...if that camera-person is on their own property or elsewhere (not a street) -- as has been the majority of cases -- then a command from an officer to leave the area is unlawful
It may very well be unlawful, but that is not the place for the debate. In the field, citizens have a duty to comply with commands from police. The legality of those commands can be challenged later in court, and torts filed for damages. The thought being that a citizen may not know the reasons for these commands (maybe someone called and said there was a bomb in your house, maybe there is a suspect in the area...)
On the photography: Again, this is a fairly new ruling. Many departments have already done training on this, some have not, I believe the tide is turning. Why don't you post links to some egregious examples?
On the public/private house: you are confusing a "public place" with "public view." If I am walking down the street, I am in a public place(...and in public view.) If I am standing in my picture window in the front of my house facing the street I am on private property, in public view. This is why if the cops walking down the street look though that same picture window in the front of my house facing the street, and see me bagging drugs, that could give them probable cause. I'm not sure why you said you "pay rent" to use the street? Do you mean taxes? All citizens pay taxes to provide for things enjoyed by all citizens.
...the data is a critical aspect of the surveillance. What makes you sure that the data is not being applied to other things beyond their stated mission?
I'm not sure.
Like many things in real life, I have to place a certain degree of trust in my doctor, dentist, car mechanic, and police department.
There are many checks in place over the actions of the police and government. (Believe it or not.) And, although that does not prevent every bad behavior, that is why pretty much everything eventually comes to light; from Watergate, to water boarding, to a "wide stance" in a mensroom.
It's NOT a perfect system. It's just the best we have been able to devise.
Myself, personally, I like the idea that everybody has a camera. The citizens have them, the police have them, the stores have them, the ATMs have them.
To me (a non-criminal) that means that I can video the police if they misbehave, they can find my stolen car quicker, the store can see that I'm not shoplifting, and the bank can see it wasn't me hacking money out of my account.
Well, taking pictures in public is legal, both for the public and the police. I think we agree on that.
The law does not recognize an expectation of privacy on a public street. Collecting this data for a lawful purpose seems to be legal, however, stalking itself is illegal. So, much like having a screwdriver in your pocket, it's not so much the collecting of data, but the intended use of the data that matters. (The screwdriver in the pocket of a mechanic, in the daytime, in his shop, is a tool. In the pocket of someone loitering around behind a jewelry store at 3am, it's a burglary tool. 466 PC here in CA.)
As to photographers "being intimidated, arrested, detained, and prosecuted for filming police" I believe police are now being instructed in the legality of this. However, a lot of these people (that I see on YouTube) are not being arrested for photography, they are being arrested for: 1. Interfering with the police. 2. Failing to obey a lawful police order (like, "Hey, get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. OK, you're busted.")
I don't know how the Castle doctrine would apply to your car; but I never said your car is a public place. I was saying that if your car is on a public street, that it, and you, are in a public place. However, your car would be a legal 'extension' of you, which means if someone started beating on it, it could be considered a battery against you.
Yes, Somalia is one of the few places on earth that doesn't have a well structured police force.
But, I'm still waiting for "Darkness404" to tell us about all the magical fairy-lands that are, "...quite safe despite having very little or no police presence..."
Perhaps he never heard about the Montreal police strike:
"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order."
Later gvmt took that right away from you. The states can possibly do this -
Correct, the state can regulate who, and who cannot, drive a vehicle on a public street. That is to try to keep people from killing each other with their cars. They can test you, monitor your driving record, etc. So it's not a right of every citizen, it's a privilege granted by the state.
In the same way not everyone has a 'right' to be a brain surgeon, not everyone has a 'right' to fly a passenger jet.
Common law allows us to do that which is not prohibited, but the feds or states can regulate things (like driving) for the good of the public.
Can I put a camera on my front yard that records license plates...
Sure. You can take pictures of anything in public view.
The only hitch is that you can't turn those numbers into names. All you'll have is a bunch of letters and numbers. But you'll know that 123ABC passed your house at 10:00pm.
Very few countries have "...little or no police presence..."
Somalia has a fairly minimal police force but, "Pervasive and violent crime is an extension of the general state of insecurity in Somalia. Serious, brutal, and often fatal crimes are very common. Kidnapping and robbery are a particular problem in Mogadishu and other areas of the south." (USDOS)
Why don't you move there, and then report back to us on the, "...harmony and peace..."
And perhaps it should be illegal for a government to use technologies that automatically record all license plates. It's an order of magnitude different from someone simply sitting around and recording them by hand.
Why is it 'worse' because it is 'more?'
Would that also apply to free speech? "Well, one radical blogger on the internet is OK, but 10 radical bloggers on the internet should be illegal because it's an order of magnitude more."
It seems to me like these cameras would help exonerate 10 times the innocent, and catch 10 times the criminals. I don't see that as worse.
Yeah, I don't recall the exact amendment that makes driving a right, but I think it's in the same paragraph that gives every citizen the right to fly a jet, gives every citizen the right to date a supermodel, and the right to do brain surgery.
The reason it's not a right is because there are qualifications you much have, above and beyond being a citizen, to be a driver.
Great definition here: "A constitutional right is a legal right granted by a sovereignty's constitution to its citizens and possibly others within its jurisdiction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right
I don't see why having a camera shooting pictures of your state owned plate as you drive down the public street is any different than a cop standing there writing down the plate number in a book, or taking a picture of it.
Actually I do see a difference... the cheap camera being there means the cop is free to answer important calls and saves the taxpayers money.
The truth works for people and not against them.
If I may embellish on this as well: The cameras work for the innocent and against the criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
...and you wonder why your wife signed you up for that "Knife-Of-The-Month-Club" for your anniversary.
That's the genius part of this plan; Google drops a check in your coffin every year!!
...if that camera-person is on their own property or elsewhere (not a street) -- as has been the majority of cases -- then a command from an officer to leave the area is unlawful
It may very well be unlawful, but that is not the place for the debate.
In the field, citizens have a duty to comply with commands from police. The legality of those commands can be challenged later in court, and torts filed for damages. The thought being that a citizen may not know the reasons for these commands (maybe someone called and said there was a bomb in your house, maybe there is a suspect in the area...)
On the photography: Again, this is a fairly new ruling. Many departments have already done training on this, some have not, I believe the tide is turning. Why don't you post links to some egregious examples?
On the public/private house: you are confusing a "public place" with "public view." If I am walking down the street, I am in a public place(...and in public view.) If I am standing in my picture window in the front of my house facing the street I am on private property, in public view. This is why if the cops walking down the street look though that same picture window in the front of my house facing the street, and see me bagging drugs, that could give them probable cause.
I'm not sure why you said you "pay rent" to use the street? Do you mean taxes? All citizens pay taxes to provide for things enjoyed by all citizens.
...the data is a critical aspect of the surveillance. What makes you sure that the data is not being applied to other things beyond their stated mission?
I'm not sure.
Like many things in real life, I have to place a certain degree of trust in my doctor, dentist, car mechanic, and police department.
There are many checks in place over the actions of the police and government. (Believe it or not.) And, although that does not prevent every bad behavior, that is why pretty much everything eventually comes to light; from Watergate, to water boarding, to a "wide stance" in a mensroom.
It's NOT a perfect system. It's just the best we have been able to devise.
Myself, personally, I like the idea that everybody has a camera. The citizens have them, the police have them, the stores have them, the ATMs have them.
To me (a non-criminal) that means that I can video the police if they misbehave, they can find my stolen car quicker, the store can see that I'm not shoplifting, and the bank can see it wasn't me hacking money out of my account.
Got my numbers from here: http://www.netmarketshare.com/
What's your source?
Well, taking pictures in public is legal, both for the public and the police. I think we agree on that.
The law does not recognize an expectation of privacy on a public street. Collecting this data for a lawful purpose seems to be legal, however, stalking itself is illegal. So, much like having a screwdriver in your pocket, it's not so much the collecting of data, but the intended use of the data that matters. (The screwdriver in the pocket of a mechanic, in the daytime, in his shop, is a tool. In the pocket of someone loitering around behind a jewelry store at 3am, it's a burglary tool. 466 PC here in CA.)
As to photographers "being intimidated, arrested, detained, and prosecuted for filming police" I believe police are now being instructed in the legality of this. However, a lot of these people (that I see on YouTube) are not being arrested for photography, they are being arrested for:
1. Interfering with the police.
2. Failing to obey a lawful police order (like, "Hey, get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. Get out of the street. OK, you're busted.")
I don't know how the Castle doctrine would apply to your car; but I never said your car is a public place. I was saying that if your car is on a public street, that it, and you, are in a public place. However, your car would be a legal 'extension' of you, which means if someone started beating on it, it could be considered a battery against you.
(And please, no "car battery" jokes...)
Frankly, the police could have prevented none of that from happening had they not been on strike.
I think that's kind of the author's point-- q.e.d.: that the city went nuts BECAUSE they knew the police were on strike..
Thank you... you said it far more eloquently than I.
You may want to try the new search service called "Google" (funny name, huh?)
Type in "license plate reading software" and you'll get about 1,970,000 results.
Here's one now! :
www.platerecognition.info/1103.htm
Yes, Somalia is one of the few places on earth that doesn't have a well structured police force.
But, I'm still waiting for "Darkness404" to tell us about all the magical fairy-lands that are, "...quite safe despite having very little or no police presence..."
Perhaps he never heard about the Montreal police strike:
"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order."
Later gvmt took that right away from you. The states can possibly do this -
Correct, the state can regulate who, and who cannot, drive a vehicle on a public street. That is to try to keep people from killing each other with their cars. They can test you, monitor your driving record, etc. So it's not a right of every citizen, it's a privilege granted by the state.
In the same way not everyone has a 'right' to be a brain surgeon, not everyone has a 'right' to fly a passenger jet.
Common law allows us to do that which is not prohibited, but the feds or states can regulate things (like driving) for the good of the public.
It's called OCR "Optical character recognition" and started back in 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition
Can I put a camera on my front yard that records license plates...
Sure. You can take pictures of anything in public view.
The only hitch is that you can't turn those numbers into names. All you'll have is a bunch of letters and numbers. But you'll know that 123ABC passed your house at 10:00pm.
We have a right to anonymity?
Not in public.
There is no expectation of privacy for your license plate, which is the property of the state and is designed specifically to identify a vehicle.
Remember, the camera doesn't shoot the driver, just the plate. (and there is also no law prohibiting taking pictures of you in public, anyway...)
Very few countries have "...little or no police presence..."
Somalia has a fairly minimal police force but, "Pervasive and violent crime is an extension of the general state of insecurity in Somalia. Serious, brutal, and often fatal crimes are very common. Kidnapping and robbery are a particular problem in Mogadishu and other areas of the south." (USDOS)
Why don't you move there, and then report back to us on the, "...harmony and peace..."
And perhaps it should be illegal for a government to use technologies that automatically record all license plates. It's an order of magnitude different from someone simply sitting around and recording them by hand.
Why is it 'worse' because it is 'more?'
Would that also apply to free speech? "Well, one radical blogger on the internet is OK, but 10 radical bloggers on the internet should be illegal because it's an order of magnitude more."
It seems to me like these cameras would help exonerate 10 times the innocent, and catch 10 times the criminals. I don't see that as worse.
Yeah, I don't recall the exact amendment that makes driving a right, but I think it's in the same paragraph that gives every citizen the right to fly a jet, gives every citizen the right to date a supermodel, and the right to do brain surgery.
Seriously, it's not a right because it is not enumerated as such in the constitution or any amendment.
Really.
Please look it up.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights/
The reason it's not a right is because there are qualifications you much have, above and beyond being a citizen, to be a driver.
Great definition here: "A constitutional right is a legal right granted by a sovereignty's constitution to its citizens and possibly others within its jurisdiction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right
Agreed. Thank you for saying that.
I don't see why having a camera shooting pictures of your state owned plate as you drive down the public street is any different than a cop standing there writing down the plate number in a book, or taking a picture of it.
Actually I do see a difference... the cheap camera being there means the cop is free to answer important calls and saves the taxpayers money.
The truth works for people and not against them.
If I may embellish on this as well:
The cameras work for the innocent and against the criminals.
I hear Mitt Romney is running on the primae noctae platform.
More like the "primae noctae magicis brevi Braccae."
...come to think of it - might as well make it "PASS - FAIL."
No one would hack in to give themselves a 'C!'
They won't give written tests at the Hacker High School; when you enroll you are given an automatic "F."
It's up to you to hack in and change it to an "A."
...or, somewhere on the mean streets of Chicago, there's a hitman beating his target to death with a 60 inch flat screen.
Sorry... Thanks for the correction.
Apparently, not everything on the internet is 100% accurate.
Checking...
Naw, everything's normal, just 3 Runciters and 10 Joe Chips.
Man, it was so hot today, I was sprayin' on the underarm Ubik like crazy!
I gotta throw Stanisaw Lem in here.
Although he's snarky and funny at times, he can leave you with a strong Kafkaesque aftertaste. Definitely depressing.
So right about the Philip K Dick...
Ubik, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Man in the High Castle, Three Stigmata were just horrifying - but wonderful.
I think while it's fun to read his stuff, no one would actually want to live in his worlds...