Surveillance Rights for the Public? 273
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."
Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
Mike Elgan's take isn't that interesting (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Legal question (Score:3, Informative)
The evidence in the suspect's discussion might criminally confess either party. The evidence in the school bus case also, with the additional onus that a private individual (e.g. not a government employee, a contractor in this case) has further protections.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:4, Informative)
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:Legal question (Score:3, Informative)
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 be a strong incentive to engage in behavior which has been deemed undesirable (the surreptitious recording of private conversations, in this case.)
That's not to state that I unconditionally agree that the behavior is undesirable or that excluding the evidence is always the right way to discourage the behavior, at least when its not an overstep by the government.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Informative)
Brin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:4, Informative)
Come to Canada.
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 (Score:3, Informative)
If the store in question has no video record of a potential misdemeanor theft in progress and detained without formally making a citizen's arrest then I'd bet that the cop would tread carefully, or would have to ask the store employee who detained the individual declare in front of him a citizen's arrest before continuing. So, remember kiddies, shoplift just before a shift change at your local retail store! *grin* I haven't shown a receipt at Fry's Electronics in years, and I won't. In some small way maybe I'm tempting them into trying something, but once the items in the bag are paid for then they're mine, and if anyone were to ask I'd tell them to go speak with the cashier at the register if they have any questions.
I will, however, still show my receipt at Costco and other membership-required stores, because as a requirement to maintaining my membership I have to. So, if I don't want to show it I can withhold showing it, but then I can't shop there anymore either. As membership is required to enter the place and is required to transact business at the register I can't truly refute if I want to continue doing business with them there.