Re: Should photography of police be illegal?

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-24-2010, 08:10 AM

Here's an interesting case:

http://blogofbile.com/2009/11/10/jul...-arrest-video/

It sounds like PATRIOT Act provisions to prohibit filming Federal buildings as an anti-terrorism measure are being used here. But it's worded as prohibiting filming of Federal property for commercial purposes. Pretty weird law, if that's the case.

The obvious camera was confiscated but the concealed camera kept filming. Here's what the hidden camera looks like:

http://landofbile.com/hardware/gumstick-camera/

Here's a place online you can buy these (found by google, no experience with them):

http://spytoystore.com/usb-video-cam...functionality/

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-24-2010, 08:10 AM

Weird, system double-posted my post.

I'll recycle this one to address Draken's concern:

If you're in public, you should have no right to privacy, any more than businesses that have a "public presence" are allowed to discriminate. Sauce for the gander. At best one might object to someone blocking your path and creating a hazard to walking or blocking a view. If I can use my eyeballs to record you, why shouldn't I be able to use an artificial recorder that I can share with others?

**snooggums** · 02-24-2010, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Weird, system double-posted my post.

I'll recycle this one to address Draken's concern:

If you're in public, you should have no right to privacy, any more than businesses that have a "public presence" are allowed to discriminate. Sauce for the gander. At best one might object to someone blocking your path and creating a hazard to walking or blocking a view. If I can use my eyeballs to record you, why shouldn't I be able to use an artificial recorder that I can share with others?

You still retain some privacy in public, which is why an officer can't just search you because they want to. However that doesn't apply to simply walking and talking on the street, where a camera would simply record anything that someone looking at you would be able to see and hear which would not have an expectation of privacy.

Now some states do prohibit recording someone without permission in any format, but I think those laws go to far when they include simply recording things around you in public.

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-24-2010, 09:37 AM

Parts of Europe have even more draconian anti-camera laws, such that one's webcam can't face the street.

I can understand not allowing searching on the street, as what's under one's clothes is not "public", any more than what's behind closed doors is public. But, then again, the courts have decided your car isn't public when on public streets, which goes against that logic. And one must submit to searches in certain public places, such as in an airport or a courthouse. Why not on the street? Shouldn't we protect people on the street just as much as people in airports and courthouses?

**snooggums** · 02-24-2010, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Parts of Europe have even more draconian anti-camera laws, such that one's webcam can't face the street.

I can understand not allowing searching on the street, as what's under one's clothes is not "public", any more than what's behind closed doors is public. But, then again, the courts have decided your car isn't public when on public streets, which goes against that logic. And one must submit to searches in certain public places, such as in an airport or a courthouse. Why not on the street? Shouldn't we protect people on the street just as much as people in airports and courthouses?

If a cop can see something in your car, it isn't covered by privacy. If it is in the trunk or another inaccessible area then it is covered.
Airports and courthouses have a history of violence because of what type of location they are, so searches for weapons and dangerous items may be warranted. As every person is 'searched' by a metal detector the level of intrusion is considered equal at the airport and courthouse kind of like how a drunk check is legal because everyone is stopped. In the case of a public street individuals would only be able to be searched without cause if everyone was, and police are able to search people on the street with probable cause.

Note that I disagree with the drunk check implementation as anyone who goes around it is 'giving probable cause' to have their car searched while in any other situation refusing or avoiding a search is not a reason for probable cause.

**ScratchMonkey** · 02-24-2010, 10:34 AM

Everyone in an airport is strip-searched and cavity-searched equally? I thought it was "random" selection, or some other criteria.

**snooggums** · 02-24-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Everyone in an airport is strip-searched and cavity-searched equally? I thought it was "random" selection, or some other criteria.

Everyone is searched (metal detector) and random additional screenings are 'random' and therefore 'equal' to everyone. i don't buy it but that is the logic behind the legality of the searches.

**ScratchMonkey** · 06-03-2010, 06:34 PM

http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node%2F11424

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in 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. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Related Gizmodo story:

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

**ScratchMonkey** · 06-03-2010, 06:37 PM

Here's a slick little camera intended for RC airplanes that could be used for covert video:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/03/c...of-when-you-b/

**Sirusblk** · 06-17-2010, 03:14 PM

In some cases it's dangerous to be recording an active duty officer. We had to remove some arrest logs that had made it out onto the internet once because it actively broadcasted the arresting officer's name and potentially made them a target. Also think of those police who work in divisions such as narcotics who rely on their cover. There are some cases where it's completely unacceptable to record something.

**snooggums** · 06-17-2010, 04:58 PM

Those cases should be handled individually by the courts through an order not to distribute, with being able to record (say for personal or legal use) as the legal default. So if someone has an inflammatory video the courts could put a gag order on that video, instead of punishing someone for recording an abusive cop during a traffic incident.

Someone who uses a video to incite violence against a cop is already breaking a law if it is clear that was the purpose for the distribution.

**Kerostasis** · 06-17-2010, 05:29 PM

An order not to distribute is practically impossible to enforce though. You can punish the person who distributed it, but you can't actually stop them from slipping a copy up somewhere on the internet, and once that happens you will never ever get it back.

**snooggums** · 06-17-2010, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

An order not to distribute is practically impossible to enforce though. You can punish the person who distributed it, but you can't actually stop them from slipping a copy up somewhere on the internet, and once that happens you will never ever get it back.

People still have phones and cameras and post illegally recorded videos of other people in that same state. The difference would be the judge making the determination of whether the incident was unacceptable instead of issuing a flat ban. By making it illegal to start with, 99%+ of the videos of stuff people see in their normal day to day activities that doesn't put any investigation or officer in danger are criminal to cover the few that might possibly be. Basically it impedes a citizens right to comment on police behavior by showing something instead of just describing it.

**Kerostasis** · 06-17-2010, 06:33 PM

I get that, and I agree that the other 99% of videos shouldn't be illegal. I'm just saying that your proposed solution to the 1% that really are dangerous isn't actually a solution at all, which leaves us in a difficult situation. How do you make a timely distinction between the legal ones and the illegal ones, given that after a video has been recorded it's too late to prevent its distribution even if it is actually dangerous?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-17-2010, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

In some cases it's dangerous to be recording an active duty officer. We had to remove some arrest logs that had made it out onto the internet once because it actively broadcasted the arresting officer's name and potentially made them a target. Also think of those police who work in divisions such as narcotics who rely on their cover. There are some cases where it's completely unacceptable to record something.

What if you just saw the incident take place. Nobody can arrest you for that can they?

Now that you have it in your mind can you be ordered not to write down what you remembered? Even if it is just for personal journaling?

The real difference between have the memory and having a video is that the cops can call your memory a lie. Much harder to call a video a lie.

Thread Tools

Display