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)
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 argum (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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 (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:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (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: (Score:2)
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the business owner's right to protect his or her property trumps your 'right' to do-whatever-the-hell-you-want on his or her property.
Protect the property? What, is my camera going to steal their inventory's souls?
And you're taking me all wrong. I'm just stating what the reality is: you can get thrown out for life from your favorite business where you've been a perfect and generous customer if you do any one thing they don't like, including bringing in a camera.
So it's best to keep your cameras hidden.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
It's all not ideal, of course....I'd honestl
Re: (Score:2)
And, who exactly is 'society'? Did we say we give away that power, because we will not be utilizing it ourselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be apt to think that those being overseen, and their parents/guardians in the case of minor children, have the right to surveil the overseers to determine that the overseers aren't abusing their powers. In those cases, the surveillance is at least partly acceptable because in the case of one party accusing another of some misdeed, it provides an independent record to either confirm or deny the accuser's statement.
However, in the
Re: (Score:2)
On the second point you do have the right to video tape in the parking lot (still the store's privite property) You don't get thrown out for havign a camera in a parking lot. But the store is privite property, you have a right to set cameras up in your house and through out other people's (paparazi can be thrown of privite property), the store can have cameras in their building.
By the way, most stores I have been to have their video survalence signs posted at the entrance
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome!
Re:It seems rather cut and dried against the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every system implies a work-around.
Re: (Score:2)
And "server farm" could be "gumstix with usb video converter" sitting on the same pole as the camera itself.
Re: (Score:2)
MWAHAHAHAHAHA.
Re: (Score:2)
(Same for "person in government".)
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.
CCTV Pinhole/hidden lens explained (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
I mean just getting drunk or having fun is one thing. But cheating on his wife means he is happy to lie and so his trustworthiness has to be called into question.
Re: (Score:2)
In my 5 decades on this planet I have found that anyone who claims they never tell lies, is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
False accusations and the dangers of edited speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:False accusations and the dangers of edited spe (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Citizen Monitoring of Government Entities VOTEYES (Score:4, Insightful)
Govenment should be under total surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Govenment should be under total surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government accountability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, see: The Commerce Clause.
political uses (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal question (Score:2)
Re: (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 additi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 b
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see why you would couch your argument in an argument about money rather than civil rights vs. the governement. If you visit a different state do you expect to have fewer rights than the citizens of that state?
The police don't like public evidence. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The average slashdotter is contending that the policeman be watched, not to punish him, but because he is performing official duties. He is, while on duty, an agent of the government, and during so, he has different rights and privledges. He can speed/run red lights/etc. He has a lower standard for using force. He has arrest powers. He becomes immune to some forms of torts. He also
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that most police officers are required to carry a firearm at all times, right? At least in NJ...
And that a police officer, off duty, is still required to act in a police capacity should an event requiring plice intervention occur...
It's not like a cashier boy at McDonalds -- c
Re: (Score:2)
Your above average
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if the tape is used against them personally, rather than against the government when it attempts to prosecute another person, most people who favor unlimited surveillance by the public targetting the government would be happy to see the police officer have the protections available to any member of the public.
officer... (Score:2)
Officer: No go right ahead. Is it on? Good. Smack! Now listen you punk...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The most specious argument along these lines is the one that if we didn't drop cases where the police really screw up, they'd have no incentive to not break the rules to get evidence. Excuse me? Anyone who believes that stupid line hasn't been paying attention, nor do they give two shits about the victim's right to justice. So what if another party screwed up? The fact is, the person still committed a crime against a private citizen.
How would you know? The whole point is that by breaking the rules, you'v
Some State Laws Already Address This (Score:2)
Elgan argues that there should be no questions about members of the public being allowed to record such interactions.
IANAL, but in California I am reasonably certain that the conversation may only be recorded if (a) both parties know the conversation is being recorded and (b) both parties consent to the conversation being recorded. If both conditions are not met then the recording is not admissable as evidence in state court (i.e. the conversation never took place as far as they are concerned). This is why many customer support lines inform callers to the effect: "your call may be monitored or recorded and you agree to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intercepted conversations? (Score:2)
I bring up this situation because I think that one day
Recording devices (Score:2)
I've been thinking about a number of situations in which you might want to surreptitiously record what you say and hear, which makes me want to ask, what are the best suited devices and setups for wire-tapping yourself?
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.
Brin (Score:4, Informative)
Whoa, Brin's getting some attention... (Score:2)
Too bad Brin seems to have decided to jump on the software patent cart in his new venture...
Who watches the watchers? (Score:2)
It seems to me only fair that citizens should have as much latitude to monitor the public affairs of our government employees as they do us. But we should also have equal ability to access surveillance footage that is taken of us all daily without our consent in order to clear our names or
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
i've been saying this forever (Score:2)
it will in fact bolster people's freedoms like never before
because the government doesn't have a monopoly on technology
you've proven something to me (Score:2)
Human senses are already surveillance tools... (Score:2)
When you understand that they must be objecting to something other than reco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Losing is more fun (Score:2)
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.
Re:recording (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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, d
Re: (Score:2)
In some states, doing that without her knowing consent is a felony.
Re: (Score:2)
So are lots of things with girlfriends...
sodomy sodomy
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal
Re: (Score:2)
surveillance law loopholes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that with women, proving that you're right doesn't always end the arguement :(
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: (Score:2)
I noticed that often after I was together with my ex there was less money in my wallet than there should be...
So, eventually I set up a webcam with zoneminder, and put my wallet right in its field of view...
And sure enough, who did I catch taking a 20 out of it?
So, that's why he is now my ex...
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot. (Score:2)
Even if you "win" the argument, you'll lose. You don't date much, do you?
[1] Subject to HER interpretation.
cue flamebait modding
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been thinking very seriously to introduce a recorder in my life to settle arguments with my girlfriend [...] Arguments often boil down to who said what.
Do like me! Only talk to your girlfriend on MSN, and log it all!
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the headline now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As a previous poster stated, many if not most state