If you violate existing law in trying to enforce the law with the method of evidence collecting being illegal, you are breaking the law. Breaking the law while trying to enforce the law is not law enforcement.
The police are empowered to enforce the law. You are empowered to report lawbreakers. What? Do you think you can give speeding tickets?
If someone barges into your home who you think is impersonating a cop and he is armed...please feel free to have him talk to S&W, Ruger, or Glock. If he was really a cop you go to jail and if he wasn't you killed an armed intruder. In some states (Maryland) you are in trouble unless you can convince the cops that this guy threatened you or someone else with PHYSICAL harm and just possessing a gun in holster or pants (not in hand) won't cut it. In some states (Louisianna) you can shoot any armed tresspasser in your home with no repercussions regardless of whether they actually posed a threat. I'd hate to try it with a cop but if you claim you shot at an intruder in the dark and didn't know it was a cop you might still get away with it.
I agree completely. If all cop and public interactions were recorded you would end up with a police force where their ability to be there to aid the public and enforce the laws is available for scrutiny. Bad cops would be forced out and we would only have good cops. It would solve a huge number of ills that plague the fair enforcement of laws. There was a comment the other day related to making legislators take lie detector tests monthly. It's almost the same thing. From a commoner/general public point of view, I don't see any harm.
The article said that the guy who got arrested owns the building. If he rents out the other three units then it could be his "commerical space". Lawyers will argue anything. It all depends on how the judge or jury see things. If I were a juror on a similar case I would say that he had every right to tape anything happening on his property, audio and video, without even having to notify anyone that they were being taped. The only exception would be that the other three units, if rented, should have total privacy. Common areas, alley, my personal residence and its entry should all be free for me to record at all times as I wish...and I would say that I shouldn't even have to post any fucking signs!
From the same point of view I would agree. I read that it said there were signs. My cynical side says any good lawyer would argue that the signs wasn't large enough, numerous enough, in the right places, or didn't clearly enough state what what kind of recording was going on. Both audio and video were being recorded. If the sign stated "video security on premises" and didn't mention audio then that would be a violation.
That's another point for the lawyers to argue about. The statutes as I read them seemed broad. It certainly could be argued by a lawyer that the owner's make money renting the 4 units in the building and there for it is a "commercial enterprise".
In a lot jurisdictions you can get your local police department to come and give a security inspection of your property. They'll look at lighting, locks, shrubbery, etc. If they were just adding this as an item on to their checklist for the service the already offer, I think it wouldn't bother me so much.
I agree but you know how lawyers are...Here's my patented "Devil's Advocate" vision of what could actually end happening. The statute I read didn't state how consent is given. It is very broad, "without the consent of all parties to the communication". If I can reasonably claim the signs weren't sufficient by something like size, placement, or content then I can claim not to have been able to consent because I wasn't notified I was being recorded. New Hampshire allows for "recovery for civil damages" as well. The cop could very well be okay on this and be entitled to sue the guy who taped him.
In most jurisdictions, yes. They have what are called "police powers" that regular citizens don't have. You can make a citizens arrest in some jurisdictions but if you don't do it by the book you'll be in jail too...and probably sued.
My opinion is that anyone should be able to record their interactions with the police in any manner. I would never have thought that it might be illegal to video or audio tape on the premises of my own residence much less the interaction with a public official on my own property.
There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws. I'm not a lawyer but the way it reads to me is that you must give permission in order to be audio taped. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It could be that by posting signs then you give tacit approval if you choose to come on the property. Or, maybe posting signs isn't sufficient and you have to have someone agree to taping before starting. I did also note that the cops have exemptions that allow their patrol cars to tape as well as other law enforcement exemptions.
Very good point but I still expect more and more people to EVENTUALLY go to Linux. I think it still hasn't quite matured enough yet for the mass market. At some point I expect Linux to be easier to install and manage than Windows. At that point is when we are more likely to see more and more people switching.
I think even some legit Microsoft users might not like the idea of Microsoft taking such a heavy handed approach. As a business owner I wouldn't want to risk having one of my employees PCs out of commission due to what could be an honest mistake or omission on my part.
I can't imagine that Microsoft would be so stupid as to eventually start turning off people's Windows systems. Talk about cutting your own throat. Even the Microsoft fans would start thinking of turning to other OS options.
That's said primarily tongue in cheek. Killing a couple of cops and hiding in the North Carolina mountains until caught is not my idea of a successful resolution. You still don't get to keep your property and then you eventually end up in jail for life or possibly killed while being captured. I'd most likely hold out for as much money as possible and then take the money and run. You can bet I'd be really careful about trying to pick another place to buy that seems the least likely to suit some possible future "public use".
Do you know for fact they used only in house lawyers? Typically, many large corporations hire law firms for specialty legal needs despite the fact they have plenty of in house lawyers. Usually some of the in house lawyers will work in conjunction them.
If you think judges are always completely impartial and act that way then you need to expose yourself to more law. There's a reason judges occasionally go to jail or get thrown off the bench. They're human and therefore subject to all of our failings. In some places the law means nothing more than who you know and if you are in the judge's circle of lawyer friends. If you are, you will get decisions others who aren't in the circle wouldn't. My stepson's case is a perfect example. Without the right connections I'm sure his VERY expensive lawyer would not have succeeded in getting him another chance. He would be a naive, immature, 19 year old, 150 pound boy getting his ass pounded in state prison when what he really needed was serious psychiatric care. The prosecutor knew all of the facts but she didn't care what was right...all she wanted is to be relected. You'll never find a "Fair Witness" type judge like in a Heinlein novel.
Actually, I meant what I said..."I love to see a company work so hard for an ethical goal as opposed to a profit goal."
That is because I hate to see big business/corporate shills running our government to the detriment of our personal freedoms. IBM, like all companies that size, wields incredible influence in legislation that gets passed that directly or indirectly affects their bottom line. While IBM certainly recognizes the potential for future sales in its stance, that doesn't change the fact they are supporting a position that most of us are happy about. There is no guarantee that the money they are spending on this effort will be recouped in future sales. I'd like to hope that someone in power at IBM actually gives a shit.
I'm glad IBM obviously hired some very expensive, very good, lawyers and/or has a very talented team of in house lawyers. You can bet they worked very hard and were very expensive. I love to see a company work so hard for an ethical goal as opposed to a profit goal...even though the lawyers also profit excessively.
Yup. I absolutely mean "Compulsory Purchase". Hell, even that's way too polite for what it is. Don't show up on my property and say you want it for your town, county, state or federal project because it will help SOMEONE ELSE make money. I might have to go Rambo or Charles Bronson on someone if I don't have a really, really good reason to persuade me that giving up my property is the best thing for a whole lotta people and ME.
I think the only shade of difference here is my OS/network centric reference and your programming/application performance reference. Upon a second look I didn't see anything that mentioned anything about OS and network issues that could be monitored, so I'm guessing it's a tool better suited to your area of expertise. The first thing I thought of as I reading this was that it could head off a lot of possible conflicts with OS upgrades and maybe monitor internal and external network connectivity.
And of course Federal eminent domain isn't being used like state eminent domain. It is used much less frequently and affects a much smaller group of people. Many states are rightly revising their eminent domain laws because of a couple of well publicized cases. It has been far too easy for local/state governments to take people's property away and this is one area where you might be able to say that the local/state electoriate is actually affecting policy in a big way. Of course, it doesn't hurt that rich people don't want their property taken for "local economic improvements" either.
Hey, the sooner I know about a problem the sooner I can fix it. I think active monitoring and analysis will continue to grow. The overhead is always a concern but you find that good trade-off point.
Slashdot Mirror
If you violate existing law in trying to enforce the law with the method of evidence collecting being illegal, you are breaking the law. Breaking the law while trying to enforce the law is not law enforcement.
The police are empowered to enforce the law. You are empowered to report lawbreakers. What? Do you think you can give speeding tickets?
If someone barges into your home who you think is impersonating a cop and he is armed...please feel free to have him talk to S&W, Ruger, or Glock. If he was really a cop you go to jail and if he wasn't you killed an armed intruder. In some states (Maryland) you are in trouble unless you can convince the cops that this guy threatened you or someone else with PHYSICAL harm and just possessing a gun in holster or pants (not in hand) won't cut it. In some states (Louisianna) you can shoot any armed tresspasser in your home with no repercussions regardless of whether they actually posed a threat. I'd hate to try it with a cop but if you claim you shot at an intruder in the dark and didn't know it was a cop you might still get away with it.
I agree completely. If all cop and public interactions were recorded you would end up with a police force where their ability to be there to aid the public and enforce the laws is available for scrutiny. Bad cops would be forced out and we would only have good cops. It would solve a huge number of ills that plague the fair enforcement of laws. There was a comment the other day related to making legislators take lie detector tests monthly. It's almost the same thing. From a commoner/general public point of view, I don't see any harm.
The article said that the guy who got arrested owns the building. If he rents out the other three units then it could be his "commerical space". Lawyers will argue anything. It all depends on how the judge or jury see things. If I were a juror on a similar case I would say that he had every right to tape anything happening on his property, audio and video, without even having to notify anyone that they were being taped. The only exception would be that the other three units, if rented, should have total privacy. Common areas, alley, my personal residence and its entry should all be free for me to record at all times as I wish...and I would say that I shouldn't even have to post any fucking signs!
From the same point of view I would agree. I read that it said there were signs. My cynical side says any good lawyer would argue that the signs wasn't large enough, numerous enough, in the right places, or didn't clearly enough state what what kind of recording was going on. Both audio and video were being recorded. If the sign stated "video security on premises" and didn't mention audio then that would be a violation.
That's another point for the lawyers to argue about. The statutes as I read them seemed broad. It certainly could be argued by a lawyer that the owner's make money renting the 4 units in the building and there for it is a "commercial enterprise".
In a lot jurisdictions you can get your local police department to come and give a security inspection of your property. They'll look at lighting, locks, shrubbery, etc. If they were just adding this as an item on to their checklist for the service the already offer, I think it wouldn't bother me so much.
I agree but you know how lawyers are...Here's my patented "Devil's Advocate" vision of what could actually end happening. The statute I read didn't state how consent is given. It is very broad, "without the consent of all parties to the communication". If I can reasonably claim the signs weren't sufficient by something like size, placement, or content then I can claim not to have been able to consent because I wasn't notified I was being recorded. New Hampshire allows for "recovery for civil damages" as well. The cop could very well be okay on this and be entitled to sue the guy who taped him.
In most jurisdictions, yes. They have what are called "police powers" that regular citizens don't have. You can make a citizens arrest in some jurisdictions but if you don't do it by the book you'll be in jail too...and probably sued.
My opinion is that anyone should be able to record their interactions with the police in any manner. I would never have thought that it might be illegal to video or audio tape on the premises of my own residence much less the interaction with a public official on my own property.
It specifically stated commercial. The house is a 4 unit building. That qualifies as commercial in most states.
New Hampshire law specifically allows law enforcement purposes. There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws.
There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws. I'm not a lawyer but the way it reads to me is that you must give permission in order to be audio taped. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It could be that by posting signs then you give tacit approval if you choose to come on the property. Or, maybe posting signs isn't sufficient and you have to have someone agree to taping before starting. I did also note that the cops have exemptions that allow their patrol cars to tape as well as other law enforcement exemptions.
Very good point but I still expect more and more people to EVENTUALLY go to Linux. I think it still hasn't quite matured enough yet for the mass market. At some point I expect Linux to be easier to install and manage than Windows. At that point is when we are more likely to see more and more people switching.
I think even some legit Microsoft users might not like the idea of Microsoft taking such a heavy handed approach. As a business owner I wouldn't want to risk having one of my employees PCs out of commission due to what could be an honest mistake or omission on my part.
I can't imagine that Microsoft would be so stupid as to eventually start turning off people's Windows systems. Talk about cutting your own throat. Even the Microsoft fans would start thinking of turning to other OS options.
That's said primarily tongue in cheek. Killing a couple of cops and hiding in the North Carolina mountains until caught is not my idea of a successful resolution. You still don't get to keep your property and then you eventually end up in jail for life or possibly killed while being captured. I'd most likely hold out for as much money as possible and then take the money and run. You can bet I'd be really careful about trying to pick another place to buy that seems the least likely to suit some possible future "public use".
Do you know for fact they used only in house lawyers? Typically, many large corporations hire law firms for specialty legal needs despite the fact they have plenty of in house lawyers. Usually some of the in house lawyers will work in conjunction them.
I'm not claiming he is. Only that it is plausible.
If you think judges are always completely impartial and act that way then you need to expose yourself to more law. There's a reason judges occasionally go to jail or get thrown off the bench. They're human and therefore subject to all of our failings. In some places the law means nothing more than who you know and if you are in the judge's circle of lawyer friends. If you are, you will get decisions others who aren't in the circle wouldn't. My stepson's case is a perfect example. Without the right connections I'm sure his VERY expensive lawyer would not have succeeded in getting him another chance. He would be a naive, immature, 19 year old, 150 pound boy getting his ass pounded in state prison when what he really needed was serious psychiatric care. The prosecutor knew all of the facts but she didn't care what was right...all she wanted is to be relected. You'll never find a "Fair Witness" type judge like in a Heinlein novel.
Actually, I meant what I said..."I love to see a company work so hard for an ethical goal as opposed to a profit goal."
That is because I hate to see big business/corporate shills running our government to the detriment of our personal freedoms. IBM, like all companies that size, wields incredible influence in legislation that gets passed that directly or indirectly affects their bottom line. While IBM certainly recognizes the potential for future sales in its stance, that doesn't change the fact they are supporting a position that most of us are happy about. There is no guarantee that the money they are spending on this effort will be recouped in future sales. I'd like to hope that someone in power at IBM actually gives a shit.
I'm glad IBM obviously hired some very expensive, very good, lawyers and/or has a very talented team of in house lawyers. You can bet they worked very hard and were very expensive. I love to see a company work so hard for an ethical goal as opposed to a profit goal...even though the lawyers also profit excessively.
Yup. I absolutely mean "Compulsory Purchase". Hell, even that's way too polite for what it is. Don't show up on my property and say you want it for your town, county, state or federal project because it will help SOMEONE ELSE make money. I might have to go Rambo or Charles Bronson on someone if I don't have a really, really good reason to persuade me that giving up my property is the best thing for a whole lotta people and ME.
I think the only shade of difference here is my OS/network centric reference and your programming/application performance reference. Upon a second look I didn't see anything that mentioned anything about OS and network issues that could be monitored, so I'm guessing it's a tool better suited to your area of expertise. The first thing I thought of as I reading this was that it could head off a lot of possible conflicts with OS upgrades and maybe monitor internal and external network connectivity.
And of course Federal eminent domain isn't being used like state eminent domain. It is used much less frequently and affects a much smaller group of people. Many states are rightly revising their eminent domain laws because of a couple of well publicized cases. It has been far too easy for local/state governments to take people's property away and this is one area where you might be able to say that the local/state electoriate is actually affecting policy in a big way. Of course, it doesn't hurt that rich people don't want their property taken for "local economic improvements" either.
Hey, the sooner I know about a problem the sooner I can fix it. I think active monitoring and analysis will continue to grow. The overhead is always a concern but you find that good trade-off point.