Re: Should photography of police be illegal?

**snooggums** · 06-17-2010, 11:05 PM

You can't prevent anything, even if it is illegal. If someone wants to post a video that causes danger, does making that recording illegal stop them or just make it slightly harder for them to do it, and as you pointed out, immediately distribute it in a way that can never be undone?

**ScratchMonkey** · 06-20-2010, 03:02 PM

If you're in a public place, you should be subject to recording. If you're an undercover cop, why would the person recording even know that you were a cop? How do "real" intelligence agencies during wartime protect their agents' identities from enemies staking out their headquarters? Seems that operationally the problem is the same.

If you do something that pisses people off (like, say, being an insurance investigator or a repo man), should that job also be exempt from recording because it might make the person a target?

Not long from now, we'll all have borg interfaces making it trivial to record without a visible camera. How would anyone know if we're recording or not?

**Sirusblk** · 06-20-2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

You can't prevent anything, even if it is illegal. If someone wants to post a video that causes danger, does making that recording illegal stop them or just make it slightly harder for them to do it, and as you pointed out, immediately distribute it in a way that can never be undone?

Making it illegal however takes one more of our rights away and tacks on an unnecessary criminal charge. It's not hard to find out who posted a video, it's just hard to remove it.

**Tempus** · 06-25-2010, 11:26 AM

Unfortunately, this is a bigger issue than many are aware of.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/2...er-arrested-fo

People are routinely being arrested for videotaping officers in action. State laws are in place that protect officers from being taped, although they can and do tape you at their will.

**snooggums** · 06-25-2010, 12:05 PM

Do we have two topics that address civilians vs police taping? I thought that had been brought up already but apparently not in this thread.

Yes, it is wrong for the police to be able to tape you at will but not vice versa, since it is simply a record. I do see a reason to not allow the recording as evidence in trial or addressing videotaping of someone as part of a stalking case illegal but not recording in general. Most of the state laws were created to address situations where there is an expectation of privacy, and if the police are there (not undercover) the expectation of privacy in the visual spectrum is pretty much moot.

**Sirusblk** · 06-26-2010, 12:19 AM

Just saw the video from this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010061505592

Wow the officer was totally unprofessional. Gotta say this is a bit scary.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-27-2010, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Not long from now, we'll all have borg interfaces making it trivial to record without a visible camera. How would anyone know if we're recording or not?

So right and it speaks volumes.

What is going to happen when everybody, just by default, records everything that goes on around them? It is going to happen. Soon our iLife super cool device will have 360 degree, 24/7 recording of sound, video and maybe even other things like infrared etc.

What does that mean?

**ScratchMonkey** · 06-27-2010, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Soon our iLife super cool device will have 360 degree, 24/7 recording of sound, video and maybe even other things like infrared etc.

What does that mean?

It means it's time for me to call my broker and buy as much Beano stock as possible!

**ScratchMonkey** · 07-13-2010, 08:33 PM

Seattle considers equipping cops with cameras:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seat...-97500254.html

**Flarfignuggen** · 07-13-2010, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

Also think of those police who work in divisions such as narcotics who rely on their cover.

Seems like faulty logic to me. If they're breaking their cover, they're already screwing up and shouldn't continue what they're doing since it's then apparent they are too much of a risk.
If an undercover officer breaks his cover to perform some action in a location with witnesses, are you going to advocate cutting off the fingers and tongues of said witnesses so they can't talk or write about what they just saw?

**Sirusblk** · 07-14-2010, 12:50 AM

I'm giving a hypothetical case, it would not apply in the specific case mentioned above. I'm simply stating that if footage caught an undercover officer blowing his cover for whatever reason, it should be proper cause in certain cases to restrict the footage.

**snooggums** · 07-14-2010, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

I'm giving a hypothetical case, it would not apply in the specific case mentioned above. I'm simply stating that if footage caught an undercover officer blowing his cover for whatever reason, it should be proper cause in certain cases to restrict the footage.

I agree that situation warrants confidentiality (based on a judge's consent of course), just like I agree that the police can lie in an interrogation about how much information they have.

**ScratchMonkey** · 07-15-2010, 11:32 PM

USA Today editorial:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ial15_ST_N.htm

Opposing view:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...al15_ST1_N.htm

**snooggums** · 07-15-2010, 11:56 PM

The opposing views only valid complaint is about not capturing the whole scene, which isn't a valid concern when there is also the possibility that the video will show the officers not identifying themselves prior to escalating the situation as in the USA Today article. I think if there were more videos it would be more apparent just how tough their jobs can be and people might give them a bit more slack.

**CallousDisregard** · 07-20-2010, 10:14 AM

This case isn't going away.
http://carlosmiller.com/
What do you want to bet that next DNC / RNC convention will be in a state that makes taping the police illegal ?

Thread Tools

Display