Re: Slashdot | Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
Eugene Leitl wrote: # # What we're getting (surprise, surprise) is that recording of # the public is allright but not recording *by* the public. Mann's # "shooting back" is rapidly getting outlawed. I'm not one to make apologies for this sort of thing, and perhaps I skimmed the article too fast, but... Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police, but that MA has a two-party recording rule? Everyone has the same standard of "protection".
Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police, but that MA has a two-party recording rule?
Correct. You might find it interesting that a number of states are considering (or revisiting) visual recording statutes. One form has a privacy expectation and exceptions for prisons, security and "law enforcement engaged in investigation." Some include public CCTV notice requirements and privacy expectations defined by location. TX HB 1040 @ http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billsrch/subject/77r/S2361.HTM Others are closer to this Arizona bill, addressing visual surveillance in public places. This is a bare statute with no mention of a privacy interest. It exempts "professional journalists," seemingly defined so as to exclude independent journalists. Bills like this could be construed to restrain the use of visual surveillance at protests, and in other situations that involve disparate bargaining power and government overreaching. AZ HB 2470 @ http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/45leg/1r/bills/hb2470p.pdf Critics of contemporary surveillance law point out that we increasingly live in a world where THEY can spy on you, but you can't spy on THEM. Governments, business and employers are like bad parents that say, "*I* can do it -- but you can't." Children learn quickly.... ~Aimee
The main point I saw in the dissent and which I totally agree on, is the police should not have the same standards as regular citizens when performing their public duties since they alone have the power to force citizens to do their will.. They work for the people and therefore should be accountable for the people just like any boss should be able to monitor their employees.... If you can't record their activities then how do you police the police? I am a firefighter and I would have no problem with being recorded while doing my sworn duty... When I am off work though that is a different matter... I will give you an example of how the police in my town were not able to police themselves. However this does not have anything to do with recording conversations.. I really don't remember how it was found out but 7 off duty police officers (I believe we only have about 15 or 20 in our town of 30,000 people) had stolen property from a residence which was quoted in the newspaper as "an abandoned building" in another county.. When the police chief was going to fire them all the City Council said no they would not allow it. It was later reported in the paper that the council was pressured by some of the remaining officers. In the end the property was returned and no charges were filed and all the officers returned to work after about 4 weeks off-duty with no pay. Then they petitioned afterwards and won to get their lost pay back... The only honest person in the whole situation was the Police Chief and he was not able to do anything.... How can you trust someone to enforce the laws they are breaking? Jon Beets Pacer Communications ----- Original Message ----- From: <George@Orwellian.Org> To: "A bomb named 'Mike'" <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: Re: Slashdot | Recording Police Misconduct is Illegal
Eugene Leitl wrote: # # What we're getting (surprise, surprise) is that recording of # the public is allright but not recording *by* the public. Mann's # "shooting back" is rapidly getting outlawed.
I'm not one to make apologies for this sort of thing, and perhaps I skimmed the article too fast, but...
Isn't the ruling not specific to recording the police, but that MA has a two-party recording rule?
Everyone has the same standard of "protection".
Jon Beets wrote:
police should not have the same standards as regular citizens when performing their public duties...They work for the people and therefore should be accountable for the people just like any boss should be able to monitor their employees....
Some of you know Hugh Daniel, he helps maintain the toad.com list. He makes it a point to stop and watch any interactions on the street between cops and civilians. If a cop asks him, "Hey, what are you looking at?" Hugh responds, "I'm just monitoring my employee's on-the-job performance." S a n d y
participants (4)
-
Aimee Farr -
Georgeï¼ Orwellian.Org -
Jon Beets -
Sandy Sandfort