laws for the sake of the laws, without considering whether or not they make sense, this is apparently "acceptable collateral damage" as part of your psychopathic over-zealotry of preventing harm to your imaginary friends/drawings. And you would apparently waste valuable time, money and other resources of the tax-paying public doing so.

Re:Checks and balances

[mldi]

Often, there must be federal laws to protect citizens' freedoms from their state and local governments.

What you suggest is like turning a game of herding 50 lions into a game of herding 5,000 cats.

Because the federal government cares more about your rights than your state and local governments? Wow. Let me tell you one thing: the more power you have, the more corrupt you can be. As an example, those federal 3-letter agencies all have far more power than your local town cop.

Re:Checks and balances

[Devoidoid]

Lou Costello called...

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are public employees, they are salaried with taxes you pay them. Therefore, you are their bosses and they are working on *YOUR* time.

That is your opinion.

Others will say that the police are a gang of murderous thugs whose sole purpose is asserting their dominance over the general populace with the tacit support of the legal system.

The police has free reign to perform criminal acts that would put a less privileged citizen away for a long time. However, when a policeman performs such acts, they are rewarded with paid vacations ("suspended with pay"), the investigation (if any) is done (read "sabotaged") by their peers, attorney generals do not prosecute ("lack of public interest") and if, against all odds, the system has to admit wrongdoing, they are "administratively punished".

When I was younger and more naive, I thought that there were bad cops ("rotten apples") and good cops. Then I asked myself, what to the good cops do to rid the police force of the bad cops? The answer led me to the realization that there are no good cops, and will never be until people in position of power and authority are held to stricter standards then the rest.

Some interesting videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Largest+Street+Gang+in+America
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutality

Re:Checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

BEAR arms... goddamn.

Bare arms.... what you have when you wear a T-Shirt.
BEAR arms... what you have when you possess/carry weapons.

Gawd, is basic English a forgotten subject in American schools???

In Orwellian America...

[Anonymous Coward]

telescreen records YOU.

Police have no expectation of privacy

[WillAdams]

when performing official duties for the good of the public.

If their supervisor showed up, they'd have to fully disclose everything which they were doing, ditto internal affairs, the police chief / superintendent, or a government functionary whose bailiwick involved the performance of their current duties.

If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Nikker]

What I don't understand is why they wouldn't want as much independent coverage of the incident / whatever as possible. Wouldn't it make it much easier to prove in court as well as save paperwork documenting the scene? Eye witnesses are a very weak link to almost any case having a video or possibly multiple videos of the same event would just give them harder evidence to their case.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[future assassin]

If they got nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that the moto all police forces want you to live by?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[WillAdams]

Yep. It'd also make their filling in their duty logs / the police blotter much easier.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Lunix Nutcase]

The problem is that the guy recording them got them on video punching a suspect. Of course they were going to do whatever they can to squelch that.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Darinbob]

Because the police and the public are having difficulties adjusting to each other and will soon be filing for a divorce. Just as much as the public has grown to distrust the police, the police as well have grown to distrust the public. Everyone is a potential enemy.

And let's face the hard truth here: no one is filming the police in an attempt to help out the police when they appear in court. Every single one of them is filming the police in an attempt to catch them doing something wrong. The police know this too, and so they view anyone who is filming them as a harsh critic at best and an adversary at worst.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[pixelpusher220]

The 'argument' against this type of recording is you don't want the officer thinking twice or three times how something will 'look' before reacting. Ideally you don't want cops reacting 'badly' in the first place, but cops are, as much as they are demonized, human after all and nobody is perfect.

It's a valid argument only when it is a valid argument and not valid in the bulk of situations. Which by logic dictates it should be valid none of the time.

It's a lot like the imminent bomb explosion threat used to justify torture.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Lunix Nutcase]

Boohoo. Public officials have no expectation of privacy in a public place. The 1st Circuit already ruled on this years ago.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but they dont want to have to live by that motto themselves.... they are above the law, remember?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[MozeeToby]

The official duties part is totally unnecessary. The judges have to realize these laws are broken, if they are upheld, simply taking a video camera to record your kid at the park would be an illegal act (with some ridiculously heavy penalties associated with it in some states).

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[jgtg32a]

Context, it is very easy to lie with photographs. Remember that picture where General Nguyn Ngc Loan executed some guy in Vietnam with his handgun? Did you know that the photographer apologized for taking that picture?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the video may or may not show full context of the situation - and I'm not talking about someone having edited the recording. Something that may appear excessive may only seem so without seeing the buildup to that situation.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[gstoddart]

What I don't understand is why they wouldn't want as much independent coverage of the incident / whatever as possible.

So there's nothing to dispute their version of events, and to make sure that when they do break the law, they can't get prosecuted for it.

They'll say they don't want snippets taken out of context, or that it's unfair to them or whatever ... but mostly this is about covering their own asses, and using their powers to intimidate the population from monitoring them.

Not all cops are jackbooted thugs ... but they tend to circle the wagons around the ones that are. It happens everywhere. And, it's only when someone has them on video you can do anything about it.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[dcollins]

Just for argument's sale, let's imagine that standard police operating procedure is regularly corrupt and extra-judicial. Then this response would be the logical conclusion.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Daniel_Staal]

There's also the argument that gets brought forward that the bystander usually doesn't record the entire encounter. Sometimes what happened (or was visible) a second before means what the policeman is doing is justified to keep the peace. And a phone video clip often leads to a 'trail by media' where the police don't get to present their side of the story.

I'm not a fan of the argument, but it's at least somewhat sane. Like the above, it's only valid a subset of the time, and there are other ways to handle that subset.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

So?

That's what courts are for, to sort things out and determine all details and circumstances.

An impartial, accurate observer which can't commit perjury should be welcome.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[FauxPasIII]

> What I don't understand is why they wouldn't want as much independent coverage of the incident / whatever as possible.

Because they want to have the option to lie about it, obviously.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Jason Levine]

Ironically, this is indeed a rare case of "if you don't have anything to hide" as 99 times out of 100 the police who object to being recorded are doing something that they wouldn't want internal affairs knowing about. So long as the person videoing the interaction doesn't interfere with police procedures (e.g. walk all over a crime scene because it "looks cool on video") or act belligerent (e.g. threatening police officers arresting a friend while they are videoing the arrest) there shouldn't be a problem. And in those instances, the problem wouldn't be related to the videoing at all.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the argument that gets brought forward that the bystander usually doesn't record the entire encounter. Sometimes what happened (or was visible) a second before means what the policeman is doing is justified to keep the peace.

Sorry, no. Nothing that happened previously justifies punching a restrained suspect.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[pixelpusher220]

Yep exactly. The Rodney King video was a good example. The vast majority of people (including me) only saw the wicked beating he got. The whole tape showed him resisting multiple officers, including multiple Tazer shots. The police believed he was on PCP given the strength of his resistance and reacted with massive overwhelming force and then continued with the beating.

Doesn't make their response right, but it adds context to their mindset.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Comrade Ogilvy]

No one has any expectation of privacy in a public place, or anything that can easily be viewed or heard by a passerby who is in a public place at the time.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[drb226]

That doesn't mean that recording it should be wrong. It just means people need to turn on their brains before passing judgement based on the recording.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Daniel_Staal]

As I said, it only applies a subset of the time. It's probably not applicable in this case, but that won't mean it won't get brought up.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

no it doesnt! you are a fool. If the guy is down or restrained he is down or restrained. If the freakin' video shows the guy was restrained or incapacitated and they KEPT GOING, then no "context" is needed. This is obvious, and the cops want to justify their use of force... they are trained and paid to know how to deal with this. Not act like a scared granma with a shotgun.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Just as much as the public has grown to distrust the police, the police as well have grown to distrust the public. Everyone is a potential enemy

The next generation of police are going have to learn to see cameras as a fact of life, and behave as if a grainy vision of everything they do could see the inside of a courtroom. Usually cameras help the police. Sometimes they raise inconvenient questions.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Obfuscant]

The official duties part is totally unnecessary.

Actually, it is a critical part of any exemption you want to write into that law. AND that the police officer is openly identified AS a police officer when the recording is made.

If you exclude "official duties", then you would allow secret recording of an officer while off-duty, and when he's not acting as a police officer his life is his own. He deserves, at that time, the same protections anyone else has.

The judges have to realize these laws are broken, if they are upheld, simply taking a video camera to record your kid at the park would be an illegal act (with some ridiculously heavy penalties associated with it in some states).

Oh, please. Come back to earth, ok? Your kid is, presumably, a minor under your guardianship, or you wouldn't be calling him "your kid". You are, by the act if taping him, defacto authorizing the taping on his behalf. It would be an interesting but ultimately useless exercise to determine if MASS law even allows a minor to give consent to taping, similar to their inability to consent to sexual activity. But in any event, no, you aren't going to jail for taping your kid in the park (unless he or she is naked or exhibiting some sort of sexually explicit conduct.)

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the whole part where the bystander said he saw the officer punch the guy?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[jimrthy]

In this case, this is apparently what happened.

Well, sort of. He saw them punch the suspect and started recording.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the police and the public are having difficulties adjusting to each other and will soon be filing for a divorce. Just as much as the public has grown to distrust the police, the police as well have grown to distrust the public. Everyone is a potential enemy.

And whose fault would that be? The side that is allowed to brandish guns and engage in physical force ranging from throwing people in cages to killing them or the side that doesn't?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[anegg]

The problem is that the video may or may not show full context of the situation - and I'm not talking about someone having edited the recording. Something that may appear excessive may only seem so without seeing the buildup to that situation.

Under the circumstances you describe, the police officer would then have the ability in court to explain that context. Surely it is better to have the police officer explain the context (plausibly) than to forbid any recording of such incidents so that the police won't have to explain the context??

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[WillAdams]

I don't believe wiretapping laws could be held to apply at all --- police officers have a legal obligation to create an accurate record of their performance of their duties --- anything which serves to document that is implicitly acceptable as a matter of public record.

betterunixthanunix's post here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2229228&cid=36404860

is spot on.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[NoSig]

There is no kind of evidence that I can think of that could not possibly be misleading. So that video evidence might be misleading isn't really a big problem with video evidence in particular. I would say that video evidence is perhaps one of the kinds of evidence that are least likely to be misleading. Compare it to more easily doctorable photographs and the notoriously unreliable eye witness. If we were ruling out video evidence because it might be misleading, then I could by the same argument say that no one could bring up DNA evidence against me because it might be that someone planted that DNA evidence - it's not just that I could make the argument that DNA evidence could be planted, I could say that no one should be allowed to even collect DNA evidence because that evidence might, once collected, be misleading. This is clearly a preposterous argument. If police don't want misleading video of themselves distributed, they need to make their own videos that include any salient follow-up. They cannot be allowed to interfere with the collection of evidence against them.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[ep32g79]

act belligerent (e.g. threatening police officers arresting a friend while they are videoing the arrest) there shouldn't be a problem.

Actually, your belligerent words may be constitutionally protected (although threats of violence not so much) Read: City of Houston, Texas v. Hill

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Travelsonic]

... no batter where the argument is made it doesn't make ANY sense since no HUMAN BEING with ANY degree of privacy can also have NOTHING to hide - the two are walking contradictions when paired together. I just wish this phrase would die a very fast and painful death by retardation... instead of subjecting myself to the retardation of ANYBODY using it..

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[starfishsystems]

Case in point: Robert Dziekanski, a Polish traveller to Canada who was neglected for several hours in the airport immigration area, and who was then tasered to death by four RCMP officers within a few seconds of their arrival on the scene.

The RCMP confiscated this video and only released it after enormous public pressure. Imagine what would have happened without this evidence. As it was, the police failed to separately debrief those officers in order to plausibly minimize the appearance of collusion. The same four officers are now charged with perjury after telling a fabricated story in which Dziekanski "attacked them with a stapler." This is the story which the RCMP administration vigorously defended and then ultimately abandoned - all at public cost.

During the inquiry, the RCMP introduced massive procedural delays upon request to produce the internal documents recorded as a result of the incident. After documents were finally released, they were found to be incomplete. Significant among these, a police email suggested the officers made plans to taser Dziekanski even before they saw him. The RCMP lawyer eventually withdrew in tears after acknowledging the omission.

This is what the police did in the face of independent evidence. Imagine what would have happened without this video as evidence.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[j00r0m4nc3r]

I don't see how it's wiretapping to begin with. This isn't the interception of a private transmission. The cops are basically broadcasting their audio/video for all to see. That would be like calling recording a radio show "wiretapping"...

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[itsenrique]

The deeper problem is that of systematic lying and covering for your fellow officers. The blue code works just fine until there's a recording of what really happened. Because there is often what the police say, what the defendants say, and the truth.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[jafiwam]

No, not all are thugs.

Every single one of them is a liar though. They are TRAINED to lie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik)

The people they talk to on the other hand, if caught even being a little evasive get arrested if not charged for it (or worse.)

They lie so much, all day long and every day it gets very easy for them. They just don't like their tactics revealed by recording.

The pigs trying to stop recordings are criminals. Simple as that.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of their power stems from their ability to control the narrative. What they document becomes the baseline truth that goes into the legal system. Anything that they don't happen to document becomes rumor and hearsay. When they control the recording devices they maintain firm control over the narrative. When someone else can document a different narrative they now are constrained and inconvenienced by the objective baseline reality. Who would want this limit if they don't have to have it?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the police and the public are having difficulties adjusting to each other and will soon be filing for a divorce. Just as much as the public has grown to distrust the police, the police as well have grown to distrust the public. Everyone is a potential enemy.

Well, then there is a real problem. If only paranoid sociopaths are apply to work as police officers, the problem will only be getting worse...For the police.

And let's face the hard truth here: no one is filming the police in an attempt to help out the police when they appear in court. Every single one of them is filming the police in an attempt to catch them doing something wrong. The police know this too, and so they view anyone who is filming them as a harsh critic at best and an adversary at worst.

And the problem with this is...what, exactly? If you're doing your job properly, then there's nothing to worry about. Things can be misrepresented but, as the "authorities" tell us, in the end the truth will out.

P.S. If the police are going to tap my communications and record my movements, then they, too, should have their communications and movements recorded. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cops are human. So are the rest of us. And, as humans, we may get angry on the job or in social situations when we're under stress and punch someone in the face or throw them to the ground and kick them, or shoot them. It's understandable, we're only human. Only, when the rest of us do it, we get jail time. When police officers do it, they typically don't even when they shoot someone in the back who was lying face down on the ground. For the rest of us, even if was an accident, that's at least manslaughter. For a police officer, it's typically a period of paid administrative leave while an investigation is undertaken which usually finds the police officer blameless but often finds a way to blame the dead person or some other non-police officer on the scene (especially if they were recording the event). Often a gun is found that proves that the officers life was in danger. Strangely it often takes days or weeks for the gun to be found and the statements of all the officers present have to be amended to include the fact that there was a gun there...

When people step outside the law, it's considered a crime and punished as such. Frequently quite unfairly. People who are stepping outside the law, especially those who commit violence, are often in highly stressful situations. That doesn't save them from punishment. Police officers are just like the rest of us. They're just regular people who hold an office that bears certain responsibilities but also allows them a certain leeway in their actions _when executing those responsibilities_. If they are operating outside the boundaries of those responsibilities, then they don't get the leeway in their actions. If someone the police have caught has just tried to kill them and they've just successfully subdued them, it is no more legal for the police officers to give them a good kicking or tasing, etc. than it is for any of us do take similar revenge. "Because I was really really angry" actually used to be a legal defense you could use to argue some sort of diminished capacity in some jurisdictions and a long time ago. It doesn't work anymore.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Mister Whirly]

Spoken like someone who has never been harassed, abused, or falsely accused by the police. My guess is that you would change your tune in a heartbeat if you were on the other side of it, even once. If the officers were truly using "reasonable force" responding to the suspect, they should welcome all video evidence of the encounter. If they have done nothing wrong, it will enforce that fact.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. Context doesn't make it any better. I just watched it again. I see him moving and being beaten. Then I see him lying still and being beaten, then moving again and being beaten, lying still again, police hovering waiting for a sign of movement so they can beat him again, then an officer kicks him, so he moves, then they beat him again. During all of this, two or three officers are close and there's five or more hovering around. None of them are attempting to properly restrain him. By all accounts, he did plenty to make them mad. That doesn't actually matter. They're supposed to be professionals. Their profession, in fact, is the only reason that they're allowed to use violence in their jobs. When they're not acting professionally, they aren't legally allowed to be any more violent than you are. It isn't legal for you and a gang of your friends to beat someone up because they made you mad, so why would it be legal for the police?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[pixelpusher220]

Why should you not be able to read? I didn't say it was right and explicitly said it wasn't. I just said it adds context to what the officers were feeling and thinking.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[h4rr4r]

That just proves the photographer is as much as scumbag as the murdering general. I don't care he caught Hitler himself, once the suspect is restrained and controlled he can go to trial.

The photographer just did not like the reality his photo captured, we are not always the good guys.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

human after all and nobody is perfect.
Except that what they're doing is NOT "human". The typical human reaction when being photographed isn't to quickly beat the hell out of the photographer and steal/destroy his equipment. If that were the case, we'd have a lot less wedding photographers around.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the officers were truly using "reasonable force" responding to the suspect, they should welcome all video evidence of the encounter. If they have done nothing wrong, it will enforce that fact.

Indeed. Talk to parents about the legality of spanking their children while you're at it. Yes, parents should not be able to beat their children, but spanking is not the same thing. Yet there are people out there (and it seems to be a growing majority) that go apeshit if someone swats their kid on the bottom for being a noisome little brat in public. Lord help the poor parent if those same asshats caught the 'abuse' on video.

To some types of people, there is no such thing as 'reasonable' force, all force is bad. These are the types of people I like to call 'deluded'.

And no, I never have had dealings with the police, other than the typical traffic stuff. I am friends with several officers, however, so I maybe have more of a sense of what tough decisions these guys have to make, and the consequences if they make the wrong decision (or even the right decision too slowly). They generally are not called in to deal with 'nice' people, and even if you really, truly are a saint amongst men, how are they to know that at the time? All they know is that this guy, who's been accused of doing X, is refusing to co-operate and/or trying to resist. Is he stalling so his buddy can sneak up from behind? Is he planning on pulling the gun he may have shoved in his skivvies? Or is he really and truly 'the wrong guy' as he keeps shouting? What would you do?

-CCarrot (posting anon since I modded this forum already)

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[BuildingSnowmen]

It's only a valid argument in so much as it is acceptable for police to ask all witnesses in the area to turn away and not watch. After all, you don't want officers thinking about how something will look, regardless of whether or not it is being recorded.

With regard to "the context of the encounter" being an issue when only part of the encounter being recorded, the same holds true when witnesses are present. Witness accounts will vary. Some witnesses will only observe some parts of the encounter. Is the solution for police to have the power to clear out everyone who has a line of sight to the incident?

I'm all for police being able to expect and demand that onlookers maintain a reasonable distance for officer safety, non-interference, etc., but do we really want to live in a place where police can detain a friend or loved one and then tell everyone else in the area to go home or be arrested for being a witness? Until the day when all police officers are issued hats with video cameras, the video is always on when the officer is on-duty, and there is no way for the video to go "missing" or "strangely malfunctioned" I think it is good that we have citizen videographers keeping the powers in check.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean that recording it should be wrong. It just means people need to turn on their brains before passing judgement based on the recording.

Hear hear. Unfortunately, especially when it comes to the police, people don't think with their individual brains, since it's so much more funz to jump on the hater bandwagon. This video gets edited to show only the 'good' parts, posted to YouTube, and punk-ass little creeps start yelling about police brutality without ever looking into the rest of the circumstances.

C'mon. This is /. What percentage of the posters actually RTFA, do you figure? Do you really think your average YouTube goofball is going to bother googling for more facts that whatever subset is presented to them in the video before jumping on the comments? Hating cops is fashionable, after all...

-CCarrot (posting as anon since I modded your comment up...didn't say I didn't agree with you, just that in my experience it's not likely to happen that way)

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[honkycat]

The issue with taping your kid at the park is that you're going to incidentally record other people in the background. Did you specifically obtain consent from each of them, or did you reasonably assume that they could see you were making a recording and therefore it was not a secret recording?

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[MikeBabcock]

The same comment comes up about police having to account for shots fired and being afraid to pull their weapon.

I'm glad when the police are afraid to pull their weapons. We don't need random shootings without accountability.

As I said to someone else recently, believing we shouldn't keep police officers in check is like not having a border patrol because most citizens are good people.

The vast majority of people aren't committing crimes, and yet we have the police driving down the street just in case. Guess what, the vast majority of police may not be doing anything wrong either, but not allowing anyone to watch *them* is just as silly as taking all the police away.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[MikeBabcock]

Exactly. A restrained person is in no need of being abused or tortured. Let them struggle against their restraints for a bit to wear themselves out if you want, but unless you're still at risk yourself, there's no reason to attack the other person.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[MikeBabcock]

I've often thought a nice 5 minute looping video recorder would be a nice feature for public safety minded individuals. Loud noises or shock could cause it to stop looping and save instead like a black box recorder. Then you'd have some proof of context when things go wrong around you.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[aaandre]

> If they have something to hide, which they don't want revealed in court, they need to find some other line of work.

That would be nice. In reality, they use the power entrusted in them to smash phones, charge innocent citizens with false charges, physically and verbally abuse innocent women, children and men, including tazing for pleasure and shooting to kill for no reason.

So it seems that what they think they need is legal protection for the illegal actions they are already taking.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[jimrthy]

That's an excellent idea.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

" Come back to earth, ok? "

Yes, please do. If your kid is in the park, presumably there are also OTHERS in the park. And unless you go up to every single person within camera range and get permission, then yes, it is as he says.

Quit trying to pick a fight.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can read, as a matter of fact. Apparently better than you because I read not only your post, but the grandparent post you were agreeing with when you wrote:

Yep exactly. The Rodney King video was a good example.

The post you were agreeing with there contained this text:

Sometimes what happened (or was visible) a second before means what the policeman is doing is justified to keep the peace.

I think I can be forgiven if I took what you wrote to mean that, though you didn't think what the police did was right, it was "justified to keep the peace". If that isn't what you meant, then I think maybe you are the one who didn't read the post s/he was replying to very carefully.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[thej1nx]

Actually by prosecuting any one who was recording, they are still creating pretty good circumstantial evidence against themselves, if the original victim decides to sue with the help of a competent lawyer.

He can make his claim about the police brutality, and the witnesses can just say that they saw it happen, and all of this corroborated by the fact that officers did not allow the recording which means that they were actually trying to destroy evidence. It establishes intent.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[thej1nx]

And what is so hard about explaining the same rationale later on to whoever is concerned? Oh no! If we are recorded, someone may hate us and call us name! Goly! Can't let THAT happen!

Basically if I discovered a bloody knife in my house(with a murder victim lying outside on road) and decide to throw it away since I didnt want people to suspect me of wrongdoing, I can still be charged with destruction of evidence. But if an officer pre-emptively destroys evidence, that is all fine. They are officers after all! They don't really wanna do this job! They were drafted and being forced to do this, so we must cut them some slack while they take out their frustrations on non-armed normal folks.

"There are consequences for wrong decisions? oh no! Gosh, armed forces have to pay with their lives if they make a wrong decision, but *I* don't want there to be any consequences if I do some stupid stuff! Gosh!"

There are protocols for dealing with possibly armed suspects and they do not involve "punching" or kicking him in the face.

So the job sucks with all its restrictions and responsibilities? You have all the option for NOT signing up. Unlike the army, you are not being drafted. You get no sympathy from me. If you have such a thin skin and lack of basic understanding, perhaps a change of career for you, may help you and the world as well. There are plenty of good and mature officer who miraculously manage to get the job done in a more reasonable way.

Here is a clue. There is a video on youtube about a cop pulling a gun on a guy on a bike for some minor traffic violation.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/

And yep, true to the form, the guy was arrested for recording the cop violating the law/protocols. Go and justify THAT, I dare you!

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[thej1nx]

Here is a clue. We allow you to carry weapons and firearms at all times when rest of us usually don't. We allow you to detain us, question us and investigate us. And you get paid for the job. You opted to sign up for the job, with all its restrictions and difficulties. You were not drafted or something.

So here is a thought, maybe if public is trying to catch you doing wrong, how about trying NOT to do something wrong and simply following the protocols laid out for you at all times?

You know, the ones that don't tell you to punch anyone or kick someone while he is lying on the ground? You have a gun that you can point at the suspect to subdue him. Use that.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[thej1nx]

What you are unable to grasp is that trial by media can happen only if police is caught doing something they are not supposed to do.

Nobody can blame you if all you did was just follow the given guidelines and acted maturely, rationally and reasonably.

Easy solution? Follow the book and the protocols.

Even if you get recorded, you were simply following the protocols and if anyone has objections with that, they can take it up with your superiors who provided you with those.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[ScrewMaster]

Just as much as the public has grown to distrust the police, the police as well have grown to distrust the public. Everyone is a potential enemy

The next generation of police are going have to learn to see cameras as a fact of life, and behave as if a grainy vision of everything they do could see the inside of a courtroom. Usually cameras help the police. Sometimes they raise inconvenient questions.

Have to wonder how cops in England feel about all the cameras over there. And you're right. cops here in the U.S. had better get used to being on camera, and they should forget about the guy with the cell phone. Once surveillance technology becomes truly ubiquitous, the cops won't have any more choice about being recorded than we do. What was the statistic I read recently ... the average American is on-camera at least three times a day, maybe more in some metropolitan areas?

I also read recently that one big city (L.A., maybe, I forget) decided to shut down its camera network although not, in my opinion for the right reasons. It wasn't anything to do with civil liberties, ethics, morality, surveillance state issues, right or wrong ... it was that the camera system was costing four million a year to operate, and was only raking in three and a half in ticket revenue.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[MikeBabcock]

Worked on an Android version for a bit but it didn't work out in terms of battery life :(

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, given how easy it is to accidentally include another child, parent, etc.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is so hard about explaining the same rationale later on to whoever is concerned?

Are you being disingenuous on purpose? I just finished saying that there are some people who are against any amount of force, regardless of the justification. I am not against the cop being filmed, what I am against is the jackoffs who edit their video to show only the physical confrontations, then post it to rile other dumbasses up over those 'dirty pigs'. To my mind, those people are the true pigs.

Basically if I discovered a bloody knife in my house(with a murder victim lying outside on road) and decide to throw it away since I didnt want people to suspect me of wrongdoing, I can still be charged with destruction of evidence. But if an officer pre-emptively destroys evidence, that is all fine.

Where did you learn to debate, the internets? Seriously, again, I don't have a problem with cops being filmed, I do have a problem with how that film is used to unfairly smear all law enforcement everywhere. But hey, if it bleeds, it leads, right?

There are protocols for dealing with possibly armed suspects and they do not involve "punching" or kicking him in the face.

Indeed. So tell me, would it be better for them to draw their firearms and blow him away if he continues to refuse to co-operate? Cops are trained to end conflict situations decisively, as much for their own safety as for that of innocent bystanders. If you don't like that, co-operate physically but ask to see your lawyer, dumbass.

So the job sucks with all its restrictions and responsibilities? You have all the option for NOT signing up. Unlike the army, you are not being drafted.

Oh, did they fire up the draft again while I wasn't looking? Why is it that volunteering to fight and risking death for our freedoms overseas is noble, but volunteering to fight and risking death for our freedoms right here at home is despicable? I realize I'm whistling into the wind here, since I'm going against the prevailing /. groupthink, but I just get sick of hearing cops being trashed from little punks who generally couldn't protect themselves physically from a three year old with a grudge, no matter how l33t their sk1llz.

There are plenty of good and mature officer who miraculously manage to get the job done in a more reasonable way.

Yes, there are. And here's some news for you: even these officers will use reasonable force when necessary, to keep themselves and others safe.

Here is a clue. There is a video on youtube about a cop pulling a gun on a guy on a bike for some minor traffic violation.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/

And yep, true to the form, the guy was arrested for recording the cop violating the law/protocols. Go and justify THAT, I dare you!

Wow, you just proved my goddamned point, you jackass. The cop *barely* had his gun out of the holster, didn't even point it at the suspect, and it was clear the suspect was 'backing away rapidly' before the cop pulled his gun...preparing to flee the scene perhaps? Should the officer have thrown himself at the bike instead to get the guy to stop?

Where are the YouTube clips of the millions of other traffic stops in which people co-operate right away and the officer doesn't have to draw their weapon? No, the guy recording things should not have been arrested for recording the video, but I strongly doubt that that's all he got arrested for. And I would be deeply disappointed in the human race in general if that officer even got reprimanded for his conduct, which appeared perfectly reasonable to me.

-CCarrot (that's right, go mod-stalk me. I stand behind my words, even if I have to post AC)

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[sjames]

There is a vast difference due to the qualifier "when performing official duties". Those duties are performed in public and as a public servant.

As soon as a cop goes off-duty (be it at the end of his shift or on break), he is just another private citizen with the same reasonable expectations of privacy as anyone else.

Bolstering that position, arrests are already a matter of public record. There can be no justification for claiming such an act is not to be subject to public scrutiny.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Aldenissin]

So, what do you do if you are in the middle of the war and you don't have the ability to transport the prisoner? What if holding them there may bring an attack that could get everyone killed? You're surrounded and you got the enemy wanting to come in after the VIP even though it is a fortified position, and they might be able to breach. What then? I would say at that point, "restraints" or not, the situation and the prisoner aren't exactly under control. Exedcuting them may be the only option to save the situation.

The victim was a part of a death squad. They could either execute him, which was likely their mission anyhow, and maybe catch others, or they could waste time trying to bring him back. Just because he "surrendered" doesn't mean it wasn't still a hostile war zone and he an enemy combatant.

I believe in due process, I really do. But war is hell. Sometimes you don't know what the right answer is at the moment.

Re:Police have no expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

When on duty?
Yes.

With great power comes the potential for great abuse and the need for great monitoring

Nothing to see here

[elrous0]

There is no reason to post on this subject. And if anyone does WE WILL BUST YOUR GODDAMN HEADS, YOU PINKO FUCKS! Now GET OUT OF THE CAR!

Re:Nothing to see here

[magarity]

YOU PINKO FUCKS!

What is this, the late 70's/early 80's? Who says 'pinko' anymore??

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd ask a policeman, but I'm afraid he'll bust my head in.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Darinbob]

I'm talking bout Shaft.

Re:Nothing to see here

[elrous0]

Oh, smart guy huh? Well, let's see how smart you are in a jail cell.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

The same people that throw cupcakes. Honestly.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I can dig it.

Re:Nothing to see here

[imric]

Perhaps you are right, my fascist-rat-bastard friend.

Re:Nothing to see here

[h4rr4r]

I shall try to remember that, Brownshirt.

Re:Nothing to see here

[MikeBabcock]

How about I lock the car, stay inside, and force you to get me out. Enjoy that.

Re:Nothing to see here

[superwiz]

You are talking to a survivor of the Soviet Union here, douche bag.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that 20-30 year old Americans who grew up in Russia tend to be much further to the right, similar to how Germans today are among the most left-wing and liberal people in the world. Doing the political opposite of the bad guys when you were a kid doesn't necessarily make you correct.

Re:Nothing to see here

[superwiz]

I'll go ahead and believe my lying eyes rather than your well-theorized arguments.

Two-way street

[operagost]

It seems like this is a tough argument, considering that the police have already consented to being recorded by cameras in their cars-- and I wonder if at any point a Mass. driver has officially consented to being recorded by those cameras.

Re:Two-way street

[canajin56]

Police cameras are exempt from the law.

Re:Two-way street

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the police know for a fact that those cameras are not reliable. Video recordings have been known to disappear from those devices, and the archives have occasionally had mysterious accidents resulting in removal of records... and they purge them after so many months... so you can't rely upon their availability in court.

Re:Two-way street

[Lunix Nutcase]

And police officers are exempt from this wiretapping law as well despite what these asshat cops and Boston think. Public officials, in this instance police officers, have NO expectation of privacy in a public place. There is already relevant case law from this very same circuit court to back this up.

Re:Two-way street

[pixelpusher220]

To be fair, the police cameras are under their control and protected by their lawyers before it is released. And of course the mysterious malfunctions...

Re:Two-way street

[betterunixthanunix]

When I took a photography course some years back, we were given a 5 minute introduction to photography law: it is legal to photograph people in public places. You have no expectation of privacy in public, at least not when it comes to cameras. Why the police would be any different, or why a video recording is any different, is a mystery to me.

Re:Two-way street

[ckthorp]

They key difference, as it relates to this case, is that the cell phone was recording audio at the same time. Photography and audio recordings are subject to different rules.

Re:Two-way street

[jimrthy]

Apparently the argument is that this is a secret recording. Since you might be doing something else with the phone. Or, in this case, the cops didn't notice him until after the arrest was finished.

Yeah, it's weak.

Re:Two-way street

[osgeek]

Because the police have an extraordinarily strong lobby and our elected representatives aren't interested in protecting our individual liberties.

A video recording is different because it completely shatters the long-held power that the police had of being believed. I'll never forget learning that simple truth in college when a police officer wrongly accused a friend of mine and I of doing something completely fabricated. We had our description of the actual events, the cop had some made-up story. Guess who the judge believed?

Cops have had the protection of belief for way too long. They've abused that power and even with pervasive video, they will continue to abuse that power.

Fortunately, for cases when it is available, video is the great equalizer. Cops don't like to have equal footing with citizens. They want to be right. They want to be believed. They want to have all the power.

Re:Two-way street

[R3d M3rcury]

Why the police would be any different, or why a video recording is any different, is a mystery to me.

It's that audio part that's the problem.

Is a video an audio recording with a bunch of pictures or is it a bunch of pictures with an audio track? You're right that if you pulled out your trusty Nikon and started snapping pictures of the cops, you'd be fine. But if you pulled out a tape recorder and started recording everything they said, you'd be in trouble.

Re:Two-way street

[Anonymous Coward]

"Video recording" has audio nearly all of the time. That's what gets people into trouble. The laws were originally written to prevent secret recording of conversations. You can take all the pictures you want, even at 30 frames per second. Just drop the audio.

Re:Two-way street

[Anonymous Coward]

why a video recording is any different, is a mystery to me.

Because they apply the WIRETAPPING laws about AUDIO recording - where it is possible to record a (telephone) conversation without the other party being aware.

Re:Two-way street

[MikeBabcock]

That's also still true of major buildings all around the USA. Amazingly though, the police or security will try to stop you from taking pictures of bridges and tall buildings because of non-existent laws.

The police are not lawyers, they're brutes. Arguing with them is often pointless as they aren't paid to think; they're paid to act.

Re:Two-way street

[Anonymous Coward]

In many jurisdictions, video alone is legal, but it's the audio recording along with it that violates the the law.

That's what makes it much different from photos.

Re:Two-way street

[Anonymous Coward]

it is legal to photograph people in public places.

I've worked as a photojournalist (not a glamorous one by any stretch) and, you're right, but this rule of thumb is not as simple as most describe it.

Many public places carry some expectation of privacy. For an obvious example; a public restroom. For a grey area example; camping in a national forest.

The type of picture makes a lot of difference. Using a telephoto lenses to capture extreme closeups of people can violate expectations of privacy no matter where.

Privately owned places (eg a store, a restaurant, a ballpark) make their own rules. Though, many private places actually give more freedom (to journalists) then we have in public.

Of course, all this makes no difference to filming a police officer, which is obviously a legal necessity. Anyone who tries to say otherwise needs to be charged with conspiracy to destroy evidence.

People get mad when things dont go their way

[softWare3ngineer]

Just another case where someone gets mad when someone else did something they didn't like. Happens in politics, happens in business, happens in every police force around the globe. Good thing we have overly vague sections of law that we can use to arrest anyone with.

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Here's one of my favorite vagaries:

Congress shall make no law...

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[countertrolling]

Congress shall make no law...

Void where prohibited.. restrictions apply.. In other words, you're screwed

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. States' rights and all that.

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The first amendment makes a definite limitation on Congress, and thus the federal courts. Nothing to do with states rights.

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[nosferatu1001]

Incorporation, worth a look....

Re:People get mad when things dont go their way

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Not only have I looked it up, I've read books about it, Government by Judiciary, written by Raoul Berger, (from the Wikipedia article), an attorney and professor at The University of California at Berkeley and Harvard University School of Law. While at Harvard, he was the Charles Warren Senior Fellow in American Legal History. I find Berger's research to be very thorough and superior to the work of others. The 14th was never intended to do what the Supreme Court has decided it does. You should read the books and decide for yourself who you agree with.

If they have nothing to hide?

[AngryDeuce]

So getting freedom fondled by the TSA is okay, but recording official agents on official business representing the government is a no go?

Yeah, right...

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Especially when I doubt any of these same police officers ask consent of the drivers they record with their dashboard cams.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Ksevio]

The law is for audio recordings, not video only. I know I was pulled over once (light out) and the first thing the officer did was to inform me that he was recording audio and asked if I consented (I don't know what would happen if I didn't....).

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Zancarius]

That's what puzzles me.

I thought the intent of the one-party notification laws was with regard to otherwise private communication. Recording someone in a public location, paid for by the taxpayers cannot possibly qualify as private communication...

I guess that's about to be tested.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, I know it is but those dash cams do pick up audio.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The proper canned response for LEO's is*:

My lawyer has advised me not to make any statements or grant any requests without first talking to him.

The reason I use this is because I know I'm too stupid to understand the ramifications of any question or request the LEO makes.

*I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice. You should talk to a lawyer about these kinds of things. Seriously.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[jimrthy]

This is extremely true. Even lawyers should get outside help when dealing with LEOs. Much like a doctor not treating his own family.

I don't much like watching videos in general. But absolutely everyone should take the time to watch this: Cop and law prof agree.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[jimrthy]

That part's already been tested. As long as it should be obvious that recording is taking place, like with a camera crew, it's good.

The argument here seems to be that a cell phone's nowhere near as obvious.

This isn't really what's being tested here, though. The city's lawyers wanted the case thrown out for some stupid reason. The judge decided to hear it. Now the city's appealing. This test probably won't be over for years.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Ksevio]

Alternatively, you could do what I did which was to acknowledge the recording and thank him for letting me know there was a problem, then be off on my way a few minutes later with no problems.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[MikeBabcock]

In some places, once you've cooperated with police at all, you've waived many of your rights down the line. You cannot "go back" and say you won't cooperate further later once you've cooperated earlier for example.

IAANAL but this is an excellent reason to simply NEVER cooperate.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is for audio recordings, not video only. I know I was pulled over once (light out) and the first thing the officer did was to inform me that he was recording audio and asked if I consented (I don't know what would happen if I didn't....).

If you didn't consent. the audio recording would have been turned off and you would have been beaten, then arrested for resisting arrest and hitting the officer's fist with your face..

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[rsborg]

The law is for audio recordings, not video only. I know I was pulled over once (light out) and the first thing the officer did was to inform me that he was recording audio and asked if I consented (I don't know what would happen if I didn't....).

I wonder what would happen if you asked him the same thing? If he didn't consent, what could you do about it?

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[floodo1]

guess you were lucky

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, love the phrase "freedom fondled" that's good shit.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Zancarius]

Interesting. I hadn't known that it was tested already along those lines...

Legal definitions aside, what is your opinion related to cellphones in a case like this? To me, it would seem that it shouldn't really matter if the recording of police is obvious as long as it is on public grounds. Would that be stretching the notion of "public" too far?

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[jimrthy]

Personally, I think this is a civil duty of all Americans, no matter what the law says or judge decides.

We live in a world where pretty much every movement, every human interaction, every purchase, is monitored, recorded, tracked, and analyzed. The government completely ignores the Constitution, and is rolling back rights that were granted in the Magna Carta. I'll probably get another star next to my name on the FBI watch list for this post. The police have gone from being peace keepers through law enforcement to the modern equivalent of samurai keeping us peasants in line. The mainstream media is the government's lapdog (or maybe it's the other way around...it's so difficult to know where to draw the line).

One of the only defenses we have left is educating people about jury duty and their rights and responsibilities to nullify as they deem fit. The other is recording "our" servants and making sure their abuses become public knowledge. I fear those two factors (and the people who have chosen to go well-armed) are all that stands between us and _1984_.

That's my opinion today. On other days, I think I'm just a paranoid nutjob who should speak with a professional.

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[Zancarius]

That's my opinion today. On other days, I think I'm just a paranoid nutjob who should speak with a professional.

Not at all. I agree. (Or maybe that makes me a nutjob, too?)

It is rather frightening the number of abuses that have been made by the very people who profess to be protecting us. There's plenty of examples that have been posted here on /. at a frequency of almost every month, so I have no need to enumerate even a modest list of two or three.

If they win and they're able to, well, "protect" officers from being recorded even in a public place, then there's almost no way to prove that any such abuses ever occur. Like the individual in this last week (or two?) who hid the flash card from his phone in his mouth while law enforcement was stomping it to bits, we'll all wind up in that position. Jack-booted to the ground, hiding some data somewhere on our person, and being threatened with life and limb all because we saw an injustice on a public street.

Actually, that line of thought is really frightening me right now. Perhaps I should stop. Or perhaps I should practice removing the card from my phone as quickly as possible...

Re:If they have nothing to hide?

[jimrthy]

Not at all. I agree. (Or maybe that makes me a nutjob, too?)

All things considered, I'd rather be a nutjob. :-(

Actually, that line of thought is really frightening me right now. Perhaps I should stop. Or perhaps I should practice removing the card from my phone as quickly as possible...

Scares the Hell out of me. I'm practicing. :-/

Another Fine Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that if these people have nothing to hide, there shouldn't be an issue.

Notice how all of these come out after questionable police action is caught on video?

Adding disturbing the peace to the list of charges just shows that the cops weren't sure they could get him in on illegal recording charge, so they slapped him with something they could make stick.

When you right overly broad laws

[Jabrwock]

Then you end up with abuse of them.

The police are using a law not designed for them. They know it, and the writers knew it, but that didn't stop them from using it for purposes for which it was not intended. Hopefully the court recognizes this too...

Re:When you right overly broad laws

[Anonymous Coward]

write.

Re:When you right overly broad laws

[Myopic]

Oh! Gosh, I thought he actually meant "right" the unjust laws, meaning to undo them, but then the rest of his post didn't make sense unless he was Skeletor or something.

Who watches the watchers?

[Froeschle]

It's a crime to collect evidence of police committing crimes. It must be a nice feeling to be above the law.

Watch yourself

[Ignominous]

What the police do is police business, not yours. Glik should be thankful he wasn't dealing with Officer Bubbles.

Re:Watch yourself

[cffrost]

What the police do is police business, not yours.

Our cities and governments, our cops, our business.

Not only that Your Honor

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did the defendant secretly tape us with a phone we could all see, he then repeatedly assaulted our batons with his head and testicles!

Other charges

[nschubach]

How was he 'aiding the escape of a prisoner' and 'disturbing the peace?'

Did the "prisoner" get away because the police had to chase him down and confiscate his camera? How would it be his fault if they let the "prisoner" go (yes, I know they didn't let anyone go...)

Also, disturbing what peace? It seemed rather non-peaceful there.

Re:Other charges

[theangrypeon]

It is a time honored practice of the police to pile on excessive and nonsensical charges at anyone they arrest.

Notice whenever you hear someone arrested in the news, it's for based on one real infraction but somehow that always multiplies into 6 or 7 different charges.

Re:Other charges

[operagost]

They often drop the excess charges-- but without prejudice, so if they screw up on the major charge, they can get you on the minor ones without worrying about that pesky "double jeopardy" thing.

Re:Other charges

[iceaxe]

FYI, all of the criminal charges were dismissed or dropped. This court case is about Glik's suits against the city for false arrest, etc.

Insert Clever Subject Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Our rights to privacy are constantly being scrubbed away and being defended with the notion that "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide." So my question is, what are these police officers hiding?

recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

and should be encouraged

additionally, all the video in patrol cars, street lights, intersections...

we pay for that, and there should be a right to access those feeds if we pay a small fee and fill out some paperwork

i don't understand a world where the police have anything to fear by the truth being shown

Re:recording the police should be a right

[Lunix Nutcase]

Recording public officials on public property was already upheld by the 1st Circuit back in a case in 1999. One just has to hope that the judges remember that.

Re:recording the police should be a right

[countertrolling]

Authority is corrupt by nature. It exists through extortion and coercion. You shouldn't be surprised when it tries to hide behind the fig leaf.. But good luck trying to kick it out of Eden.

A feeble attempt at comprehending my previous posts would bring you a little closer to understanding the world you question

Re:recording the police should be a right

[Anonymous Coward]

recording the police should be a right .. and should be encouraged

This is America so we need to fuck that up a bit. I propose we have a law that states recording the police is required and anyone caught not recording the police, will be punished. That should help preserve our fuckedupness.

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

authority is unnecessary in a world where people exercise responsibility as much as they demand freedom. true freedom does not exist in a place where people take no responsibility

therefore it is the essential tragedy of our existence that authority is necessary, with all the evils that authority brings, because too many of us are just irresponsible. responsibility must be offered. if it isn't offered, it must be imposed. because lack of personal responsibility is pretty much the root of all evil. authority is just a response to that vacuum

Re:recording the police should be a right

[nahdude812]

Agreed, and in addition, the destruction or attempted destruction of civilian video of law enforcement activity by any interested party (including government agents or subjects of the police activity) should be considered destruction of evidence, and treated accordingly. It should also be possible to subpoena the contents of this video by any interested party.

Patrol car video should continue recording for at least 10 minutes after the stop recording event happens (no turning the camera off and on during a stop), and it should be illegal for a police officer to intentionally attempt to prevent the recording via any means.

In sort, recordings on both sides should be used to protect either party of a police action, not just the police officer.

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

exactly. we're moving from a world of he said/ she said with no proof either way, to a world of: "there it is on video your honor". a much better world

until the day that movie-quality special effects become the domain of every 13 year old. then video can't be trusted anymore. then we're really screwed

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

i'm saving this comment and putting it in your permanent file ;-)

Re:recording the police should be a right

[countertrolling]

There is a natural, distributed authority in the non-human world that I find perfectly acceptable (like I have a choice, eh?). Humans try to usurp nature when they allow authority to be concentrated to any exclusive group. It's like serving lumpy Cream of Wheat.. very offensive, and shouldn't be tolerated

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

homo sapiens is a social animal. all social animals have social hierarchy and authority. authority is natural and inevitable in any social group, of people or animals

i'm sorry reality destroys your strange, bizarre fantasy life

Re:recording the police should be a right

[operagost]

Of course, their argument now will be that somehow police officers aren't public officials.

Re:recording the police should be a right

[countertrolling]

i'm sorry reality destroys your strange, bizarre fantasy life..

Nope, it only confirms my original posit that might makes right... despite all the blabbering philosophy you might like to hold up

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

might does make right

the often unmentioned corollary is that right makes might

"right" meaning the set of cultural and legal values that maximizes human productivity and happiness

whatever that set of values is, grows in power, and imposes on weaker societies. weaker because they have a less fit set of values, where the people are less happy, and/ or less productive. until those societies adapt some of the superior values of the mightier society. perhaps resulting in a hybrid society even more fit than the original mightier society. such that now the imposed upon society is now the new mightier society

how has the usa come from nothing in 250 years and come to dominate societies thousands of years older than it? because it is founded on a superior set of values: it is mighty, because it is more "right." and so we see societies around the world adapt democracy, and other values the usa holds dear. less fit societies, say societies that don't value women's rights, will be less happy and less productive, until they adapt universal suffrage

now as the usa fades in the world, a hybrid society that absorbed some of what the usa discovered must show the world an even more right, and therefore mightier, way to model society

yes, the greatest force imposes on the weaker forces in this world. but everyone just seems to be depressed by that thought and leaves it at that. but they should proceed onto the follow up thought: what makes the greatest force?

answer that question well, and you can grow mightier than the mightiest

memetic evolution at its finest

Re:recording the police should be a right

[jimrthy]

There's a big difference between the natural authority you're talking about and the sort of imposed tyranny we have here.

Americans managed just fine without professional police for hundreds of years. What we have now is the oppressive standing army the Founders feared so much (no, it isn't technically military, but it might as well be).

Re:recording the police should be a right

[countertrolling]

Heheh.. Look who's preaching from their ivory tower, and out of complete and utter naivete and innocence no less.. or evil trolling ;-)

The USA is, and always has been, a business venture, with a minimalistic bureaucracy, built on the backs of slaves, both domestic and foreign. That is still the model for success no matter where you are. Please, stop with the silliness.

what makes the greatest force? well gee.. As far as I know, the formula is still the same: Force equals mass times acceleration. Human 'values' have not, and never will change that, or even enter the picture. What's to be depressed about? It's nature in all its glory..

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not complaining. I'm merely making observations, and I find human arrogance, while tragic, quite amusing.. I've kinda melded Shakespeare and Freud, only without the literary acumen, but with all the grace of a Russian hit man.. perfectly content to knock over a few billion to get one guy. A man's gotta earn his keep.

Re:recording the police should be a right

[circletimessquare]

you're an idiot and i'm wasting my time

idiot: a country is as strong as its values. better values, mightier country

Re:recording the police should be a right

[countertrolling]

pfffft... better weaponry and illusionist demagoguery, mightier country

I don't take to your nonsense, but thanks for confirming that you're just another zombie. Bottoms up

Peace!

Why did the police arrest him...

[Anonymous Coward]

... if the recording was "secret"?

The police arrested him for something obvious (read: not secret) that they saw... what was it?

welcome to 1984

[krnlcrash]

I bet comrade didn't have his papers either...

Re:welcome to 1984

[jimrthy]

Of course he did. Or he'd have been charged for that, too.

Far reaching

[Anonymous Coward]

This case can have very far reaching consequences. Already those in power have unprecedented access to covertly monitor the communications and whereabouts of its citizens. To prevent the citizens from being able to do the same while in public would be a wholesale catastrophe for freedom.

But I am optimistic, given the very recent very public case involving police officers in Miami overstepping their bounds and showing an excessive abuse of power. Despite having his cell phone forcibly confiscated and smashed, the good citizen was able to extract his memory card from the remains of his phone and shine a bright spotlight on the incident via youtube. This will weigh heavily on the minds of the judge and members of the jury.

First Circuit already has precedent on this...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Hopefully the First Circuit court doesn't forget their 1999 ruling in Iacobucci v. Boulter where the upheld the right to record public figures on public property. But according to the article the judges seem to find the reasoning of the city to be quite absurd so that is a good sign.

Re:First Circuit already has precedent on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but I think there is a question on whether the wiretapping laws even apply. The statute seems to rest upon secrecy and the right to privacy. In my mind, government employees in public view cannot reasonably expect to have any expectation of privacy. Now in their offices, there might more hairsplitting.

Hello

[gowen]

I'm a slashdot editor, and I can't distinguish between the concepts of "secretly" and "non-consensually".

Please give generously, so further people don't have to suffer the consequences of my stupidity.

Re:Hello

[andymadigan]

The law bans *secret* recording without consent. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a company to record tech support calls without specifically asking for consent (saying that you're recording makes it non-secret, but doesn't mean that anyone consented).

Of course, once you ask for consent it's not secret anymore I suppose...

The point here is that the guy was pointing the phone right at the cops, and the cops are arguing that's not sufficient to tell that he's recording.

Re:Hello

[anegg]

Of course the cops knew he was recording; they would not have apprehended him if they didn't think he was recording.

That reminds me of a case where the police arrested someone for carry a concealed weapon. They judge asked the cop how he knew the defendant was carrying a concealed weapon. The cop told the judge he had seen it. The judge ruled the defendant not guilty because the weapon wasn't concealed.

What about news reports then?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is there a special exception for public news recording then? Because under such a narrow interp, news taping with audio would be illegal.

Historically, if you are in public, there is no legal expectation of privacy.

At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

Re:At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Yet the jury is given such specific instructions that if they don't know their rights as a juror before serving on the jury, then the judge has nearly complete control over what happens.

Re:At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[Golddess]

Even then, some (all?) states have certain stipulations on that, like you have to be facing jail time of > 90 days and/or fines in excess of $15,000 in order to get the court to grant you a jury trial.

Re:At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[jimrthy]

Huh. Yet another example of judges being completely illiterate and ignoring the plain language of the Constitution. Why does this ever surprise me?

Re:At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[MBGMorden]

I think you may be confusing the public defendant statute. There are some situations where you can't get a public defender for very simple crimes, but everywhere that I know of will grant a jury trial for ANYTHING if you request it. Matter of fact, last time I was called in for jury duty it was for a trial in which a motorist failed to signal when turning and she requested a jury trial for a traffic violation with a fine of less than $200.

Re:At least you still get a trial hear with a jury

[Golddess]

Mayhaps you are right that I was confused, thought it definitely wasn't about the public defendant statute. When I wrote my previous post, I was actually remembering this ballot measure from 2010, but as it turns out, it's for civil and not criminal trials.

civil disobedience

[Hazel Bergeron]

In the event that the outcome goes the wrong way, all that's needed is for enough campaign groups on both sides of the political spectrum to encourage their supporters to routinely record the police whenever they see them, providing they are in groups of more than some particular size and providing their camera streams to a remote server.

R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy brought the saying to English law that it is not enough that justice must be done - it must also be seen to be done. The principle is about impartiality and appeared before video cameras, but surely preventing or destroying any recording of a police officer acting in public under colour of law is, "creat[ing] a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice."

The real question here is for the cops

[Ryanrule]

Are you with us, or against us?

Re:The real question here is for the cops

[jimrthy]

I bet most would claim they're with us. But it definitely seems like they're more for each other. Even the really bad ones who are against us.

Re:The real question here is for the cops

[MikeBabcock]

More importantly, do they realize who they work for? :)

Try "Excuse me officer, you realize I'm your employer, right?" sometime. Its true, and yet they won't acknowledge it.

The government is a proxy of the people. The police are public servants, meaning they serve the public. A lot of people seem to forget these things.

Prove It

[barleypop]

First of all, how can anyone prove someone recorded video? If I'm holding out my camera, how do you know I'm not just taking a snapshot? Same goes for my mobile phone. You can't presume I'm recording audio and video without confiscating my device and searching for recordings.

Re:Prove It

[thaylin]

Because once you are under arrest for disorderly conduct they can view it and see... It is kind of like getting arrested for resisting arrest but nothing else.. If you were not originally under arrest for a charge how can you get arrested for resisting a non existant arrest.

Re:Prove It

[BlueStrat]

...how can you get arrested for resisting a non existant arrest.

Elementary.

Catch 22.

What, you didn't think Catch 22 was limited to the military did you?

Strat

In Public is Not Private

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're in a public place and you're rolling video on, say, your kid's fifth birthday party and a stranger is captured in the video. Then you post the video on Facebook so grandma in Florida can view it and the stranger finds out. Can they sue you since you illegally recorded the stranger because you didn't tell them the camera was on?

How is rolling video on a police bust any different? And, seeing as how the police are public servants, how did this arrest not get laughed out of court?

Re:In Public is Not Private

[Lunix Nutcase]

The charges against him were dropped. This is a case brought by him against the City and the police.

In related news...

[fahrbot-bot]

...another Boston man was arrested for simply watching cops at work and remembering what they did. Charges are pending if it is determined that he actually told someone else what he remembered. Geez. Are the police going to arrest bank or store owners if their build security cameras accidentally record the police doing anything?

Hey COPS! If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide - remember?

Some Cops are Evil Power Mad Pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

So of course they don't want to be recorded being an evil power mad prick. I know some that are genuine nice, kind, helpful people, however as a Mass Resident it does seem that the pricks out number the nice guys. There is a preproderance of the "jerk off, a-holes" that you remember from high school going in law enforcement so they can continue being "jerk off, a-holes" with public permission. The funny part is they are often the same ones that were in the Office all the time for breaking the rules in school!

They start from the standing that you are in the wrong, and quite often do not even want to have a conversation. And yes I am a law abiding citizen, however I have had to go to the police once in a while for neighbor troubles and the like and gotten no traction. They always seem to side with the "jerk off, a-hole" neighbor.

One former cop I know says that basically the badge is perceived by his former co-workers as a license to "kick your ass" and get away with it.

The short version its Massachussetts and cops here are the dictionary definition of "Masshole"

Re:Some Cops are Evil Power Mad Pricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Some?

Re:Some Cops are Evil Power Mad Pricks

[Culture20]

I have had to go to the police once in a while for neighbor troubles and the like and gotten no traction. They always seem to side with the "jerk off, a-hole" neighbor.

Wait, I'm confused. The cops are siding with you? If your neighbors are doing something illegal, sure, call the cops. If your neighbors are having a party, didn't invite you, and some of their friends park legally on the street in front of your house, don't waste police time.

I mean, if he had been "secretly" recording them,

[spads]

how would they even know???

That's like trying to outlaw a cop being secretly in a coffee shop, secretly eating a donut!!!

In defense of these police officers...

[RobinEggs]

At least in this case they didn't arrest him on the sole charge of Resisting Arrest.

Yes, that actually happens.

Re:In defense of these police officers...

[drb226]

I N C E P T I O N

I made you think about resisting arrest, which made you resist arrest, which made me arrest you for resisting arrest.

Re:In defense of these police officers...

[idontgno]

Nice. Especially since you'll resist being arrested for resisting arrest. So I'll have to arrest you for that, which you'll also resist.

And no, there's no totem. I'll just have to haul you in and book you for infinite charges of resisting arrest.

After duly trying and convicting you, you'll spend 2 1/2 years per charge, for a grand total of 2.5 x infinity years in the state klink, plus fines of $500 x infinity.

I suspect you could probably get 6 months off for good behavior, though.

I sympathize

[argStyopa]

I sympathize with the guy, and was going to say that this will be an important case in turning back the overweening power of government, but will it?

The fact is, if he's in a state that REQUIRES the consent of both parties in a conversation to be recorded, and he didn't get the consent of both parties, it may be as simple as that.

I'm saying that the 2-party-consent law is BS, and that's the first thing that needs to be changed.

Nevertheless, I hope he wins.

Re:I sympathize

[Lunix Nutcase]

The fact is, if he's in a state that REQUIRES the consent of both parties in a conversation to be recorded, and he didn't get the consent of both parties, it may be as simple as that.

Yes, but there is already relevant case law showing that recording public officials in public is allowed. This is federal case law that will trump this stupid law.

Re:I sympathize

[Anonymous Coward]

of course the police (broadly) can record you without your knowledge, consent or even a warrant,
so maybe we're already in a somewhat strange place wrt that law

Re:I sympathize

[Myopic]

I don't actually know the law in question, but the summary makes it sound like only "secret" recording is illegal, such as recording a private conversation. If you are in public, with no expectation of privacy, then recording that can't possibly be secret, because we all know we are always being recorded by various means in public. Open and shut, wham ban thank you ma'am.

The only people dumb enough not to understand this obvious logic is 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices. Let's hope two of those six somehow manage to come to the right decision.

Boston

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why they have no class in Boston- just dirty red soxs. So now we know where they get it.

Double edged sword !

[redelm]

Err ... when the Taxachusett's cops (or any others in two-party consent-to-tape state) question/interrogate someone, do they not tape the event? Absent consent, specific legal exemption or a warrent, aren't they violating the two-party statute?

There are some things you are better off losing.

Re:Double edged sword !

[Daniel_Staal]

No, they aren't violating it, because that situation is explicitly in the law as allowed.

What, you don't think they wrote the law with those loopholes in mind?

Re:Double edged sword !

[redelm]

Not quite. MA law is written specifically against organized crime. That's how they justified the law.

The cops are not always investigating organized crime ("designated offenses"), so are not always exempt.

Yes, they try. But they also have to sell it.

Re:Double edged sword !

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - government typically exempts itself from laws like this.

Everyone with a cellphone camera...

[John Hasler]

...needs to start recording cops at every opportunity. Do this even if the cop is just standing on the corner. Make sure they see you.

Re:Everyone with a cellphone camera...

[mandelbr0t]

As has been pointed out, this will make you obviously anti-police. While you may not be breaking the law, they will not be happy to have you around. They might arrest the guy and press charges just so they can confiscate your cell phone as evidence. I agree with the sentiment, but you are risking legal action and your cell phone for what normally turns out to be nothing. Getting a badge and a gun really does give you the right to be a bully. Proving that such bullying is not in the public interest is expensive and difficult.

Re:Everyone with a cellphone camera...

[MikeBabcock]

Its amazing how utterly useless a cell phone with only a remote uploading motion detection application is as evidence of anything.

No Justice

[glorybe]

The idea that cops and most other public employees have any right to privacy at work is totally off the wall. The public must have the ability to observe, record and publish any actions of police and most other public employees on the job. Just why is it that cops want to hide their actions? The only issue I have at all is in any sudden reaching into pockets or purses when a crime is at hand. That might get someone shot but is no reason for arresting them. Cities need to be as eager to prosecute top level employees as well as cops with the same vigor as other law breakers.

And More

[dcollins]

Good overview of several similar cases coming up in Illinois, and their national implications:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recording-bad-cops_n_872921.html

If they've done nothing wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

what are they afraid of?

Isn't that the motto the government uses to spy on its citizens? If that's the fucked up country you live in, why should the same fucked standard not be applied back to those who enforce the law? They are citizens too...

If I commit a crime and it is caught on tape, can I get it thrown out of court because I did not consent to be filmed? Is that the precedent the police are fighting to set? WTF...

Re:If they've done nothing wrong...

[amliebsch]

They are citizens too...

All citizens are equal, but...well, you know the rest.

Stationary / Security Cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I have a store with a security camera running 24 hours a day and cops bust a robbery in progress, have I recorded them illegally?

Re:Stationary / Security Cameras

[HikingStick]

It's the audio component of the phone-based video that seems to be the sticking point. Most in-store surveillance setups are video only.

Expectation of Privacy

[theshowmecanuck]

I am not a lawyer. But I think it is more than that. The same laws that allow people to video or photograph things going on in public should apply unless the police are doing something in a place that allows them an expectation of privacy. Otherwise they are in public. If I am correct, I believe that if you video or take pictures in public, people cannot come after you monetarily since they had no expectation of privacy.

In Canada, the supreme court ruled (and this is my understanding of it) that if there is enough of a social benefit, the privacy of a person is outweighed. I pretty sure that applies for photos taken in public and possibly in private. This is why newsworthy photos and video are covered, and usually where other people are incidental to a photo (i.e. part of the background crowd). But if you take a picture of someone and try to sell the picture for your own profit (even if you call it 'art'), you need explicit consent. When I did a lot of photography, I would always carry model releases in my camera bag just in case there was an interesting shot of someone. It came in handy a couple of times.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[betterunixthanunix]

unless the police are doing something in a place that allows them an expectation of privacy

The police should have no expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties; they are servants of the public, and the public has a right to know what the police are doing. If the police need to remain secretive in order to enforce a particular law, then we need to re-examine that law.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[theshowmecanuck]

There are many cases where they need to maintain privacy. For example, quite often it is necessary to keep facts of some cases secret until a suspect is arrested, as release of the information could compromise the instigation. I'd rather the bad guys not be tipped off because someone was so dogmatic the were unable to be reasonable. Sure, eventually, and as soon as possible, all facts of police activity should be made public. But sometimes, privacy is necessary. Also, remember that police are people too. Sometimes they have their own private conversations.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[betterunixthanunix]

For example, quite often it is necessary to keep facts of some cases secret until a suspect is arrested

They should require a special court order for such cases; I cannot imagine that the majority of serious crime (e.g. murder, rape) would fall into this category. They should also be required to release the secret details in a timely fashion, to prevent the formation of a large body of inaccessible police files from forming. Sorry, but I simply do not buy the argument that the police would not be able to arrest dangerous people if they had to open their operations to the public, and I am even less inclined to be believe that argument when we are talking about local police forces. I can understand the need for an occasional secret investigation, but that should not be the norm.

Also, remember that police are people too. Sometimes they have their own private conversations.

Not in the course of their official duties. When they are off-duty and not acting in an official capacity, they should be entitled to all the same rights as any other citizen, but an on-duty police officer should not expect any privacy. We are talking about a group of people who have the authority to deprive others of their rights (i.e. by arresting and holding people against their will) -- we should be taking a great deal of caution when it comes to what sort of rights and powers we grant such a group.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[cdrguru]

How about the people being arrested?

Does every person getting stopped for DUI need to have their arrest posted on YouTube? How about someone getting arrested for what is proven in the end to be something they had nothing to do with? There is of course no "retraction" possible on the Internet, so whatever is posted is there to stay forever.

If you are successful in recording an arrest, did you know you can sell the recording? Most of the TV News folks will buy it and if it is of someone that turnes out to have an interesting job they will pay lots and lots for it. But even Joe Sixpack being arrested for domestic violence can get picked up on the local news. Extra money if Joe resists or slaps his slut wife on camera.

Re:Expectation of Privacy

[MikeBabcock]

That's what police tape and cordoned-off areas are for. If you haven't restricted access to an area physically, you have no expectation of privacy.

Hasn't something similar been decided already?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are video taped in public by accident no one is required to get your permission. It would seem to me that if the police were being filmed there is no expectation of privacy due to them being in public, same as if you were filmed out in public am I wrong in thinking this?
 
CAPTCHA trifling

Agents of the government versus private citizens

[betterunixthanunix]

Agents of the government do not have an expectation of privacy when carrying out their official duties; private citizens should have an expectation of privacy whenever they are not in a public place. This is an important distinction, necessary to protect us from the sort of tyranny that people in some other countries face, and unfortunately it is a distinction that people frequently forget. We, as citizens, must have the ability to keep our private lives private; this right should only be revoked when there is evidence that a crime has been committed behind closed doors. The police, as government agents, should never be able to act secretly; we should be able to review everything the police do, in order to guard against wrongdoing and abuses of power.

If your not doing any thing wrong...

[redkcir]

First of all, this is Massachusetts. The first communist state in American. We all know how a communist feels about a police state, they love them, and Massachusetts is no different. If a cop wants to search your house or vehicle and you don't want them to, the inevitable question they ask is "What do you have to hide?" I think the same applies here. What are they trying to hide? Then there is "But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent." The key here is the 'secretly record' part. This person was in the open, not hiding anything. Where did the "secret" part come in? This is only one thing. Intimidation by authority to conceal activity that was likely illegal.

Re:If your not doing any thing wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, this is Massachusetts. The first communist state in American.

You can't even spell the name of the country right? PAPERS PLEASE!

As to your point, I guess that means Texas has the honor of being the first fascist state in the US.

Re:If your not doing any thing wrong...

[dyingtolive]

"communist" - While your post is interesting, and I think I agree with your overall message, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:If your not doing any thing wrong...

[jimrthy]

That seems to be the argument they're using. Cell phones aren't obvious enough.

Re:If your not doing any thing wrong...

[hduff]

"communist" - While your post is interesting, and I think I agree with your overall message, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think he actually means "totalitarian", not some ideology based on Marxism.

But maybe not, It's a pretty messed up state.

Does the press get an exemption?

[wcrowe]

If a news crew happen to be in the area and record what happens, are they violating the law also? Perhaps some legal expert can explain the difference to me.

Re:Does the press get an exemption?

[silas_moeckel]

New organizations have enough attorneys and friendly judges to squish this sort of thing. At the end of the day the politicians need them to win elections so they will let the little guys hang out to dry if necessary.

Re:Does the press get an exemption?

[jimrthy]

I'm no legal expert, but news crews (or anyone else obviously shooting video) explicitly get an exemption, based on old cases. The sticking point here seems to be that the cops are claiming cell phones aren't obvious enough to qualify.

Re:Does the press get an exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference - reporters at protest rallies get their cameras taken by the police all the time.

The experienced reporters figure out when the police are about to let the tear gas / billy clubs out and make a getaway. Which they allow because it serves the same purpose - no video record.

Re:Does the press get an exemption?

[hduff]

I'm no legal expert, but news crews (or anyone else obviously shooting video) explicitly get an exemption, based on old cases. The sticking point here seems to be that the cops are claiming cell phones aren't obvious enough to qualify.

They are obvious enough that they are banned at my local courthouse.

Perhaps MA cops lack sufficient intellectual rigor to identify cell phones?

Why should the police be worried?

[jd2112]

If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

At least that's what the police tell me.

Re:Why should the police be worried?

[Travelsonic]

Those people don't realize the idiocy of the statement. I'd go on a philosophical, technical rant explaining it all but I've done that too many times on the internet as it is. >_ Time for me to stop annoying people via nitpicking, I guess.

Re:Why should the police be worried?

[ChrisMaple]

If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

By this argument, hidden cameras in toilet stalls aren't a problem.

How is this any different than paparazzi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it could be that paparazzi don't operate in states with this "two party notification" law, but I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for recording or photographing things in public.

I'm no lawyer, but I've always been under the impression that if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then there is no rule protecting you from being captured on film/audio recording/etc. I suspect there are rules preventing your likeness from being used after the fact, which is why they blur peoples faces out in some shows when they are on the street or whatnot, but that is all obviously done after the recording has been made.

If you are in the middle of the street screaming about Jesus, picking your nose/ass or beating the crap out of a suspect, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy... regardless of who you are. If this weren't the case, all the tabloids would be out of business, and we would all think Lindsay Lohan was an angel right?

Private Video Surveillance ?

[scorp1us]

If the city's position is to be upheld, wouldn't that have the chilling effect of making all video surveillance tapes in admissible because they were recorded without your permission?

Re:Private Video Surveillance ?

[ckthorp]

That's why surveillance cameras don't record audio.

Re:Private Video Surveillance ?

[scorp1us]

Do you think the cops are going to care if you are recording audio?
My dash cam is configurable. My phone is configurable. Will my statement "I'm not recording audio" be taken for my word? Would it matter even if I did but cut out the audio when I posted it?

Re:Private Video Surveillance ?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

If the city's position is to be upheld, wouldn't that have the chilling effect of making all video surveillance tapes in admissible because they were recorded without your permission?

Probably not, since they don't record audio, but what about the recording systems police use in their interview/interrogation rooms? It seems to me that they would be illegal in states requiring more than one-party consent.

I don't think the police are thinking this one through very well.

Re:Private Video Surveillance ?

[jimrthy]

Based on previous comments, it sounds like the distinction here is actually the audio.

Re:Private Video Surveillance ?

[ckthorp]

The cops? No. But the judges and lawyers will care.

Simple resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

"But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent"

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, as this law stands, dash cams with sound in squad cars mean the city/state police are probably violating this law by not having obtained prior consent any time they record someone interacting with them.

If the counter argument to this is that there is a reasonable assumption of the public knowing they may be recorded by the police while interacting with them, then I believe that the police/state must also acknowledge there is a reasonable assumption that the reverse is also true, as cameras and mics are integrated into most if not all cell phones commercially available today.

You are assuming

[publiclurker]

that the people who make this silly claim are actually interested in an impartial and accurate assessment of the facts. If they were, then they would love to have an impartial witness.

What do cops have to hide?

[gubers33]

I'm curious? If police officers are doing their job correctly and without abuse of their power. What do they have to hide? Police need to realize they are not above the law and must abide by it of face the consequences. And going by the police officers argument, does this mean if I own a shop on a street and have a video camera that points to the front door and windows from inside, but can see into the street because the door and windows are glass; that if I catch a police officer using excessive force on a citizen outside my store that the tape can't be used to prosecute the officer? Because he was not aware that he was being filmed?

Re:What do cops have to hide?

[misexistentialist]

It is pretty uncomfortable just as a person having a camera pointed at you. Unlike the rest of us who are subject to increasing government surveillance, cops are getting paid, so they should probably just suck it up. It's also hard to follow procedure perfectly all the time, because reality is messy. High-priced lawyers can often use minor errors to get their clients off, and video could help more criminals go free. But all things considered I don't see how filming them can be prohibited, though they may not like it.

Re:What do cops have to hide?

[cdrguru]

How about the case where you have a camera pointed at the street and record someone being arrested for DUI? Can you sell that video?

They are there to protect us...

[Anonymous Coward]

But who is there to protect us from them? I am their employer and I reserve to right to monitor their work.

Silly police

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!

NO expectation of privacy on PUBLIC property.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NO expectation of privacy on PUBLIC property.
This has been brought before the courts and decided several times.
While the police are on PUBLIC property they have NO expectation of privacy.

What if a reporter had been on the scene?

[EntropyXP]

What if this was a reporter who happened to witness the same scenario and they had their camera guy there? Would they also be charged with this bullshit?

Recording the police

[Anonymous Coward]

should be mandatory. If they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to hide.

If they're on duty, it's completely moot

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're on duty, why should they have any expectation of privacy? Anyone can be watching and bear witness to their activities, why should they have any secrets while performing on behalf of the public? They have no right to hide their activities.

No permanent laws

[betterunixthanunix]

We should not have any permanent laws, only permanent protections from the law (i.e. the constitution). Times change, the needs of society change, and attitudes about what should be legal change. Laws should have a mandatory maximum lifespan of 10 years; if there is a need to keep laws on the books (for example, a law prohibiting murder), then the law should be renewed by an act of the legislature. Yes, this would mean a lot of boring days in congress, but it would help keep our legal system under control and prevent us from getting into the situation we are currently in.

Re:No permanent laws

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, this would mean a lot of boring days in congress

Nah. They'd just pass an "automatic sunrise" bill that would renew all laws about to expire regardless of content, and they wouldn't give that law an expiration date. Remember, these people are weasels, and the reason that you're even talking about these things is because you (quote correctly) don't trust them.

The law cannot protect one from the lawmakers.

Re:No permanent laws

[TheLink]

That said, you might be able to make a convincing argument to a lawmaker with one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

Lies and videotape...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and so they view anyone who is filming them as a harsh critic at best and an adversary at worst.

And one who is filming police may have an axe to grind against any policeman, they also have the ability to edit the tape before presentation.

You see a video of a cop mercilessly beating some poor innocent slob, but what you did not see was that same "innocent slob" threatening the
police with a gun. Of course the reason for the police's response is conveniently edited out of the tape.

I suppose there will be some who say that the police should just smile and laugh when fired upon, and certainly never respond to such a small thing
with anything approaching deadly force.

Re:Lies and videotape...

[tragedy]

I don't think you quite grasp that most of us don't think that "mercilessly beating" anyone, even those who are not "innocent slobs", is right.

Re:Lies and videotape...

[thej1nx]

What police protocol directs you to give a merciless beating to anyone? You have a gun. You are entirely allowed to pull it out to subdue an armed suspect. You can even shoot him in the foot or something, if he is pointing the gun at you and refusing to drop it. If you are fired upon, return fire. You are authorized to do that. You are there to simply capture and arrest the criminals, not take revenge on them for shooting at you. Punishment is the job of the jury and courts. When did you get to decide, you can replace them?

Simple fix, mute audio

[Anonymous Coward]

Most legislation expressly forbid single party consent for audio, but video is OK. Most surveillance systems in businesses do not bother with audio for this reason. The simple fix is to just not record the audio to ensure you do not run afoul of the law.

I took a cheap 4 channel security recorder, mounted in the trunk along with strategically placed wide angle mini cameras and get very good results for recording most all of what is happening around me. Audio not supported nor desired. This was a result of an accident some time ago in which the other insurance company wanted to assign some of the blame to me. Took me an entire year to fight this out, but I prevailed. Never again. Covering my ass for $150 is way to go.

The most appropriate check/balance...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that needs to be implemented over police abusing their positions of authority is for everyone to demand to your elected representatives that the laws be changed to seriously curtail Qualified Immunity .

Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

We the people pay the police for their protection of us. Essentially we are the Boss.
Bosses may record, videotape, fingerprint, piss test, pull credit scores, investigate private lives.
I may therefore do whatever the fuck I feel like with regards to the logging of their hooligan activities.
If I feel threatened by a man with a gun, I will surely gun him down as a danger, this includes my employees, federal or local.
Think twice copper, you aren't special or a fucking hero. You are just a hoodlum with a license to harrass.
Let's be careful out there.

No expectation of privacy

[jweller13]

The police routinely use the no expectation of privacy argument with regard to city video camera surveillance of citizens walking around. It seems to me the argument goes both directions police shouldn't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Moreover citizens keeping government officials accountable for their actions in this way seems right in the spirit of our constitution obligation.

bogus charges

[Khashishi]

The charges were dropped, of course, since they had no chance of standing up in court. The point was to intimidate the guy and put him in jail. The problem is that cops can just arrest you for a bogus charge and then drop the charges later. You get screwed anyway.

Re:bogus charges

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, and you are free to sue them for false arrest afterwards. Like in this case.

Re:bogus charges

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can show that they knew the charge was bogus, then you can sue for wrongful arrest.

Re:bogus charges

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends Where.
In some countries there are branches like police integrity commission - where abusing powers is supposed to
be a dismissible offense, or if reviewed, they collect black marks. Ombudsman too will advise.
Some have 'public servant' type clauses about keeping a higher exemplary standard. In theory, a direct complaint against all police involved could mean a serious stain on their 'records'.

In some places they automatically tape you. It is also unreasonable in UK style law where a policeman's notebook is more official then your work or even many. At equity, taping a conversation should not be unlawful.
If that don't work long range listening devices are now cheap.

Re:bogus charges

[sincewhen]

And I guess that's why this guy is pursuing the police & the state for damages. As a punitive measure so they will stop hassling people.

Expectation of privacy and all that

[cdrguru]

This is stupid really. OK, you believe you have a right to record the police on a cell phone while they are performing their duty. Great. Now how about having someone standing nearby recording you are you are arrested. Let's say it is a DUI stop. Or that the police have completely erroronously stopped you and arrest you for armed robbery while a witness is standing by pointing at you going "That's him, officer!"

Until you are happy with having your arrest recorded by someone else and possibly posted on various web sites, sit down and be quiet. If there is an explicit law that enables video recording of police performing their duty it will most certainly include the right of anyone to record the police arresting or questioning anyone. You have just lost any potential privacy rights you might have had.

This is why a lot of police are actively antagonistic towards people recording them - there is no control on what happens to the video. If they allow person A to record person A's arrest they have pretty much opened the door and now have to allow person B to record person A's arrest. You can argue that there is a difference, but there really isn't except a small matter of degree. No, the police do not allow the random taping of their efforts and only in somewhat rare cases will not chase anyone with a camera off or threaten them with arrest if they continue.

In some celebrity cases they let it go often because the person being arrested specifically agrees with allowing it to continue or are playing up to the photographers.

Re:Expectation of privacy and all that

[MikeBabcock]

Until you are happy with having your arrest recorded by someone else and possibly posted on various web sites, sit down and be quiet.

Why do you think people put things over their faces when doing a perp walk? Because its perfectly legal and happens all the time.

No expectation of privacy in public. Get over it.

Re:Expectation of privacy and all that

[hduff]

Until you are happy with having your arrest recorded by someone else and possibly posted on various web sites, sit down and be quiet.

Why do you think people put things over their faces when doing a perp walk? Because its perfectly legal and happens all the time.

No expectation of privacy in public. Get over it.

Came to say that.

Again, there's no legal expectation of privacy in public, especially of people on the public payroll and especially of those people granted police powers.

Don't like it? Find another job.

Re:Expectation of privacy and all that

[MikeBabcock]

Yes up here in Canada, public servants' browser histories at work are subject to FOIA requests as well. No expectation of privacy on the job at all if you're on the public payroll.

Have their cake and eat it too ?

[dargaud]

So they want to be able to record anyone at anytime with CCTV cameras, but they don't want to be filmed while in a PUBLIC place doing a PUBLIC duty ?!? What. The. Fuck. Those creeps should be in jail, not 'enforcing' laws.

No respect

[jweller13]

It's a shame how police over these last many decades have so tarnished their image by their bullying, arrogance, and disregard for the average citizen that many folks have no respect or even have disdain for them. Kids wave excitedly at firemen in their trucks, when was the last time your kid waved gleefully at a cop driving by.

Buttoncams...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are under $30 on Ebay, nobody knows you are wearing one, so you can film the police as much as you want, then just upload the footage to Youtube using an anonymous proxy. Or leave CDs with the video file on it around the place, until somebody else uploads it.

It's not just the cops.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

But under the strict 'two-party notification' laws in Massachusetts, it's a crime to 'secretly record' audio communications unless 'all parties to such communication' have given their consent.

So the cops are (ab)using this law, however if I'm reading this correctly then I have the right to have anyone arrested recording me in public. Anyone could make a citizens arrest if they see they are being recorded under this law as well. (Including cops dash cams :) )
I wonder how that would stand up in court?

The problem with

[p51d007]

recording an officer conducting an arrest comes from the point of perception. Usually, the camera starts rolling AFTER the incident that caused the person to be arrested. Mostly, you only see ONE SIDE of what is going on, or, the police swarming all over one "poor defenseless" person. Did the person shoot at an officer, pull a knife, drive a zillion miles an hour, try to run over someone, hit someone, or try to run down an officer? THAT is the problem with recording an officer incident to an arrest, perspective. I don't have a problem with video taping an officer, because, officers, as anyone under the color of authority, should be held to a higher standard than the general public, but, the problem with taping, is that you only see "one side" of an incident, and people not knowing the whole story, will get worked up about something that isn't what it really is. Bad police officers need to be thrown out, but this will get good officers labeled as bad, without knowing what really happened.

Re:The problem with

[hduff]

Bad police officers need to be thrown out, but this will get good officers labeled as bad, without knowing what
really happened.

Nonsense. If they do nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.

Re:The problem with

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly, you only see ONE SIDE of what is going on, or, the police swarming all over one "poor defenseless" person. Did the person shoot at an officer, pull a knife, drive a zillion miles an hour, try to run over someone, hit someone, or try to run down an officer?

The police are not the judge, jury, or executioner. They do not exist to punish people, mete out justice, or take revenge against a person who just assaulted another police officer. They are supposed to subdue the person, take them into custody, and take them to jail.

the problem with taping, is that you only see "one side" of an incident, and people not knowing the whole story, will get worked up about something that isn't what it really is

The obvious way to protect yourself against that is to tape the whole encounter yourself so you can bring it forward and show what really happened.

But that isn't going to help you if the "one side" showed you viciously beating a guy every time he convulsed.

The land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so free, uh? Always look to the others...

Maryland/Anthony Graber

[stevegee58]

Don't forget the Anthony Graber case in Maryland. Maryland is a state that requires *all* parties of a recording to consent. *However* the court ruled that a police officer in the line of duty (not to mention the side of an interstate) does not have a presumption of privacy. i.e. if you're out on the street in public view it's fair to record.

Aren't they meant to be recorded anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are meant to have a camera recording from their car, then haven't the police implicitly agreed to have their actions recorded during their work, and whoever they are dealing with should have the same assumption. What difference does it make if someone else makes a recording of the events?

Paparazzi

[KingAlanI]

Don't paparazzi tend to be photographers, as opposed to audio or video with audio?

Cops like these thank god for cop killers

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a police state and there not all bad.
Without this there is nothing to make them behave which they seem incapable of doing otherwise.

F*ckin' Pigs!

[Anonymous Coward]

And this sort of crazed abuse of power is exactly why I laff my ass off whenever some pig gets his fascist ass blown away. Good fucking riddance!!

Photographic memory

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the police going to erase someone who has a photographic memory?

How ridiculous.

And what about news media? Are they subject to wiretap prosecution? I suppose not since they receive their ID's from the state police.

Public place in plain view. If the courts rule differently, the slippery slope will have to be tilted to the full vertical orientation.

The Blue Scholars have something to say

[worldthinker]

Ladies and Gentlemen: I give you the Blue Scholars track: Oskar Barnack ~ Oscar Grant -- The salient line in the lyrics is: Shoot the cops - take your camera out your pockets and shoot the cops.

http://bluescholars.bandcamp.com/track/oskar-barnack-oscar-grant

Employers recording their employees.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was legal for employers (I.E. Citizens) to record their employees (I.E. Pigs).

You're missing his point

[jeko]

It's not about the size of the rulebook, it's about the amount of discretion -- and therefore power -- in the hands of men with no life experience and IQs that have been legally capped at 105 (Jordan v. New London). Men who are now being officially trained at the academy to ignore and even despise the public. Men who brag about committing felonies while above the law.

Think I'm being harsh? Don't take my word for it. Head over to the forums at "Officer.com" and listen to these men brag about the laws they've broken and the bribes they've taken.

I get your point about writing the law so narrowly it becomes unwieldy, but in view of current events, it's long past time we remove discretion from the hands of men purposefully chosen because they are too small to carry a badge.

I grew up on military bases in a military family, but yeah, I know, I'm just a "cop hater." How did I get that way? Easy. I had one officer become unhinged and begin screaming profanities at my six-year-old daughter when she asked him about the snow outside (Exact quote: "I'm not your fucking weatherman.") The other involved the arrest of my 70-year-old mother-in-law at the airport for not following the commands of a police officer. No one bothered to find out she didn't speak English and had no idea what a boy barely old enough to shave was screaming at her.

Yeah, I know. If you're not a cop you can never understand the stress and pressure and danger these men go through. I'll try to make that argument to my Marine Corps captain buddy who just got stopped for DWB after coming back from Iraq. I grew up among uniforms during the Vietnam War. What I routinely see out of civilian law enforcement these days makes me ill.

It is long past time we pull these men back under discipline.

Re:You're missing his point

[jahudabudy]

Yeah, I know. If you're not a cop you can never understand the stress and pressure and danger these men go through.

You know what's more dangerous than being a cop? Working retail. Being a garbage man. And that's just odds of being murdered at work. If you count accidental death on the job, mining and agricultural jobs are WAAAY more dangerous. In fact, fatalities amongst law enforcement have fallen dramatically since 2007. Statistically, an altercation between a cop and a civilian is much more likely to end in the civilian being shot than the cop. On and on and on, the statistics and figures all agree, being a cop is not that dangerous. Certainly not dangerous enough to justify their being assholes and tyrants under the mantraf "better safe than sorry".

Hmm, that's the same notice we all get...

[jeko]

When I got hired at my current job, I had to sign a 50-page policy that included notice that all emails, phone calls and videocameras were the property of the company and that while I was employed, the company could use my audio and image for any purposes they chose.

When I got caught in the background for a company commercial, no one came to me or my guys for signed releases. They already had them from the day we were hired.

There is a camera in my office. My ID is trackable. When I pick up the phone or keyboard, the company has made me sign a piece of paper saying all communications of any kind are company property. I explicitly have no privacy rights while at work and EVERY SINGLE THING I do is documented three ways from Sunday, and all I do is maintain infrastructure. If a single card, if one dime, goes astray I will be held accountable.

Why should people who carry live ammunition be held to any lesser standard? If Seal Team Six can do their jobs while on camera, why can't Barney Fife?

They can't make it impossible, therefore we win

[symbolset]

Modern devices can stream video offsite live, either for immediate viewing or for endless archived replays. Because anybody might have this technology, police have to assume that everybody does. The era of policemen thinking they can get a way with a little manual correction is over. Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant because there are enough people who would violate that law despite what punishment might come.

They don't know if you're recording video. All you have to do to engage their restraint is hold up the cell phone and pretend to be recording to restrain their exuberance.

there will always be cases of injustice

[jeko]

there will always be cases of injustice but that is no reason to condemn the entire system.

Um, isn't that PRECISELY a reason to condemn the entire system?! Isn't that pretty much the ONLY reason to condemn an entire system?

What's wrong with just telling them?

[mark-t]

I mean, what's wrong with just saying that you are recording them in the first place? I don't think consent is required for it to be legal... only knowledge.

Cameras everywhere on everything.

[iiiears]

Falling prices will put a camera on throwaway items. The court can make any decision and be over ruled by the numbers.

This reminds me...

[thomasdn]

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

From "They Thought They Were Free -- The Germans 1933-45": http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Truth in Advertising

[joerog]

The cops are upset because they have been burned so many times by videos of their actions. That's the ONLY reason they got upset and arrested the photographer. However the comment made about the privacy of the person arrested has merit, and if I was recording the incident, I would be looking for police brutality and other miscarriages of justice. If it was a simple cut and dry arrest and all parties behaved like adults, I would not use the recording out of principle. Also the recording would not be anything to show off anyhow. If the 'perp' had the audacity to try resisting arrest and the thing turned into a brawl and the police were justified using the force necessary to control the situation, then that's some great footage at the expense of the perpetrator, not the cops. As for how the police treated the photographer, if they changed their name to 'Gestapo', there would be no case. Everybody would understand their mission and their 'modus operendi'. Hell, we're already more than halfway there!

Two Party Bull

[buddilla]

The two-party notification only applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A city sidewalk, street, or any other public area doesn't have any privacy. Thus allowing anybody to record anyone at anytime. This is why google street view is legal in the US. People can even take pictures of people in their houses so as long as the person taking the pictures is taking them from a public area, think the paparazzi and pictures of actors in their homes. So in my opinion this case is easily contestable and dismissible. Besides where's the corpus delecti ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti ) in this case.

There's another reason for so many laws

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another reason for so many laws: it's what politicians do. If they didn't make laws, they wouldn't be seen to be doing anything. Therefore as long as you have full-time politicians you'll have new laws.

Retiring old ones ensures that you can keep them busy re-writing the old ones, but it's not the undeath of the old laws, it's the fact that politicians have to keep creating new ones to look busy.

No more than you can get your janitor

[Anonymous Coward]

No more than you can get your janitor to do the accounts.

Because you've paid the police to uphold the law and maintain the peace, NOT to do TPS accounts.

How come people like you are OK with bosses watching the emails and internet uses of their employees but hate the idea to the extent of creating obvious strawmen about doing the same with police officers?

Heinlein

[Stone2065]

...and what exactly is wrong with Mr. Heinlein's works? :)

Robert A. Heinlein had some great ideas as to how government really should have been. Actually READ Starship Troopers, not the movie named after the book. In it, in order to vote, one had to complete either military service, or at least some form of "Federal Service". This included Teaching, as all teachers were paid directly by the Federal level of government, not the city/county/state level of government. Heinlein was VERY ahead of his time, and it's a shame that here we are, well into the 21st century, and we're about as socially/politically backwards as we were 30 years ago.

Not looking for flamebait, just saying...

Re:Heinlein

[sconeu]

Absolutely nothing is wrong with Heinlein's works (at least before he wrote "The Number of the Beast", but that's another debate).

I loved the novel Starship Troopers, and also The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I was just pointing out the ref for the Philistines who have never read it.