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."
It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes surveillance cameras special? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems rather cut and dried against the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
Citizen Monitoring of Government Entities VOTEYES (Score:4, Insightful)
Govenment should be under total surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
What's good for the goose... (Score:1, Insightful)
political uses (Score:2, Insightful)
recording (Score:1, Insightful)
I for one believe that greater transparency, and more information would lessen rather than increase conflicts. There is a right to keep things private, but there is no "right to privacy". More recording of information = good.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only for Authority (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:recording (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A no-brainer (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the argum (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:1, Insightful)
Why? If I am allowed to disclose the contents of the conversation I have with you and repeat to others what you said to me, (i.e. no confidentiality contract, etc.), then preventing me from proving what you said with a recording serves only one purpose -- protecting perjury.
I tape *everything*... every phone call, and every minute of my day with a MP3 recorder in my pocket. I've busted lying salespeople, lying insurance adjusters, lying credit card "customer service" reps, lying school administrators, lying government employees, and all manner of others. Everyone should do the same, and if you live in a perjury-protecting state that doesn't let you, you need to lobby your state legislators to change the fscking law.
Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, I agree. Every "on the clock" minute of a government official's behaviour should be public record, free for others to record, and open to scrutiny by all. The government feels free to watch us in all sorts of ways, yet they don't like to be watched. Funny, I think in many democracies they've forgotten that it's the populace from which they draw their power, and to whom they are always accountable.
Re:What makes surveillance cameras special? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:recording (Score:5, Insightful)
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:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Like it or not ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
-
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.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Movie Theaters (Score:1, Insightful)
What if the police start to conduct their "interviews" in movie theaters?
Re:recording (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it will--it's going to get the loser bitch to dump him, and then he'll be free to find someone SANE to date.
Sane women do exist, and it's sad and foolish to settle for anything less. And the kind of woman who twists positions so far that she needs a transcript to (try to) bring her back to reality is less than nothing.
I actually considered doing the same as this guy, once. Then I clued in on what that implied, dumped the bitch and moved on. Many years later, I'm very, very happily involved with a sane woman who when we disagree argues cogently and forcefully, and wins and loses with grace. When we misunderstand each other (who doesn't, now and then?) we both ASK and EXPLAIN rather than ACCUSE.
That's what adults do. Little snots who "win" arguments by saying "just because you didn't say that doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe you said that" need to grow up and get over themselves.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:4, Insightful)
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:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:3, Insightful)
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 they can pass and enforce laws to ban smoking in a private establishment if the owner wishes to allow it. I mean, you *DO* have a choice whether to be a patron or employee there, if you don't like smoking, don't go.
Re:Some State Laws Already Address This (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to argue that if the evidence is true (perhaps merely convincing?) or appears to be factual in nature then the ends (i.e finding the truth and convicting or acquitting) justify the means of collection and that is the point upon which I strongly disagree. It is fortunate for both you and I that we do not live in a country where "the ends justify the means" when it comes to collection a presentation of evidence in court. The founding fathers recognized the dangers of "the ends justify the means" and put language into the Constitution to provide protections against collection of evidence "by any and all means necessary", even when that evidence may be the deciding factor in securing a conviction.
Finally, some laws really are stupid and should be changed, but the appropriate venue for such agitation is the legislature and the ballot box, and not the generally courts (unless the law itself is argued to be unconstitutional).