Surveillance Rights for the Public?

Ian Lamont writes "Mike Elgan has an interesting take on surveillance technology, and how audio and video recordings should be used in private and public life. He cites the case of a New York City Police Detective who was secretly taped by a suspect during an interrogation that the detective initially denied took place during the suspect's murder trial, as well as a case involving two parents in Wisconsin who slipped a voice-activated recorder in their son's backpack after suspecting he was being abused by his bus driver. In the first case, even though the detective was later charged with 12 counts of perjury, Elgan notes that the police interrogation probably would not have taken place had the suspect announced to the detective that he was recording the session. In the second case, the tape was initially ruled inadmissible in court because Wisconsin state law prohibits the use of 'intercepted conversations' (it was later allowed as evidence). Elgan argues that there should be no questions about members of the public being allowed to record such interactions."

It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[by Anonymous Coward]

A member of the public should have an absolute right to record anything said or done by a person in government or the police, when that event may later be used in evidence against him or her in court.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

Yet in practice, business owners can and do ban you for life from their premises for operating your own video camera. Even in places that sell their own disposable still cameras for the use of patrons.

It seems rather cut and dried against the argument

[by Anonymous Coward]

He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference?

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the argum

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

He said government. You said private business owners. See the difference?

In the US? Not so much.

Re:

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

"Yet in practice, business owners can and do ban you for life from their premises for operating your own video camera."

Sounds like a load of BS to me. How do they "enforce" this ban?

First, they need to be able to ID you - and that's not going to happen, since you have NO obligation to give them any ID, under any circumstances.

Second, if they try to enforce the ban 6 months later, you only have to say "What are you talking about?" What are they going to do - call the cops? To do what? Throw you out fo

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

Don't be an idiot. How are they getting anything but a grainy surveillance cam picture? Ever worked with them? Even the 720x480x30fps images are pretty much useless for identification in most setups, because they have to cover too much area. So that's not going to work ...

And if they ask you to leave for no valid reason, and you're a member of a minority group (black, gay, indian, breast-feeding, whatever)? think about it - they don't need the hassles and civil suits.

Its the same as the signs that say "we reserve the right to search your packages." They can put them up all they want - diesn't give them the legal right. You can refuse, and there is NOTHING they can do about it. Even if they call the cops ... Just refuse, and tell them "Charge me first. THEN you can look. But be prepared for a false arrest charge!"

Heck, you can even refuse to show your receipt to the stupid "Walmart Greeter" when you're leaving, and they have NO legal right to do anything. Trying to keep you from leaving at that point is unlawful confinement - aka kidnapping.

Stores don't have a right to treat customers as criminals. Grow a backbone.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

Yeah, you can refuse searches and they can't do much, but if they tell you to get out, you gotta go.

Re:

[TWX (665546)]

A couple of things:

Don't be an idiot. How are they getting anything but a grainy surveillance cam picture? Ever worked with them? Even the 720x480x30fps images are pretty much useless for identification in most setups, because they have to cover too much area. So that's not going to work ...

Some larger stores have much, much better surveillance now, with cameras that have high resolution and good optical zoom. The four cameras per screen overview mode might be low resolution, but if they do see something t

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

Come to Canada.

1. Police asked someone for ID because he was crossing through a vacant lot.
2. The person refused to co-operate, as he was not committing a crime.
3. Filed complaint with the Police Ethics Commission
4. PROFIT! Awarded $6,000.00

Police still have to have reasonable grounds to stop people in Kanuckistan, unlike Amerika, which is why our cops aren't so heavy-handed, which works out better for them, since there's less likelyhood of an adversarial situation between the police and the average citizen. For the most part, we actually like our cops.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

When a business owner levels charges against you for some infraction against his business, when it becomes a matter of your word against his, and when he employs his own surveillance against you, why shouldn't you have your own record for when it gets brought up before the courts later?

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[solitas (916005)]

So, then, a case where the owner may not have any surveillance: if said business owner says "you're white (or black), no service, no sale, get out, or get shot", and you come back with a cop who hears something different from the owner (e.g. "he looked like he was sizing the place up for shoplifting so I told him to leave") then WTF are YOU gonna do and how are YOU gonna prove what REALLY happened?

Places that have video surveillance may not have audio too - and a silent conversation onscreen won't prove anything one way or the other to a cop, depending upon your gestures/etc. - BUT remember that he'll note everything in his report anyway and then you can have that intimation of shoplifting on-record against you in their files.

Maybe the example's a little extreme, but anything's possible.

Re:

[DerWulf (782458)]

A shop is private property. If the owner doesn't want you on it for any reason, though luck. And, do you really want to do business with racists?

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"No. A shop is not private property in the same sense as your home. It is a place of public accommodation, and as such is required not to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin."

But, they can refuse you service for about any "other" reason under the sun....so, as long as it isn't one of those, they can ask you to leave for pretty much any reason. A business is and should be private property, but, that is fading along with other good things. I mean, I still don't know how

Re:

[adona1 (1078711)]

Yes....one of the reasons that police etc are obliged to state that they are recording an interview is because society gives them a certain amount of power, and it is one of the ways to try and ensure that it isn't abused. However, one of the caveats of that added power is the constant vigilance to be sure it is used responsibly, and if that involves the public secretly recording police, then I'm all for it (I'm not sure how a bus driver fits in there, but hey).

It's all not ideal, of course....I'd honestl

Re:

[Dr Caleb (121505)]

"Yes....one of the reasons that police etc are obliged to state that they are recording an interview is because society gives them a certain amount of power,"

And, who exactly is 'society'? Did we say we give away that power, because we will not be utilizing it ourselves?

Re:

[Gyga (873992)]

The bus driver fits in because they are in a position of power over the kid. Police are in positions of power over civilians, teachers/bus drivers over students, and so on. When you are forced by law to take the bus or be policed by police then you have the right to watch over those people. In the case of stores, you aren't being forced to shop there, therefore you have don't have the right to record what happens (private property and all).

Re:

[MightyYar (622222)]

I think that it should just come down to common sense - whether or not there should be an expectation of privacy. I don't think an on-duty bus driver should have any sort of expectation of privacy - nor should a police officer when on duty.

A person who believes himself to be alone in the bathroom has an expectation of privacy. A catholic parishioner in the confession booth has an expectation of privacy.

There are gray areas, but perversely that is what makes life so colorful.

Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop

[wish bot (265150)]

Even further - every 'public' surveillance camera should be IP based and available to viewing by anyone over the net.

What makes surveillance cameras special?

[corsec67 (627446)]

If surveillance camera are allowed, then why are people not allowed to hand-hold or otherwise have a camera on them?

If you complain about hidden cameras on a person, what about hidden cameras in a building, either with a pinhole lens, one-way mirror, or a dark dome over the camera?

Why should recording anything a police officer does during his working hours be bad?

If they want to make me having a camera on me illegal, make having any kind of surveillance camera illegal first, and then we can talk.

CCTV Pinhole/hidden lens explained

[corsec67 (627446)]

I hate to reply to myself, but I am not sure that everyone knows what a "pinhole lens" is for CCTV cameras, as I didn't know when I was buying this stuff.

A CCTV pinhole lens is a lens that has a very small front opening usually 2-3mm, and a narrow lens part that can easily be embedded into the back side of a wall and then be almost invisible on the other side.

An example is here [flickr.com], compared to a normal CCTV type lens. That lens is $20 from B&H, and the camera is $120 from NewEgg, so this stuff isn't very expensive. A "high quality" CCTV lens is $50-$100, so even the good stuff isn't that expensive.

Re:What makes surveillance cameras special?

[Bryansix (761547)]

Police Officers should be surveiled anytime they are in public whether they are working or not. They should be held to much higher standards then the public they police.

False accusations and the dangers of edited speech

[Loki P (1170771)]

A friend of mine was a teacher for a while, until a student with severe attention deficit disorder decided to record lessons in order to prove that my friend the teacher was picking on him. Here's the recipe: record what someone says, edit on home computer to make it say what you want it to say, play to parents, get parents to visit school with you, get teacher in trouble. That the school took the kid's word for it without any forensic analysis of the recording shows you what's wrong with the idea of surveillance for the masses - it can be incredibly easily fabricated, edited or modified by computer-savvy kids and the adults are clueless or powerless to stop the false accusations from flying. My friend gave up teaching soon after and went to make money at a tech company instead. What's needed is integrity checks in the recordings to highlight where omissions or changes are made, otherwise it's no better than hearsay.

Re:False accusations and the dangers of edited spe

[corsec67 (627446)]

Yes, but there is the same problems with the government doing surveillance. Tapes can be lost or destroyed, and recordings can be altered (as you said).

What about a normal accusation against a teacher: what if that kid had said that the teacher had sexually assaulted the kid? There is no evidence, nothing to alter, but there is going to be some serious problems for the teacher, especially when that teacher is male. In fact an altered recording would be easier to detect than many other kinds of false allegations.

Yes, recordings can be bad, but not much more so than some other kinds of accusations, and they can be very helpful, just look at all of the tasering videos on YouTube. Most of them don't show the start of the incident, but some show a subject that is completely in custody being tortured with a taser. Would the government release any tapes they had made of those incidents, or would the tapes just be "disappeared"?

Re:

[smoker2 (750216)]

A dark domed camera is not a hidden camera,in the same respect as your other definitions. You know there may be a camera under the dome, but you have no idea which way it is pointing, so your risk assessment changes. It allows fewer cameras to be operated for the same deterrent effect. (360 degree field of view coverage without necessarily recording in any particular direction).

Citizen Monitoring of Government Entities VOTEYES

[FromTheAir (938543)]

I think corruption in government by individuals (government is just a label) is far more damaging than all the other system created criminals. In the web content for Infinite Play the Movie (the movie that blends with reality) http://www.infiniteplaythemovie.com/ [infiniteplaythemovie.com] this is exactly what happens. Citizens start doing sting operations and monitoring individuals in government and major corporations. They then anonymously post it on you tube and the Internet for all to know. Transparency In Government is a requirement. Government does not own or pay for anything the citizens do. It is not the authority the citizens are, government is just a label it cannot think or make decisions. It is people with names that make the decisions that affect our lives and destroy a fair playing field. Individuals in government are the employees of each citizen.

Govenment should be under total surveillance

[Butisol (994224)]

I think legislative representatives should be under total surveillance by the public during the conduct of their meetings with lobbyists. Every representative should have to hold some kind of open "court" that is recorded when they are doing their work. Fuck this behind closed doors crap. If it's not a national security issue, the public ought to know exactly what politicians are up to. Corporations and interest groups shouldn't be allowed to plead their issue to representatives of the people without the ability for the people to scrutinize their stated positions.

Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance

[Max Threshold (540114)]

If you allow exceptions for national security issues, suddenly everything is a national security issue.

Re:

[QuasiEvil (74356)]

I agree with your sentiment that as soon as you provide a magic hammer ("national security"), then suddenly everything starts to look like a nail, but somehow you have to make exceptions for sensitive topics. My suggestion would be that any national security discussions whose immediate disclosure would compromise an operation must still be recorded, but their release can be delayed by up to 10 (?) years, depending on the situation. That would cover things like impending bombings, when you don't want your

political uses

[sharp3 (1195261)]

"Why not use required surveillance to expose or prevent backdoor wheeling and dealing? When our representatives meet with special interest groups, corporate executives or other people out to buy influence, it's not something that's personal or private for the elected politician. There should be special lobbyist meeting rooms with cameras running 24/7. If congressmen and others meet with lobbyists outside the rooms, they go to jail for corruption. This is the people's business, and we have the right to know

Re:

[Chyeld (713439)]

The guy who doesn't want to go to jail because he happened to accidently bump into a lobbyist in the supermarket and start talking to them before they realize what's going on?

Legal question

[ChromeAeonium (1026952)]

From the article about the bus driver:

Wisconsin state law generally prohibits the disclosure of intercepted conversations, leaving the appeals court in a bit of a tight spot.

Why is it wrong to use such evidence? Provided the jury can tell nothing is being taken out of context, why can evidence like that be so easily dismissed?

Re:

[postbigbang (761081)]

Disclosure is balanced against the unwary. Privacy, while not a specific right in the US Constitution, has many theories of protection, starting with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th Amendments. These include right of association (do not give my conversation to someone I don't want to associate with), freedom of speech protections, right of denial of self-incrimination, and others.

The evidence in the suspect's discussion might criminally confess either party. The evidence in the school bus case also, with the additi

Re:

[DragonWriter (970822)]

Provided the jury can tell nothing is being taken out of context, why can evidence like that be so easily dismissed?

Um, the "Provided..." part is impossible to meet, to start with: you never can tell from the tape itself what is excluded that might change the context (especially if it is an audio tape.) And the reason the evidence can be dismissed is the same reason illegally obtained evidence used by the government is dismissed in criminal trials: the rule exists because without that sanction, there will b

A no-brainer

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

Since public employees are paid using my tax dollars, then I and every other tax-paying citizen have an absolute right to know what they are up to. Period. End of discussion.

A lot of police departments are starting to tape all formal interrogations to cover their asses, but what we don't get to see or hear are the "pre-interrogation interrogations" -- you know, those "he's not a suspect, he's not under arrest, we're just trying to get some information" interrogations?

The police don't like public evidence.

[Original Replica (908688)]

With the advent of the cell phone cam, have you noticed the ever increasing number of police brutality videos? [wcbstv.com] When a cop is caught breaking the law, do the other police officers maintain their vow to uphold the law or do they react like thugs in a turf war? [thenewspaper.com] This is a fundamental problem if we are truely a nation of free men who consent to being governed for the common good. If we are just a oligarchy with a happy facade then it's just the truth showing through.

"It's critical that we retain the right to record, videotape or photograph the police while they're on duty. Not only for symbolic reasons (when agents of the state can confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing, you're treading on seriously perilous ground), but as an important check on police excesses."http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html [foxnews.com]

Ridiculous

[DCBoland (700327)]

Your average slashdotter would be the first to cry foul at surveillance by authorities, and yet raise the idea of performing your own surveillance and they start licking their lips and rubbing their palms together...
A policeman might be part of the big govermental boogeyman, but they're also an individual, with an individual's rights. Nobody would like it if a person came into their workplace and recorded them all day. Privacy is a right, and not being american I don't know if its in your constitution or not, but it doesn't matter, its a right nonetheless and one every person should be entitled to.

Re:Ridiculous

[JCSoRocks (1142053)]

Your average slashdotter doesn't have the opportunity - the responsibility (according to some) - to taze, beat, shoot, and otherwise injure or subdue citizens. Additionally, most employees are monitored by their boss because their boss works in close proximity to them. This isn't the case with police officers. They travel all over the city, county, state, etc, on their own. As taxpayers and citizens within their jurisdiction we are collectively "their bosses". It's our responsibility to speak up when things aren't being handled correctly. *That* is why you should have the right to record what they do on their job.
When they go home they can do whatever they like. I have no desire to watch them eat, sleep, whatever. But when they have a gun on their hip, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them responsible for their actions. When you lose the ability to audit your government and the forces it uses to control its citizens you will quickly find your freedoms taken away.

officer...

[pizpot (622748)]

Guy: Officer, do you mind if I now turn on my voice recorder and record our conversation?

Officer: No go right ahead. Is it on? Good. Smack! Now listen you punk...

Like it or not ...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, ubiquitous surveillance is exactly the kind of society we're headed toward.

With today's technology we have this
http://www.peppersprayinc.com/eyeglasses_camera.htm [peppersprayinc.com]
and this
http://eyeglasscamera.com/ [eyeglasscamera.com]
and this
http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/sunglasscam.html [pimall.com]
and this
http://www.spycentre.com/body_worn_video.htm [spycentre.com]
- ... now just flash forward ten years and try to imagine just how utterly impossible it will be to completely avoid the possibility of covert surveillance and recording.

Get used to it, because in a few more years anything you do that is interesting, annoying, or otherwise memorable will be posted to the equivalent of youtube, by somebody, within seconds.

Brin

[Metasquares (555685)]

David Brin also explored this concept. IIRC, the book was called "The Transparent Society".

Re:

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

Spy, counterspy. When will it end?

When it becomes illegal to counterspy.

Re:

[bcdm (1031268)]

So, after the breakup, can you introduce her to me?

Re:recording

[Otter (3800)]

I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend (yes yes, here's my geek card).

Believe me, this scheme fully qualifies you for that geek card, with nerd, dweeb and dork stamps on it. Producing transcripts is not going to get you a "win" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Re:recording

[syousef (465911)]

Believe me, this scheme fully qualifies you for that geek card, with nerd, dweeb and dork stamps on it. Producing transcripts is not going to get you a "win" in any meaningful sense of the word

Congratulations you win an ex-girlfriend! Features of your new ex-girlfriend include any time your name is mentioned bringing up your socially inept attempt to prove yourself correct in arguments. Your ex-girlfriend also includes high levels of resentment and generally thinking you're a loser.

Re:

[taustin (171655)]

I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend

In some states, doing that without her knowing consent is a felony.

Re:recording

[JCSoRocks (1142053)]

Umm, in those situations the only way you can possibly "win" the argument is to forfeit. Proving that you're right doesn't work with girlfriends, wives, etc. Unfortunately, this is usually only learned through painful personal experience. Ex:
Guy: Look, see, Wikipedia proves I'm right!
Girl: I don't care, I can't believe you didn't trust me.
Guy: but I knew I was right.
Girl: You never listen.
Guy: Yeah, I d...
Girl: *cry*
Guy: *crap*

Re:

[Loether (769074)]

While I agree with your sentiment, in reality you may not know your rights are about to be violated by a police officer or when your boss is going to ask you to break the law. If recordings can be made of conversations you have with people in authority then it follows IMHO that all recordings must be legal to make, not necessarily legal to use in court. Now the line must be drawn as to what is admissible. I don't know. If I was trying to catch the molester of my child and I recorded a conversation of hi

Re:Recording Conversations with Customer Service R

[jcr (53032)]

I think we should start recording customer service reps as they try to impose their fictions on us.

Like this [youtube.com]?

-jcr

Re:

[hyades1 (1149581)]

A friend of mine who was charged with drunk driving attempted to get the police tape of her subsequent interview at the station. It would have proved without question that the arresting officer who described "slurred speech and a disoriented state" was a liar. I can speak with authority on her condition, because I was her "one phone call" and saw her almost immediately.

The tape, of course, was "lost".

I'm certain this is not an isolated case. It cries out for some kind of legal accountability.

Re:

[CodeBuster (516420)]

If you were asked by a judge to disregard the evidence, due to a point of law, AND you disregarded the order then it would have to be emotional. How could that be logical? Unless the Judge is corrupt (unlikely) then he should be trusted to be acting in good faith when he gives instructions to a Jury based upon his solemn interpretation of the law (he has a duty to the law in the same way that the jury does, in fact his duty and responsibility are arguably even more grave and terrible than that placed upon t