i'm talking about strengthening the argument for filming encounters. some people appear to be against the practice (or support legally limiting the practice) because of how it exposes the identity of involved officers. i'm suggesting that if officers were still 'unique' (with badge numbers) but only had given names present, you're a lot more anonymous with only your face out there than your face and last name.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but can't the guy arrested just text his homies and tell them the name of the officer who arrested him? Or for that matter, isn't it in the police report?
It just seems like police officers aren't in any way anonymous right now, regardless of video recording laws?
Cognisseur on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Lots of the restrictions on recording police are based on eavesdropping laws; you're 'allowed' to film but not record audio. You're universally 'allowed' to request ID / badge # from an officer (though you obviously do this at risk to your own safety, property, and freedom).
The "Argument From Protecting Anonymity" seems to hold no water.
See, styrofoam, you say 'we get it' but obviously do not. You still haven't even read about the case you are trying to talk about. It isn't about EVERY citizen, it's about the citizens that police willfully IGNORE when they are in danger, and the people who then expect others to want to protect the anonymity and job of said police.
The women in washington Vs district of columbia saw police come to the house.
A house there was a rape and robbery they had reported occurring in. The police left without doing anything.
Let me repeat that because you don't seem to get it.
The police left the scene of a CURRENTLY OCCURRING rape and robbery. Naturally the women who had reported said crime, assumed the police would DO THEIR GODDAMN JOB AND STOP THE RAPE. So they went back inside.
Naturally, police in this country being what they are - they did not stop said rape, instead simply left the house, at which point the women were kidnapped and raped continually, yet again.
Do you get it now? Or do you still think these jokers deserve some kind of protection of anonymity over the common people they have shirked thier responsibility to protect. My opinion: They do not. They are under no obligation to protect me, and I am under no obligation to protect THEM.
I understand that should I meet an unfortunate end, or cause that fate for someone else, the police are there in order to ensure punishment takes place, that does not indicate they deserve more anonymity than I have in public.
They need to be answerable when they are negligent, currently, they are not and one of the few recourses the common folk have for this, is to catch them in the act of negligence or outright wrongdoing with a recording device.
Stop referring to the police like they're a hivemind.
RUNN1NGMAN on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Naturally, police in this country being what they are - they did not stop said rape, instead simply left the house, at which point the women were kidnapped and raped continually, yet again.
yes, clearly all police officers are absolute assholes who will ignore a rape in progress.
These are examples of extreme unpunished incompetence by two disparate local police forces, each of which had their incompetence held up as proper by a high court in the united states, and in one case the highest.
If you read the info on both cases, they are simply heinous, and pretty much the perfect example of why I don't trust the police and think they should, indeed, be recorded at any and all times they are on duty.
Read the wiki for either of them. They are extreme examples, that doesn't mean when it's you being raped for fourteen hours, the police will feel any more obligated to help, no matter how many times your loved ones call, begging for them to.
Seriously washington vs district of columbia. Fourteen hours of rape. Police came to the house WHILE THE RAPE WAS IN PROGRESS AND PEOPLE WERE CALLING FOR HELP, they knocked on the door, and left. You read about that case and you tell me police deserve anonymity.
The city should be paying out for that, no doubt. People should be able to sue for something like that, and win.
Listen, we get it, it sucks, but you're just yelling 14 HOURS OF RAPE over and over again without listening to any when they tell you why the system works that way.
The police can't possibly stop every crime or meet the needs of every citizen. If the police could be sued for not responding to mugging X the entire law enforcement system would grind to a halt.
You just keep linking a handful of cases and acting like that is what the ruling is meant to protect.
Styrofoam is right.
If you don't like what is going on Reddeath, then you are angry at the wrong people. All they are saying is what the law says. If you want the law to be different then be angry at the legislature.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
I would like to know in what way, exactly, this law is unconstitutional. That could be interesting to talk about. Simply asserting that it is doesn't make it so.
edit: don't get me wrong, I think the law is terrible. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I would like to know in what way, exactly, this law is unconstitutional. That could be interesting to talk about. Simply asserting that it is doesn't make it so.
edit: don't get me wrong, I think the law is terrible. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I can't speak to the 'explicit' laws, but in states where enforcement is predicated on eavesdropping laws: you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. This has been held to protect even people photographing the front windows of your house from the sidewalk.
Basically, if you can observe it from a place where you are legally allowed to do so (public land or land whose owner has given authorization), you can record it. This doesn't necessarily apply to telecommunications; many states are "two-party", meaning you need consent from both ends.
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
it's reasonable for a group of people to block any investigations into one of the members because some people don't like the group?
i mean, i agree with you about it being fucked up that people don't wait to hear evidence before declaring a cop guilty of something he may not have done, but you're kind of arguing against what incredibly limited ability we already have to find out what went down in the first place.
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
Yeah, it's totally understandable that they do things like frame people for DUI to cover up their own mistakes due to the stress they're under, what with their jobs being not even on the top 10 most dangerous list.
I would like to know in what way, exactly, this law is unconstitutional. That could be interesting to talk about. Simply asserting that it is doesn't make it so.
edit: don't get me wrong, I think the law is terrible. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
The problem is it's not really clear-cut. The ACLU's preferred argument seems to be that the 1st Amendment grants a right to gather information in order to hold public officials accountable. Obviously, there's a right to speak against public officials, and I guess preventing a gathering of information could be viewed as a prior restraint? Or maybe although the law doesn't prohibit speech, it effectively bans speech against public officials by banning the recording of their interactions with the public?
It's definitely not a slam-dunk, from my limited understanding of the 1st amendment.
"Hivemind" is only slightly hyperbolic. Someone earlier referenced the culture of Police 'circling the wagons' to protect against inquiry into alleged misconduct. This is entirely accurate and showcases the importance of allowing civilian oversight.
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
Yeah, it's totally understandable that they do things like frame people for DUI to cover up their own mistakes due to the stress they're under, what with their jobs being not even on the top 10 most dangerous list.
I would like to know in what way, exactly, this law is unconstitutional. That could be interesting to talk about. Simply asserting that it is doesn't make it so.
edit: don't get me wrong, I think the law is terrible. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I can't speak to the 'explicit' laws, but in states where enforcement is predicated on eavesdropping laws: you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. This has been held to protect even people photographing the front windows of your house from the sidewalk.
Basically, if you can observe it from a place where you are legally allowed to do so (public land or land whose owner has given authorization), you can record it. This doesn't necessarily apply to telecommunications; many states are "two-party", meaning you need consent from both ends.
Sure, but the right to privacy isn't expressly in the constitution. It is defined along fairly narrow lines. So the government can't make a law abridging your privacy rights in private situations. This doesn't mean that they can't make a law extending more privacy in more places.
I suppose one could argue Equal Protection Clause, but I don't know how well that would stand up.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
I really wish people would stop trotting out the whole, "police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs" argument. It's apropos of nothing in and of itself. I mean, commercial fisherman is one of the most dangerous jobs. But how much training does a fisherman get, compared to a police officer? If police officers only got paid based on how many drug dealers they arrested, you'd probably see police officer fatalities skyrocket. It's a dumb list, compiled for the purposes of infotainment and digestion by people who consider the Guinness Book of World Records a serious reference.
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
Does free speech mean I should be able to out undercover CIA agents?
Yes.
Though I would not have a problem with you being liable for the results.
How about revealing the location of military units in the field? Or the locations and patrol routes of Secret Service agents?
Heck, how about posting the names, faces, and home addresses of workers at abortion clinics?
As to the former, if you, random guy on the street, somehow know these things, then they are clearly not being held securely anyway. So yeah, again the act of you passing on what you found out should not itself be illegal. But you should be held responsible for the results, given certain conditions (you should have been able to guess the likely harm caused, etc).
As to the latter, that is arguably intimidation and an incitement to violence. Which are not protected speech.
Former - What if I'm some Matthew Broderick in War Games-level hacker and break into some database of undercover CIA assignments? Obviously the hacking itself wouldn't be protected by free speech, but should the public dissemination of whatever I find be? This wouldn't be an Armitage-Plame "I thought she was one of the gals down in clerical" situation, it would be the knowing and intentional identification of undercover covert agents.
Latter - Why is giving the info of an abortion doctor to someone that might harm them intimidation/incitement but giving the info of a cop to someone that might harm them not?
I really wish people would stop trotting out the whole, "police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs" argument. It's apropos of nothing in and of itself. I mean, commercial fisherman is one of the most dangerous jobs. But how much training does a fisherman get, compared to a police officer? If police officers only got paid based on how many drug dealers they arrested, you'd probably see police officer fatalities skyrocket. It's a dumb list, compiled for the purposes of infotainment and digestion by people who consider the Guinness Book of World Records a serious reference.
It's cited to dispell the oft-repeated myth that these poor police officers are being killed in droves and need every protection they can get to the point of the law not applying to them in order to be safe.
And the idea that police are some kind of noble heros putting their lives on the line every day and therefore deserve more respect than any other profession.
The Coast Guard does law enforcement all the time.
They're a special case, in that they exist as a military group, but act partially as police. As I recall this is because in the early in our country's history when federal police agencies weren't thought to be ok, but there was a need for a policing agency in an area outside of state authority, so they were created as a military branch.
But you didn't say Coast Gaurd, you said Military, and the Military as a whole is most certainly not a police force.
yes a secret military is in many cases. Police officers aren't put in danger when the news announces a DUI check stop, soldiers are put in danger when their movements are revealed. We accept secrecy on the part of the military to the extent that it is required to do the job at hand. Police departments do not require that secrecy except in instances of undercover work, which society gladly allows them.
Maryland State Police charged a motorcyclist who recorded his traffic stop on a helmet cam with violating the state's wiretap law. A Baltimore police officer implored a bystander to stop filming an arrest at last weekend's Preakness.
"Do me a favor and take a walk. Now," the officer sternly told the amateur cameraman, who promptly posted his video on YouTube after watching officers wrestle with a bleeding woman on the floor of the race course's club level.
"Do me a favor and turn that off," the officer warned. "It's illegal to record anybody's voice or anything else in the state of Maryland."
(...)
Still others, including Baltimore police officials, say they're not so sure. Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the officer at the Preakness was not giving an order but asking a favor. He noted that the person who took the video was not arrested or charged, nor was the camera confiscated.
I really wish people would stop trotting out the whole, "police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs" argument. It's apropos of nothing in and of itself. I mean, commercial fisherman is one of the most dangerous jobs. But how much training does a fisherman get, compared to a police officer? If police officers only got paid based on how many drug dealers they arrested, you'd probably see police officer fatalities skyrocket. It's a dumb list, compiled for the purposes of infotainment and digestion by people who consider the Guinness Book of World Records a serious reference.
It's cited to dispell the oft-repeated myth that these poor police officers are being killed in droves and need every protection they can get to the point of the law not applying to them in order to be safe.
And the idea that police are some kind of noble heros putting their lives on the line every day and therefore deserve more respect than any other profession.
Well firefighters aren't on that list either. The fact is, you're sitting on your ass a lot of the time, washing the trucks, fixing gear and whatnot. Then every week or so someone tells you to run into a burning building.
Police officers don't put their lives on the line every day, but they could have to put their lives on the line on any given day. I fail to see how that entitles them to less respect than airplane pilots and ranchers.
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
I really wish people would stop trotting out the whole, "police officer isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs" argument. It's apropos of nothing in and of itself. I mean, commercial fisherman is one of the most dangerous jobs. But how much training does a fisherman get, compared to a police officer? If police officers only got paid based on how many drug dealers they arrested, you'd probably see police officer fatalities skyrocket. It's a dumb list, compiled for the purposes of infotainment and digestion by people who consider the Guinness Book of World Records a serious reference.
It's cited to dispell the oft-repeated myth that these poor police officers are being killed in droves and need every protection they can get to the point of the law not applying to them in order to be safe.
And the idea that police are some kind of noble heros putting their lives on the line every day and therefore deserve more respect than any other profession.
Well firefighters aren't on that list either. The fact is, you're sitting on your ass a lot of the time, washing the trucks, fixing gear and whatnot. Then every week or so someone tells you to run into a burning building.
Police officers don't put their lives on the line every day, but they could have to put their lives on the line on any given day. I fail to see how that entitles them to less respect than airplane pilots and ranchers.
Because they are accorded large amounts of power and discretion, and are effectively above the system, and then they abloo bloo about how they don't get enough respect from the public and their job is so dangerous, etc. etc. etc.
Basically, they have everything going for them and they want to have zero oversight too. I don't hate cops but I don't have any sympathy for them; they knew going into the job that they'd have a lot of power and a minimal amount of danger.
Also, I find it odd that they are allowed to record private citizens during traffic stops and other interactions but citizens are not accorded an equal protection. Fuck that shit.
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Oh. I thought they had passed a new law or something. Yes, then I would say that they probably aren't going to win that one, since it is pretty clear there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The law will stand though, I think.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Former - What if I'm some Matthew Broderick in War Games-level hacker and break into some database of undercover CIA assignments? Obviously the hacking itself wouldn't be protected by free speech, but should the public dissemination of whatever I find be?
Yes.
Latter - Why is giving the info of an abortion doctor to someone that might harm them intimidation/incitement but giving the info of a cop to someone that might harm them not?
It could be. And if you specifically collected this information for that purpose, that would make you an accomplice, conspiracy charge, etc. All of which are tools that can be used without infringing on civil liberties.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
Stuff like this always makes me feel like the "Cold Dead Hands" gun owners aren't as paranoid as people like to think they are.
The problem with those people is they usually end up thinking laws like this are ok, because seriously fuck those hispanics/black people/homeless/poor people.
Six pages late but here we go.
I know some of those people and they are more forcefully in favor of recording than anyone else I know.
In 2000, Curran told Montgomery County police that it was legal for them to mount cameras in their police cars and record video and audio of traffic stops. Curran wrote that officers need to inform citizens being stopped that they are being recorded. He also said that audio picked up inadvertently would not violate the statute.
"Statements that a person knowingly exposes to the public are not made with a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore are not protected as 'oral communications' under the state and federal wiretap laws," Curran wrote.
Police argue that cameras in their cruisers more often than not clear officers accused of wrongdoing by proving accusations are unfounded or exaggerated. But those same officers don't like it when citizens train cameras on them.
Because they are accorded large amounts of power and discretion, and are effectively above the system, and then they abloo bloo about how they don't get enough respect from the public and their job is so dangerous, etc. etc. etc.
Basically, they have everything going for them and they want to have zero oversight too. I don't hate cops but I don't have any sympathy for them; they knew going into the job that they'd have a lot of power and a minimal amount of danger.
Thank you, I was trying to write the same thing but had trouble phrasing it as elloquently.
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
It seems to be how police think it works. They mounted cameras onto their cruisers with this premise in mind. If it can be applied to citizens, why can't it be applied to police?
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
I agree.
Apparently this isn't what is happening though, they are simply trying to use an existing law to say it means you can't record them. Which isn't what that law really says.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
It seems to be how police think it works. They mounted cameras onto their cruisers with this premise in mind. If it can be applied to citizens, why can't it be applied to police?
It's two completely different principles. If you have an expectation of privacy that is reasonable, and the police record you, that's a search that they need a warrant for.
Your 4th amendment right to be free from warrantless searches has nothing to do with whether you can videotape police.
Basically what this whole thing comes down to is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't record a cop's private conversations/interactions, because the wiretapping thing is what they're arguing from. In public areas where there is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
It seems to be how police think it works. They mounted cameras onto their cruisers with this premise in mind. If it can be applied to citizens, why can't it be applied to police?
It's two completely different principles. If you have an expectation of privacy that is reasonable, and the police record you, that's a search that they need a warrant for.
Your 4th amendment right to be free from warrantless searches has nothing to do with whether you can videotape police.
It's the principle the police are arguing from. Here, let me quote for you:
"It's very complex, and we don't think it's been legally resolved yet," he said of the wiretap statute. (in reference to videotaping the police) "The whole question is for lawyers — and the officer is not a lawyer."
"Statements that a person knowingly exposes to the public are not made with a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore are not protected as 'oral communications' under the state and federal wiretap laws,"
So when a cop makes a statement in a very public place, public enough for a bystander to videotape, it's made with a reasonable expectation of privacy? The police are using the wiretap laws as evidence to suggest that videotaping police is illegal, and then turn right the fuck around and say those wiretap laws allow them to videotape citizens because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're, say, walking down the street or driving your car.
I'm not the one arguing from reasonable expectation of privacy here. The cops are. And it's bullshit double-standard bullshit.
Is there any actual evidence of serious risk of endangering the police through videotaping them? It isn't like they can't just remember what they look like or that anybody other than law abiding folks will be influenced by the law.
Is there any actual evidence of serious risk of endangering the police through videotaping them? It isn't like they can't just remember what they look like or that anybody other than law abiding folks will be influenced by the law.
The only evidence we have of police being endangered by videotaping is when they got caught fucking people over on tape and got convicted and/or fired because that's the only way you can actually get people to believe you instead of the officer.
Posts
Funny, I'll bet that's exactly what the police said.
I would have gone for "thats what she said" joke.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but can't the guy arrested just text his homies and tell them the name of the officer who arrested him? Or for that matter, isn't it in the police report?
It just seems like police officers aren't in any way anonymous right now, regardless of video recording laws?
The "Argument From Protecting Anonymity" seems to hold no water.
Stop referring to the police like they're a hivemind.
yes, clearly all police officers are absolute assholes who will ignore a rape in progress.
Styrofoam is right.
If you don't like what is going on Reddeath, then you are angry at the wrong people. All they are saying is what the law says. If you want the law to be different then be angry at the legislature.
but they're listening to every word I say
edit: don't get me wrong, I think the law is terrible. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
but they're listening to every word I say
Given that many people salivate at the thought of hanging even innocent cops out to dry and always assume their guilt this is understandable.
I mean fuck, when you are in a job that many would gladly see dead for, and hate you for, it's natural to draw into a group and protect each other no matter what.
I'd say their wagon circling is the only reasonable response given how some of the public acts.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
I can't speak to the 'explicit' laws, but in states where enforcement is predicated on eavesdropping laws: you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. This has been held to protect even people photographing the front windows of your house from the sidewalk.
Basically, if you can observe it from a place where you are legally allowed to do so (public land or land whose owner has given authorization), you can record it. This doesn't necessarily apply to telecommunications; many states are "two-party", meaning you need consent from both ends.
it's reasonable for a group of people to block any investigations into one of the members because some people don't like the group?
i mean, i agree with you about it being fucked up that people don't wait to hear evidence before declaring a cop guilty of something he may not have done, but you're kind of arguing against what incredibly limited ability we already have to find out what went down in the first place.
hitting hot metal with hammers
Yeah, it's totally understandable that they do things like frame people for DUI to cover up their own mistakes due to the stress they're under, what with their jobs being not even on the top 10 most dangerous list.
The problem is it's not really clear-cut. The ACLU's preferred argument seems to be that the 1st Amendment grants a right to gather information in order to hold public officials accountable. Obviously, there's a right to speak against public officials, and I guess preventing a gathering of information could be viewed as a prior restraint? Or maybe although the law doesn't prohibit speech, it effectively bans speech against public officials by banning the recording of their interactions with the public?
It's definitely not a slam-dunk, from my limited understanding of the 1st amendment.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Sure, but the right to privacy isn't expressly in the constitution. It is defined along fairly narrow lines. So the government can't make a law abridging your privacy rights in private situations. This doesn't mean that they can't make a law extending more privacy in more places.
I suppose one could argue Equal Protection Clause, but I don't know how well that would stand up.
but they're listening to every word I say
Former - What if I'm some Matthew Broderick in War Games-level hacker and break into some database of undercover CIA assignments? Obviously the hacking itself wouldn't be protected by free speech, but should the public dissemination of whatever I find be? This wouldn't be an Armitage-Plame "I thought she was one of the gals down in clerical" situation, it would be the knowing and intentional identification of undercover covert agents.
Latter - Why is giving the info of an abortion doctor to someone that might harm them intimidation/incitement but giving the info of a cop to someone that might harm them not?
The Coast Guard does law enforcement all the time.
And is a secret military somehow better than a secret police?
It's cited to dispell the oft-repeated myth that these poor police officers are being killed in droves and need every protection they can get to the point of the law not applying to them in order to be safe.
And the idea that police are some kind of noble heros putting their lives on the line every day and therefore deserve more respect than any other profession.
They're a special case, in that they exist as a military group, but act partially as police. As I recall this is because in the early in our country's history when federal police agencies weren't thought to be ok, but there was a need for a policing agency in an area outside of state authority, so they were created as a military branch.
But you didn't say Coast Gaurd, you said Military, and the Military as a whole is most certainly not a police force.
yes a secret military is in many cases. Police officers aren't put in danger when the news announces a DUI check stop, soldiers are put in danger when their movements are revealed. We accept secrecy on the part of the military to the extent that it is required to do the job at hand. Police departments do not require that secrecy except in instances of undercover work, which society gladly allows them.
Well firefighters aren't on that list either. The fact is, you're sitting on your ass a lot of the time, washing the trucks, fixing gear and whatnot. Then every week or so someone tells you to run into a burning building.
Police officers don't put their lives on the line every day, but they could have to put their lives on the line on any given day. I fail to see how that entitles them to less respect than airplane pilots and ranchers.
Because they are accorded large amounts of power and discretion, and are effectively above the system, and then they abloo bloo about how they don't get enough respect from the public and their job is so dangerous, etc. etc. etc.
Basically, they have everything going for them and they want to have zero oversight too. I don't hate cops but I don't have any sympathy for them; they knew going into the job that they'd have a lot of power and a minimal amount of danger.
Oh. I thought they had passed a new law or something. Yes, then I would say that they probably aren't going to win that one, since it is pretty clear there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The law will stand though, I think.
but they're listening to every word I say
Yes.
It could be. And if you specifically collected this information for that purpose, that would make you an accomplice, conspiracy charge, etc. All of which are tools that can be used without infringing on civil liberties.
That's not how reasonable expectation of privacy works. Just because someone doesn't have an expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean the state can't still make recording them illegal.
Six pages late but here we go.
I know some of those people and they are more forcefully in favor of recording than anyone else I know.
End anecdote.
is fucking bullshit.
Thank you, I was trying to write the same thing but had trouble phrasing it as elloquently.
It seems to be how police think it works. They mounted cameras onto their cruisers with this premise in mind. If it can be applied to citizens, why can't it be applied to police?
I agree.
Apparently this isn't what is happening though, they are simply trying to use an existing law to say it means you can't record them. Which isn't what that law really says.
but they're listening to every word I say
It's two completely different principles. If you have an expectation of privacy that is reasonable, and the police record you, that's a search that they need a warrant for.
Your 4th amendment right to be free from warrantless searches has nothing to do with whether you can videotape police.
It's the principle the police are arguing from. Here, let me quote for you:
So when a cop makes a statement in a very public place, public enough for a bystander to videotape, it's made with a reasonable expectation of privacy? The police are using the wiretap laws as evidence to suggest that videotaping police is illegal, and then turn right the fuck around and say those wiretap laws allow them to videotape citizens because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're, say, walking down the street or driving your car.
I'm not the one arguing from reasonable expectation of privacy here. The cops are. And it's bullshit double-standard bullshit.
The only evidence we have of police being endangered by videotaping is when they got caught fucking people over on tape and got convicted and/or fired because that's the only way you can actually get people to believe you instead of the officer.