I was a legal observer during the Vancouver Olympics. Luckily there were no major abuses of police power (although one officer did put a mark on our head by telling a drug dealer that we were collecting evidence against him, pretty unprofessional if you ask me).
The best advice I've been given for videotaping police is to ask where they want you to stand so that you are not in their way. If you record them saying that they want you completely out of sight, then you have collected evidence that their request was unreasonable. If they give you a reasonable distance where you can keep filming their activities, then it's not really a problem. It's dangerous to disobey a police officer even if you think you are in the right, and if you turn out to be wrong there could be consequences.
You don't have to be right beside the officers to get a good view of what's going on, and standing back a few meters often affords a better vantage point anyways.
As far as police deleting your footage, it's good to have a second voice recorder under you shirt. Vocalize your objections, "Why are you destroying this evidence??" It might be useful later.
No kidding. The fact that they are having trouble locating them is troubling...is that to say they don't even know basic information on the suspect, such as his address or common residence? A means of contacting him/her?
I'm also wondering if you could get in trouble for taking the device. If someone intentionally places something in or on your car, to me that is akin to giving it to you. Just like if someone intentionally leaves a box on my doorstep I assume it's for me. Am I supposed to ask the owner of pamphlets permission before throwing them away?
I guess it's hard to say...but the evidence itself is intact. It's the access to the evidence which is revoked. It would be interesting to see if this changes things. Does permanently locking up evidence constitute destroying evidence?
Also, I am curious, if one is arrested or their items are seized, what would be expected of them even if they had a reasonable expectation anticipation of legal action. Proactively get in touch with a jail-guard and try to tell them how urgent it is that they be able to re-activate the encrypted drive?
Having a short time frame is also useful, because if the time frame is, say, a day, then it would take a certain amount of time to first of all realize that the data will be rendered inaccessible and then second of all it would take additional time to legally compel you to help. And maybe more time yet if you appeal the decision.
The key is in your mind, and you have to make words to give it to others. It's not entirely the same.
But let's assume you can be compelled, whether they know what's in the container or not. I have been trying to think about ways to get around this. From an academic point of view of course:P
What if the pass key itself was incriminating (i.e. "I killed a guy in 1994 and his body is under the bridge.")? Could you plead the 5th? Might be a bit of a risk. (I mean...killing is bad.)
Truecrypt allows the plausible deniability with the drive in a drive. Give them the wrong code and it opens a second container with something more innocuous in it. For those who are actually afraid of giving in (to torture? desperation?) the under duress password could have the function of changing the real password to 500 random characters, thereby making it permanently inaccessible to anyone.
Another idea is to have a daily or weekly maintenance password. That is, you are required to type in a password once a day or once a week, and if you don't, the passkey changes to some random 500 characters and is permanently inaccessible. If your stuff is seized or you are arrested, all you have to do is sit back and relax. While I am sure it would be a problem for you to go around actively destroying evidence, I'm curious to see if you get in trouble for this. First of all, you aren't destroying evidence per se, rather it is being rendered inaccessible (automatically I might add). Second, while you can't actively destroy evidence, can you get in trouble for not actively preserving it for the authorities?
No doubt. I would switch in a second if it wasn't for that. Firefox is so tedious though. It crashes once a day on my computer (apparently it's some problem specific to this type of laptop graphics card driver on Windows 7). Nonetheless all the other browsers seem to work without crashing...
PS I may have misunderstood your post as arguing against being required to pay for overtime. I was having a hard time tracking all the "this liberty that liberty"
troll troll troll. By God, I think you're on to something. Not being required to pay wages for time worked increases liberties for everyone!! I think the communists and slave owners probably agree with you.
How is dictating that employees who do work must be paid for said work reducing freedom? Is it reducing freedom to outlaw theft, too?
Generally speaking, it's possible to contract around laws. In Canada, a collective agreement has the first priority, and then any areas not covered by the CA fall to the employment legislation.
I have mixed feelings about stories like this. While I hope that she is able to do something special and help her family, if she does, that only sends the message that any poor person can do so, and that they don't means they are lazy. You find one example of a person who clawed their way out of poverty and all of a sudden the countless others unable to do so are simply lazy.
Then address the above problems. Again, you are simply arguing that the US government isn't as bad as say, Iran, and therefore it's not tyranny.
All that is required is for a leader to be changed at least once a decade and then it's not a tyranny, amirite? Soviet Russia had frequent leadership, often less than a decade apart. I guess they were not a tyranny.
I'm not saying the US is as bad as Iran [yet]. Yes citizens hold the right to vote [for now]. But to assume that it never can be is foolish. It's not uncommon for democratic states to fall into a dictatorship.
Lol tell that to the people who are indefinitely detained without trial. Tell that to the people who get wiretapped without warrant. Tell that to the people the US tortures. Tell that to the people your government censors.
I could go on, but your wilful ignorance suggests it won't make a lick of difference.
"But our tyranny isn't as bad as theirs!" Wow a real point of pride *thumbs up*
I was going to say that it's funny they're claiming false advertising for make-up of all things. Isn't make-up the ultimate in false advertising?
"Hey, look at me! I'm really pretty*"
*Appearance has been completely altered by cosmetics.
Plus ever since version 3.6 I can't get firefox to go 4 minutes without crashing on my Windows 7 64bit systems (any of them). It seems to be specifically a problem with that OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if it's legal to use this against members of a crowd, would it be illegal to use it on the politician or speaker standing at the front?
The idea of having a mute button for loud mouths is eerily appealing. Hopefully they make one in remote control form.
I was a legal observer during the Vancouver Olympics. Luckily there were no major abuses of police power (although one officer did put a mark on our head by telling a drug dealer that we were collecting evidence against him, pretty unprofessional if you ask me).
The best advice I've been given for videotaping police is to ask where they want you to stand so that you are not in their way. If you record them saying that they want you completely out of sight, then you have collected evidence that their request was unreasonable. If they give you a reasonable distance where you can keep filming their activities, then it's not really a problem. It's dangerous to disobey a police officer even if you think you are in the right, and if you turn out to be wrong there could be consequences.
You don't have to be right beside the officers to get a good view of what's going on, and standing back a few meters often affords a better vantage point anyways.
As far as police deleting your footage, it's good to have a second voice recorder under you shirt. Vocalize your objections, "Why are you destroying this evidence??" It might be useful later.
No kidding. The fact that they are having trouble locating them is troubling...is that to say they don't even know basic information on the suspect, such as his address or common residence? A means of contacting him/her?
I'm also wondering if you could get in trouble for taking the device. If someone intentionally places something in or on your car, to me that is akin to giving it to you. Just like if someone intentionally leaves a box on my doorstep I assume it's for me. Am I supposed to ask the owner of pamphlets permission before throwing them away?
I guess it's hard to say...but the evidence itself is intact. It's the access to the evidence which is revoked. It would be interesting to see if this changes things. Does permanently locking up evidence constitute destroying evidence?
Also, I am curious, if one is arrested or their items are seized, what would be expected of them even if they had a reasonable expectation anticipation of legal action. Proactively get in touch with a jail-guard and try to tell them how urgent it is that they be able to re-activate the encrypted drive?
Having a short time frame is also useful, because if the time frame is, say, a day, then it would take a certain amount of time to first of all realize that the data will be rendered inaccessible and then second of all it would take additional time to legally compel you to help. And maybe more time yet if you appeal the decision.
The key is in your mind, and you have to make words to give it to others. It's not entirely the same.
But let's assume you can be compelled, whether they know what's in the container or not. I have been trying to think about ways to get around this. From an academic point of view of course :P
What if the pass key itself was incriminating (i.e. "I killed a guy in 1994 and his body is under the bridge.")? Could you plead the 5th? Might be a bit of a risk. (I mean...killing is bad.)
Truecrypt allows the plausible deniability with the drive in a drive. Give them the wrong code and it opens a second container with something more innocuous in it. For those who are actually afraid of giving in (to torture? desperation?) the under duress password could have the function of changing the real password to 500 random characters, thereby making it permanently inaccessible to anyone.
Another idea is to have a daily or weekly maintenance password. That is, you are required to type in a password once a day or once a week, and if you don't, the passkey changes to some random 500 characters and is permanently inaccessible. If your stuff is seized or you are arrested, all you have to do is sit back and relax. While I am sure it would be a problem for you to go around actively destroying evidence, I'm curious to see if you get in trouble for this. First of all, you aren't destroying evidence per se, rather it is being rendered inaccessible (automatically I might add). Second, while you can't actively destroy evidence, can you get in trouble for not actively preserving it for the authorities?
No doubt. I would switch in a second if it wasn't for that. Firefox is so tedious though. It crashes once a day on my computer (apparently it's some problem specific to this type of laptop graphics card driver on Windows 7). Nonetheless all the other browsers seem to work without crashing...
If the majority of religious people wanted peace, there would be peace (considering how many people on this planet call themselves religious).
I will correct your statement to say that the majority of religious people say they want peace.
Those pesky checks and balances.
PS I may have misunderstood your post as arguing against being required to pay for overtime. I was having a hard time tracking all the "this liberty that liberty"
troll troll troll. By God, I think you're on to something. Not being required to pay wages for time worked increases liberties for everyone!! I think the communists and slave owners probably agree with you.
How is dictating that employees who do work must be paid for said work reducing freedom? Is it reducing freedom to outlaw theft, too?
Generally speaking, it's possible to contract around laws. In Canada, a collective agreement has the first priority, and then any areas not covered by the CA fall to the employment legislation.
I have mixed feelings about stories like this. While I hope that she is able to do something special and help her family, if she does, that only sends the message that any poor person can do so, and that they don't means they are lazy. You find one example of a person who clawed their way out of poverty and all of a sudden the countless others unable to do so are simply lazy.
Like those you can already see in this thread...
Then address the above problems. Again, you are simply arguing that the US government isn't as bad as say, Iran, and therefore it's not tyranny.
All that is required is for a leader to be changed at least once a decade and then it's not a tyranny, amirite? Soviet Russia had frequent leadership, often less than a decade apart. I guess they were not a tyranny.
I'm not saying the US is as bad as Iran [yet]. Yes citizens hold the right to vote [for now]. But to assume that it never can be is foolish. It's not uncommon for democratic states to fall into a dictatorship.
Lol tell that to the people who are indefinitely detained without trial. Tell that to the people who get wiretapped without warrant. Tell that to the people the US tortures. Tell that to the people your government censors.
I could go on, but your wilful ignorance suggests it won't make a lick of difference.
"But our tyranny isn't as bad as theirs!" Wow a real point of pride *thumbs up*
And good luck getting many in Asia to respect animal rights.
Congratulations.
You could try business majors.
I was going to say that it's funny they're claiming false advertising for make-up of all things. Isn't make-up the ultimate in false advertising? "Hey, look at me! I'm really pretty*" *Appearance has been completely altered by cosmetics.
I would want a law that bans websites from auto playing anything on load before this law. Whatever, I guess.
I think XBox Pi will be the one for me. PS I can't figure out how to post the Pi symbol. Totally ruined my punchline.
Yes, I agree. I can't help but feel like I've been outsmarted by a plant.
Plus ever since version 3.6 I can't get firefox to go 4 minutes without crashing on my Windows 7 64bit systems (any of them). It seems to be specifically a problem with that OS.
Well, just like if you don't like airport security you don't have to fly, if you don't like the DMV you don't have to drive, amiright? /sarcasm