That is correct. However, the corporations are obligated to disclose that it is part of their policy to monitor the actions of its employees, ahead of time.
Are you suggesting, that police officers won't know it when they're wearing a mic? Or are you trying to say that they shouldn't have to worry about others resording them without notifying them? If you're trying to make the later statement, you must not have heard the earlier statements about the police not being private citizens while executing the duties of their job. And while they aren't civilians they have fewer rights, it's really that simple.
If you work at a wired business, chances are, people where you work will use their high speed internet connection to trade warez or download mp3s. Therefore, should we legally permit our employers to record all of our e-mails, telephone conversations, and talk around the water cooler, without notifying us?
No, the co has the responsibility of blocking/restricting those actions. Thats where the courts have come down, and thats where sale of firewalls has come up.
But in point of fact, courts have ruled that the co can read its empolyees email.
Don't say "can someone" in your argument. If I'm talking to you, and you just gave me a counter point to rebut, pretending that I have no response only serves to make you look like an asshole.
Name calling? Come on, I expected more. Especially coinsidering I was trying to open the thread to other opinions. Your responses have generally been somewhat single minded.
As for the privacy concern, its not the same, a Police Officer is not a civilian so they aren't entitled to the same rights while on the job. As it is no department lets its Police Officers run around without checking on them, recording them would just be another tool. And if they have an accident, it would help discover the facts, and if they act in an intentionally inapropriate manner, it will also help discover that.
As for the e-mail comparison? Thats totally bogus, no one here is saying Police Officers aren't allowed to make some mistakes. The concensus has generally been around responding when they act in a deliberate and improper manner.
I will happily surrender my life, and the volunteer (as much as its my right to) my family members lives, the day that a police officer can not protect me because they're wearing a microphone.
Sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Policing the police, makes for better police. Police Offciers that have a problem with it, generally do so because they have something to hide.
And on point I will suggest your read the FOP newsletters, the majority of opinion favors video & audio following the police.
Can someone please tell me how having a police officer wear a mic, so they have to behave apropriately, can hinder their ability to lawfully execute the responsibities of their job?
I don't know who your friends are that are police in Massachusetts, but my experience with Police Officers in Massachusetts both in social and professional settings has been universally bad. I work in Emergency Services, and have plenty of friends other places that are Police Officers, in addition to being good people.
I've been to court in MA numerous times fighting unjustified and illegal police action, and I've won. The MA State Police don't just look like the SS they act the part.
If you're looking for Racism, Classism, or Profiling look no Further, then the police in MA.
As for the original article I expect upon Federal Supreme Court appeal, the decision will be overturned. The police have no expectation of privacy (being both that it happens in a public place, and the subject is a public official performing their duty). Provided everyone in the vehicle knows their being taped, and agrees to it, there's no violation. No one has an expectation of privacy anymore.
Finally, the expectation of privacy is intended to protect people from unreasonable eavesdropping, and search. Not to protect the police from misconduct during the execution of their duties.
As for the comment about surveillance (or mic'ng the police) hindering their ability to do their job. What a farce, if they're doing their job properly, and presenting the image and behavior expected, it can't hurt them. I have one friend who is a police officer who works for a Department that doesn't have cameras in the cruisers, he took his own initiative and installed one at his own cost, he has nothing to hide.
As for the notion that a Cops job is hard, and they put their lives on the line, my response is SO WHAT. They knew that when they signed up, and it hasn't changed. They also knew the compromises and expectations of them before they signed up. The fact that you or I wouldn't do the job is not a reason to coddle them.
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct. However, the corporations are obligated to disclose that it is part of their policy to monitor the actions of its employees, ahead of time.
Are you suggesting, that police officers won't know it when they're wearing a mic? Or are you trying to say that they shouldn't have to worry about others resording them without notifying them? If you're trying to make the later statement, you must not have heard the earlier statements about the police not being private citizens while executing the duties of their job. And while they aren't civilians they have fewer rights, it's really that simple.
If you work at a wired business, chances are, people where you work will use their high speed internet connection to trade warez or download mp3s. Therefore, should we legally permit our employers to record all of our e-mails, telephone conversations, and talk around the water cooler, without notifying us?
No, the co has the responsibility of blocking/restricting those actions. Thats where the courts have come down, and thats where sale of firewalls has come up.
But in point of fact, courts have ruled that the co can read its empolyees email.
Don't say "can someone" in your argument. If I'm talking to you, and you just gave me a counter point to rebut, pretending that I have no response only serves to make you look like an asshole.
Name calling? Come on, I expected more. Especially coinsidering I was trying to open the thread to other opinions. Your responses have generally been somewhat single minded.
As for the privacy concern, its not the same, a Police Officer is not a civilian so they aren't entitled to the same rights while on the job. As it is no department lets its Police Officers run around without checking on them, recording them would just be another tool. And if they have an accident, it would help discover the facts, and if they act in an intentionally inapropriate manner, it will also help discover that.
As for the e-mail comparison? Thats totally bogus, no one here is saying Police Officers aren't allowed to make some mistakes. The concensus has generally been around responding when they act in a deliberate and improper manner.
I will happily surrender my life, and the volunteer (as much as its my right to) my family members lives, the day that a police officer can not protect me because they're wearing a microphone.
Sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Policing the police, makes for better police. Police Offciers that have a problem with it, generally do so because they have something to hide.
And on point I will suggest your read the FOP newsletters, the majority of opinion favors video & audio following the police.
Can someone please tell me how having a police officer wear a mic, so they have to behave apropriately, can hinder their ability to lawfully execute the responsibities of their job?
I don't know who your friends are that are police in Massachusetts, but my experience with Police Officers in Massachusetts both in social and professional settings has been universally bad. I work in Emergency Services, and have plenty of friends other places that are Police Officers, in addition to being good people.
I've been to court in MA numerous times fighting unjustified and illegal police action, and I've won. The MA State Police don't just look like the SS they act the part.
If you're looking for Racism, Classism, or Profiling look no Further, then the police in MA.
As for the original article I expect upon Federal Supreme Court appeal, the decision will be overturned. The police have no expectation of privacy (being both that it happens in a public place, and the subject is a public official performing their duty). Provided everyone in the vehicle knows their being taped, and agrees to it, there's no violation. No one has an expectation of privacy anymore.
Finally, the expectation of privacy is intended to protect people from unreasonable eavesdropping, and search. Not to protect the police from misconduct during the execution of their duties.
As for the comment about surveillance (or mic'ng the police) hindering their ability to do their job. What a farce, if they're doing their job properly, and presenting the image and behavior expected, it can't hurt them. I have one friend who is a police officer who works for a Department that doesn't have cameras in the cruisers, he took his own initiative and installed one at his own cost, he has nothing to hide.
As for the notion that a Cops job is hard, and they put their lives on the line, my response is SO WHAT. They knew that when they signed up, and it hasn't changed. They also knew the compromises and expectations of them before they signed up. The fact that you or I wouldn't do the job is not a reason to coddle them.