Citizens Spy On Big Brother 719
An anonymous reader writes "Citizens of the world are striking back at 24/7 state surveillance by pulling out their cameraphones and filming inept officials, deadly healthcare lapses and thuggish cops. So-called Sous-veillance is seeing more and more people posting damning footage of official misdemenours to sites such as YouTube to shame them into action." I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh..that's simple...camera mysteriously gets dropped and smashed on the ground (probably while you are being slammed against the car), and you get charged first with obstructing justice...with more charges to follow later as they have time to think them up.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, like the guy who refused to give the cops the video footage of them coming to his door when he informed them that he had a camera and a tape and they arrested him and beat him? I mean, theres not much left to wonder about, welcome to Amerika.
Posted anonymous for obvious reasons.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Authoritarianism is a mental virus (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of authoritarian fuckwits who can't stand it when people stand up to authority. They are small minded bullies who worship power, think humans are basically evil, and must be beaten into civility. The idea of these 'evil' humans refusing to take their beatings frightens them, because a human who hasn't been beaten into submission is a free and therefore dangerous human.
I'm being a little harsh here, as authoritarianism is actually a mental virus. If you've ever mentally beaten yourself up for a perceived failure instead of simply noting it and refocusing on how you want to be, you are very likely infected with it yourself. People infected with the virus do not need to coordinate their actions consciously, yet work together to spread the virus through abuse and fear mongering.
Always try to be impeccable with your words and thoughts and do not use them to harm yourself or others. Use reward, not punishment, to motivate yourself and others to behave in positive ways. Punishment will never create new and positive behaviors.
Re:Authoritarianism is a mental virus (Score:5, Interesting)
You see this in online gaming. Playing ctf in Star Wars Republic Commando, or coop in Synergy, I can't count how many times I've seen guys bellowing complaints on voice or on the chat line. "I've got a terrible team!" Oh, they're really gonna get better now. A few of my friends and I don't do that. When a person on our team gets the flag or clears the opfor off the flag carrier's tail, or scores, it's "GJ!" "Way to go!" Everyone enjoys the game a little more when ppl behave that way. Plus, we win more games. Guys even switch teams. Things are a little simpler in Synergy. We votekick the complainers off the server.
Re:Authoritarianism is a mental virus (Score:5, Interesting)
Authoritarianism is just what happens when some people think that they know what's best for everyone. Censorship and spying are parts of this.
But for many people, it's less about the authority than about the 'standing up' part. People who lack self-confidence aren't going to stand up to a pushy government, or anyone, because they're scared. As a result, when someone *does* stand up, it shames those who didn't, and they resent that person. This has been called crab mentality [wikipedia.org]: the idea that a crab trying to escape from a bucket is pulled back by its fellow crabs.
At its base, authoritarianism is strongly related to insecurity. My point is just that many people encourage this (actively or passively) through fear and cognitive dissonance, not malice.
Quick Tip About Kids (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about kids is you can't make it all about them. If they think the only one they're hurting when they misbehave is themselves, they calculate the cost/benefit.
Once a kid is a little older, if you play it so they're not the only one benefiting and losing, they start to realize that other people are depending upon them to do what's right. Kids want more than anything to fit in socially...even if the social group is their parents (especially when young).
The problem is that many parents don't see why they should be inconvenienced by someone else, even if it is their own kid, so they isolate the negative consequences to the child. But that doesn't give the kid a sense of his effect on his local environment...or it mitigates it somewhat, so the kid learns that his negative behavior only affects himself (the same is often true of good behavior—parents naturally want their little angel to get all the credit when they do the right thing, so they try to direct all the benefit that way).
Example: A kid is acting up in a restaurant. Hopefully, the parent did the right thing in getting the child excited about going to the restaurant as a kind of plus, so just being there is a fun experience. The parent should: (1) tell the child once that if they don't settle down, they'll pay the bill and leave immediately, food or no food and then (2) do it. Most parents won't follow through without a big to do, because they themselves want the meal. But this isn't the right answer—the right thing to do is get up and go, and suffer the consequences of your kid's bad behavior with them. Make sure they know your skipped meal is no fun either, but they had the chance to fix it and there's no going back.
If the kid learns early that there are inflexible rules of the universe, and once you run afoul of them the path is determined and quickly followed, they shape up quickly. If parents don't have the will to pursue the behavior they want and not settle for less, however, in the end no one gets what they want.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I'm not sure why this was modded troll either...I mean, this story was published on Slashdot awhile back. Actually, there are two of them on that subject here at a home [slashdot.org] and here filming a car pullover [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what happened to the guy in the first story, but the charges in that Carlisle case were dropped [slashdot.org]:
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you feel the need to post anonymously, our terrorist government has already won.
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you have only one body, and insurance won't help you if you're dead.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, the cops get pissed off, sure they threaten to arrest you, but if you stand your ground, don't interfere with their "crime scene", and make it clear you know your rights, they don't do anything serious.
You can learn about smart/effective ways to record the police here: http://www.copwatch.net/forums/ [copwatch.net]
There's a lot of advice, but the main thing is to make sure you have someone else with you, preferably with another camera, to hang back and record any interaction the cops have with you, the copwatcher.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the video folder on your media server...
"2006.07.21 - Cancun vacation"
"2006.11 - Winter Storm: The tree comes down"
"Pron"
"2007.04.15 - Cops beat me to a pulp"
"2007.06.31 - Mikey's first piano recital"
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
On my street (not a particularly good part of town; old, blue-collar, and multi-ethnic, though not particularly run-down or dangerous) the cops came to arrest someone, and when they got him out of his house, he was making some noises about resisting arrest and being somewhat disorderly. If I were a cop, I'd certainly have been prepared for trouble, the way he was acting. But one of the cops came over and told everyone who had gathered on the opposing sidewalk, about 30 feet away, that we had to disperse and couldn't watch. My landlord argued with him, asking why he couldn't stand on a public sidewalk near his house, well away from what was going on, and watch what happened in his neighborhood. The cop told him that if he didn't walk out of viewing distance, they'd arrest him. The cop said it was for the privacy of the person being arrested. Yea, right. The cops didn't want any witnesses around before they went to town on this guy. First person experience.
Even when the cops have been required by law to keep everything on camera and keep the footage, they'll still go turn the camera off illegally and beat the #*$ out of someone [break.com]. Who's going to arrest them, they're a cop? More info on that one here [go.com] At least the cop was fired, eventually, but not prosecuted or anything. He's appealing the decision.
Although sometimes, they don't destroy the evidence. [break.com] And other times, people do [break.com] get away with videos of cops being idiots [break.com] unmolested.
And this guy [break.com] has a whole series of videos he posts online catching cops doing illegal things. I wonder how long until he get his camera confiscated and nasty things happen to him off film? Also, see this. [break.com]
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
... and the still intact memory chip has a nice recording of the officer's boot, which turns out to be very helpful in securing a conviction for assault and his dismissal from the department, and from the society that he was supposed to protect.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
"Dismissal from the department" is a heck of a way to mispell "getting a medal and commendations for his bravery" [reason.com].
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Insightful)
The way things are, it's amazing that Vang Khang isn't in jail for life for "attempting to kill police officers."
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
chances are that a cop is gonna "firmly grasp" the arm holding the camera, and the camera will end up on the ground waiting to be destroyed. We had a protest a few months ago at my university that ended up like that; only one fragmented video escaped.
If it's a normal digital camera, try using a Micro-SD card in an adapter.
The chances are higher that the card will survive even if the camera is destroyed.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
You get arrested under shiny new terrorism laws, eg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/24/bus_spotter_clampdown/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
No. What's more likely is that the officer starts acting with utmost professionalism, smiles, and fines you for various things, with which he would not have bothered otherwise. He is also going to take his sweet time issuing the ticket(s) — especially if you commit another folly by indicating, that you are in a hurry. (12 years ago I did that, and the pig took 40 minutes to issue the citation.)
If it is illegal in your locale to record people without warning, put a notice about recording on your window — he is not going to notice it, but you'll be covered — do not bring it to his attention. In general, do not argue with the policemen. All arguments should happen in court.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dallas SWAT has been raiding poker games. Drew Carey covered this at http://www.reason.tv/video/show/172.html [reason.tv].
When one of the defendants subpoenaed copies of the video tapes made
of the raid -- the reality show "Dallas SWAT" had filmed it -- he was
told that no copies of the tapes existed. See http://www.theagitator.com/2007/04/20/tales-of-a-dallas-poker-raid/ [theagitator.com]
In Oceania, members of the Inner Party were allowed to turn off their
telescreens.
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Informative)
In a local case, the person who made the tape was accused of illegal wiretapping. Previous discussion of it here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/12/2050212&tid=123 [slashdot.org]
Charges were eventually dropped though.
William
You don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, and most importantly, it will force the police to behave as if they were being filmed all of the time because they just won't know who that one tinfoil hat dude is until they are being fired for beating him.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it hasn't happened to you, it never happens. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, the cops should have to act BETTER than most people, because, guess what, they're COPS. If that means they're on camera 24/7, then so be it. They signed up for it.
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except, you know, you can't kill a cop with a camera (unless you bludgeon him over the head with it, but even then).
At least here is South Carolina it is still legal to use upto deadly force against the police during an unlawful arrest, and has been upheld many time in the SC Supreme Court [state.sc.us].
So where is the cop outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why aren't the 'good cops' turning in their corrupt, violent and evil coworkers?
Sorry, until I see more exposure of bad cops from within their departments, I'm lumping the 'good cops' in with the bad cops.
Sympathizers you know? Kinda like how we bomb the houses of people who help Iraqi Insurgents, even if they aren't actually insurgents themselves.
Aiding and abetting the enemy: abuse of authority.
Re:So where is the cop outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are in the same family/gang/tribe.
Most people don't turn the bad people in their family unless something really drastic happens (like they kill people, and even then who knows).
When was the last time you turned in your coworker?
And if your boss and upper ranks are corrupt well good luck turning them in.
> 80% of the people won't bother - they go with the flow. If the flow is evil, they do evil. If the flow is good, they do good.
Only a few will have integrity and be good against the "flow"/norm. Even defying their bosses.
And there'll be the bad bunch who will be bad no matter what.
So you want a good "norm", you start with the people at the top who are responsible for setting the norms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no rat. In a town this bent, who's there to rat to anyway?
Maybe Lt. Gordon is right...
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it does happen doesn't mean that every cop is a bad officer.
Yes, it pretty much does. If my neighbor were a murdering psychopath, I'd be arrested for knowing about it and not saying anything. Police departments routinely have assholes sign up, simply because they want to be a professional asshole for the rest of their lives. The "good" cops often wind up covering for these pieces of shit and otherwise enabling them, because cops all have a tendency to believe that they are always right and the suspect is always wrong.
Fuck cops. Seriously, you have no fucking idea. It's a two way street you say? Why is it that the police are allowed to film you while you get the shit beat out of you for filming? What purpose does a civilian have for filming the police other than self defense? If the civilian is just trying to protect themselves why are the police so threatened? Is it because a good portion of them are inept, abusive, and generally incompetent? Thinking men know that might does not make right, police officers are *rarely* thinking men.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think many cops are bad for two reasons.
1. As a society we have allowed to be passed all sorts of ridiculous laws that force cops to make everyone a criminal (drug laws, online piracy, seat belt laws, etc...). If everyone is a criminal, everyone fears and hates law enforcement. Hard to be a good guy when everyone you deal with hates you.
2. As a society, probably because we hate and fear law enforcement, we don't pay cops very well. Why be a cop when you can make more money working at the local grocery store where you don't get shot at? Because you want to be a professional asshole. We end up with three kinds of people as cops. Those who truly want to provide a public service, those who want to be professional assholes and those who can't get a job that pays any better. Stands to reason that two out of three cops are probably 'bad'.
We either need to find ways to attract more quality individuals to be on our police force, or put them on camera so we can give the assholes incentive not to behave badly.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that it is insulting or implies anything about somebody's behavior when a camera is pointed at someone to record a law enforcement interaction is already a dead issue. Cops record you with their own video, they chemically test the air that emits from your car, and they have the authority to insist on a BAC test to verify that you are sufficiently sober to drive based on a randomly placed static checkpoint. If all that's fair game and no problem, why is a citizen camera anything but a safeguard against the tiny percentage of bad police who should have never been passed by the academy and no reflection on the good cops?
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It so rare... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they don't find you doesn't mean they are any less real.
Have you ever seen a buddhist monk whistle? Does this lack of evidence means it doesn'
Re:It so rare... (Score:5, Informative)
In the cases where I have seen police use batons or tasers, the person was striking out violently. That seems justified (or more justifiable).
Of course abuse happens, maybe more often then we see on the news because victims don't report it (fear of reprisal), but it is not, I believe, a common occurrence.
And people in authority who abuse their authority, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, those damn cops are always going after the gay lefties. It's no wonder we've got such an enormous prison overcrowding problem here in California.
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Funny)
They're only jealous because we lefties are the only ones in our right minds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Let me guess - you're white and middle class and live in a nice area."
Generalize much? Why would you assume that s/he is that? Is it because you believe in that middle class white folks have all the breaks? That is what I read.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Then you hear stories like the one about the 16 year old kid with the broken back who was tasered 19 times by the police for failing to stand up when ordered [rawstory.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't take much to become a police officer.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. I tried to become a police officer. Took the courses at school and took the test. Know what I was told (long after the fact, by someone inside)? I scored too high on the intelligence test.
Turns out you have to have the right combination of stupid and submissive to the rule of law to become a police officer.
I had a hard time believing it, so I spoke with the chief. Turns out it is true. People who test too high have a tendency to move on to other things after a few years, costing the city too much money. Their best catch is the guy that's not quite smart enough to make something of himself but not so dumb that he trips over his own feet.
Get what you pay for (Score:3, Interesting)
Where I live, starting salary for a police officer is in the mid-20000s. You do get what you pay for. If you pay next to nothing, you are not attracting the best. Instead, you might end up with low paid people wielding power. How many in the Slashdot crowd would quit their jobs to be a police officer? It is a low paid profession, and therefore you get what you pay for.
Re:Get what you pay for (Score:4, Funny)
How many in the Slashdot crowd would quit their jobs to be a police officer? It is a low paid profession....
Not when you count the income from bribes....
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)
More like, unless and until there aren't accounts of injustice, the police need to be held to a higher standard, and prove their trustworthiness on a daily basis.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
Doesn't mean they're all bad people, but just like most police approach every traffic stop being aware of the fact someone could be waiting in the driver's seat with intent to harm them, every citizen should approach every encounter with the police knowing there are bad cops out there and they may be at risk.
This won't change until officers start getting prosecuted for swearing false statements, and the "good" ones stop covering for the "bad" ones.
If you've got the time, I highly recommend watching these two videos before you ever consider trusting a police officer:
http://www.hackaday.com/2008/06/16/dont-talk-to-the-police/ [hackaday.com]
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
You are clearly a radical, showing utmost contempt for your government.
"The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty" - John Adams
Just like John Adams.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first mistake is lumping all people who wear blue uniforms and carry a badge "the police". There are big differences between your local traffic cops and the police forces in L.A. and N.Y. Among other things, I highly doubt your local police have shot unarmed people from over 50 yards away, or beaten up protesters.
Your second mistake is thinking that the cops treat you and everyone else the same. You're probably white and relatively well off, and were pulled over wearing a nice button-down shirt and slacks. That makes cops think you're generally a law-abiding citizen, even if they're pulling you over because you broke the law. When less privileged people are pulled over, they're far more likely to be ordered from their car, patted down for weapons, have their trunk searched for drugs, etc.
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your first mistake is lumping all people who wear blue uniforms and carry a badge "the police". There are big differences between your local traffic cops and the police forces in L.A. and N.Y. Among other things, I highly doubt your local police have shot unarmed people from over 50 yards away, or beaten up protesters.
Your second mistake is thinking that the cops treat you and everyone else the same. You're probably white and relatively well off, and were pulled over wearing a nice button-down shirt and slacks. That makes cops think you're generally a law-abiding citizen, even if they're pulling you over because you broke the law. When less privileged people are pulled over, they're far more likely to be ordered from their car, patted down for weapons, have their trunk searched for drugs, etc.
Funny thing is, I'm white, late 30's, clean cut, blond hair, blue eyes, etc... the very model of upstanding white suburban citizen.
Except... I've been pulled over, harassed, my car searched for drugs, handcuffed, patted down for weapons and a host of other things on numerous occasions.
Cops abuse their power all the time. I can only imagine what it's like to be a black guy around here. I've only met a helpful police officer maybe a handful of times in my life. Most of the time they are harassing or at the very least, unwilling to be helpful. The majority of cops are on a power trip and are there to feel powerful, not to be helpful. Yes, my evidence is ancedotal, however, the fact that over the course of my lifetime, I've encountered many police in many different capacities and situations, from many different jurisdictions, cities and states, yet the majority are consistently on
power trips. So ancedotal or not, the cross section of my experience, at least for me, is pretty conclusive police in America.
Those of you saying police are great, they don't do this kind of stuff... you need to get out more. Maybe in your one small city or county, they are good cops. But in America at large, they are not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm..you need to remember these words : " I do not consent to a search [flexyourrights.org]".
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great. I just hope people don't stop once it all is made illegal.
Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be considered a terrorist if you record the police. Wouldn't be the first time.
Nothing. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I'm sure they won't care, when they searched for expectation of privacy on Google, they found out there was none [slashdot.org].
Operating a (camera)phone while driving? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
I don't know where you're at, but over here it's illegal to use your (camera)phone while driving. If you're fiddling with your phone when the man steps up to your window, I'm sure he'll give you a bonus for it.
Re:Operating a (camera)phone while driving? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in my jurisdiction. Too bad about yours.
We barely have seatbelt laws here. Phone? Fine. Camera? Fine. Shotgun rack? Fine. Bought the shotgun at a gunshow with no ID? Fine.
Do a video at your own risk. However, only very rarely does a police officer respond negatively to an individual that is polite when pulled over, is sober, and doesn't provoke the officer. It's a self-fulfilling action to believe that police officers will react negatively; they're human and IMHO aren't going to react negatively without provocation. Then tell it to the judge. Or suffer the consequences of provocation.
When I was young I called cops pigs. Then I came to understand what cops have to put up with. Some are still way too brutal. But most are just trying to keep the peace. Traffic cops I have problems with, but I keep quiet and polite during a trafffic stop, then beat my tickets anyway and don't drive like a raving Type-A idiot. Others have different results.
Re:Operating a (camera)phone while driving? (Score:5, Interesting)
My uncle was a sheriff for many years, (just retired) and I asked him what is was like dealing every day with people giving you shit, hating you, spitting at you, calling you names, etc..
He told me it didn't bother him much, it was just a part of the job, and that assholes will always be assholes. The part of his job he hated was the psuedo "victims". IE, you're called to a house for the 3rd time that month for domestic violence, and the woman wants YOU to stop the man from beating her, cause she's a victim. Of course, she would always go back to the same guy, and a few weeks later, the whole cycle would repeat. He really hated those situations, or any domestic violence, because you have so much emotional crap you have to deal with as a cop on the call.
Marge Simpson said it years ago (Score:5, Funny)
"The courts might not work anymore, but as long as everyone is videotaping everyone else, justice will be served."
Marge Simpson
re: catching the small fish (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, but as the old saying goes: "How do you eat an elephant? In many small bites, taken one at a time."
Politics has become corrupt and inaccessible enough for the "common man" at the federal level, there really isn't much you can do to change it. You get to vote for a president once every 4 years, and you get to plead to mostly deaf-ear turning congressmen and "representatives" to make changes in Washington for you. (If they *do* listen to you, it's usually just coincidence, because people with deeper pockets than you are paying them to do what happens to be the same thing you wanted.)
Where you can STILL make a difference is at the local level. Your individual voice is FAR more meaningful as a member of a local community than as a member of the U.S. citizenry as a whole.
I think change has to "trickle up" from the local and even state levels, so frying all these "small fish" consistently is about as effective a message as one can send.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who watches the watchers? The point becomes moot when everyone is a watcher.
Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Informative)
The original idea was Plato; he posited a social class of people in his ideal Republic who would guard over the regular citizens. He had ideas of trying to inculcate in them a sort of high-minded ideal of service which would keep them from being corrupt; even at the time it was considered to be a bit naive.
The latin quote is from Juvenal; a character in one of his satires was talking about hiring people to guard the chastity of his wife (daughter? can't remember), and stressing out because he was sure that she would put out for her guards first, so he'd need a second set of guards to watch the first guards, and so forth.
The problem is always the same; we rely on the guardians to be self-policing, and it doesn't always work. But when you open up the possibility of everyone stepping up and taking some of the burden of watching the watchers, it becomes possible to sidestep the problem. The watchers are being watched by the watched, in effect being policed by the people they are policing.
Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Funny)
What are you, some kind of Godwin's Law Nazi? You know, Hitler was always accusing people of pushing the boundaries of Godwin's Law.
Take care to (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the cop (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
Almost all of them will ask you to stop recording.
Some will physically block the camera.
Very few will try to take your camera from you.
Police (and security guards) will do this with varying levels of anger and threats.
The only two things that matter are:
1. You are on public property
2. You are not filming/photographing something you legally cannot (like a port or inside a mall)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or you're stopped by police in Pennsylvania, where it is illegal to record them. Although as I recall, this law was enforced in a traffic stop in Mechanicsburg, PA and it was being appealed to test the law. Not sure if the state dropped the recording charge to avoid the appeal. Which is a brilliant strategy; they get you to stop the recording at a legal stop because the law says so, when you try to get rid of that law, the drop the charges, you lose standing, and the law remains. I'm sure some lawyer ca
Re:Depends on the cop (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. Here in the UK there are a couple of reality TV shows that follow a team of police around, filming them as they go about their duties.
From time to time someone they're dealing with will demand that the cameraman stop filming, and the response is always along the following lines:
"He can film what he likes, we're in public"
Well, then that surely applies both ways, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see it more as drunken chavs being herded. I don't see how these shows are even remotely entertaining when they're such a damning indictment of humanity — by virtue of both their content and existence.
Re:Depends on the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
2. You are not filming/photographing something you legally cannot (like a port or inside a mall)
In the USA at least, there's no legal framework that bans filming inside shopping malls. There is simply a legal framework that allows the private owners of the mall to make rules dictating whatever behavior they like or not, and if as a guest you do not comply with these rules, you must leave. If you do not leave when requested by any private owner, whether following their rules or not, you can be reported and arrested/ticketed by police for trespassing. In any case, the private owners cannot (1) take your equipment, (2) delete your pictures, (3) force you to do anything but leave the premises.
Personally, I think that since most shopping malls get huge tax incentives and other public funding, they should be held to certain accessibility and public use laws. However, that's rarely the case, and the private owners can enjoy this micro-fief in which to control their "guests" at their whim. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.
And lastly, if a police officer ever asks you to delete a photograph, follow the ACLU bust guidelines. "Am I under arrest, or am I free to go?" Since a photograph is copyright-protected simply through the act of creation, destruction of a photograph is (1) destruction of your personal property, and (2) destruction of legal evidence. The cop needs to be reminded as gently as possible that there are two options and that you know this: they arrest you (securing all evidence safely) or wave goodbye.
Re:Depends on the cop (Score:5, Informative)
I'd agree with everything you said and would only add the following link for a PDF outlining Photographer's Rights:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]
I keep a printed copy in my camera bag in case I ever encounter an overzealous police officer or security guard. (I wouldn't be rude about it, but would politely refer to the sheet detailing what my rights are.)
Re:Depends on the cop (Score:5, Insightful)
"Depends on the cop" is right. Considering the disparity in power, you should think very carefully about the stakes before you make a cop aware that you are recording his or her actions. At the very least, it will piss them off, and pissed off cops are nothing you want to deal with. If you're just being pulled over for speeding (and you're white and sober), just being pleasant and respectful (read: kissing a little ass) will go a long way.
Mind you, I think it's a good thing for citizens to videotape police actions. But cops are dangerous and angry cops are even more dangerous, and you shouldn't play with that kind of danger. Bear in mind the number of occasions that cops have been videotaped beating the holy living hell out of somebody and then gotten off scot-free. If you're going to take on the system, don't do it casually. By all means, if you see injustice, take it on -- but do so with forethought and a careful consideration of the risks you expose yourself to. It's not a game, and the consequences can be pretty serious. Choose your battles wisely.
The short version: If your main motivation is to be an annoying wiseass, start a blog instead.
Re:Depends on the cop (Score:5, Interesting)
It will also depend on the state. In some states recording video is totally legal but audio requires permission.
I have a brother in law that is a police officer and a good friend that is one also.
The amount of crap they have to take is amazing.
My brother in law as called out on a call because of "Pinching". I don't mean some stealing but two women at a Christmas sale started to pinch one another!
He also had to deal with a man that was trying to commit suicide by cop. He tired to kill himself and my brother in law stopped him. The guy then sued the police because he suffered emotional trauma when my BIL tackled him and took away the gun.
Sorry folks but the vast majority of the police offers I have had dealing with have been just normal people doing a crappy job the best that they can.
My brother in law is in trouble with the town officials because he refused to discipline an officer under him.
What did the cop do? Well during an armed robbery being committed by a minor the cop told the kid with the gun too "Drop the f'ing gun".
The officer was going to be suspended for using foul language in front of a minor. A minor with a gun holding up a store mind you but still a minor.
Now consider all of history (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone the authorities swore did something wrong.
And it gets worse- humans actively remap their memories to make them feel better. 10 years after these incidents, the police probably really DO believe their initial lies.
I've seen it in others and I've seen it in myself and I'm more careful of it than most (or at least I remember that I am! ;) )
Police should be required to video tape everything they do and lack of video evidence should be a strong case against them.
People (not just police) have been shown to lie a lot more than we used to think. We need to change our systems of justice to fit reality.
don't inform the cop you're recording him. (Score:5, Informative)
"I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over."
Beats me, but apparently it's more fun (and career-lethal) to film him without notification [liveleak.com].
Re:don't inform the cop you're recording him. (Score:5, Funny)
What's funny is at first I assumed your were answering the question as opposed to admitting ignorance.
illegal in some states to do that (Score:5, Informative)
In some states it is illegal to film a government official.
Not that it will help them once it gets on youtube, but first you have to get it on youtube and not confiscated by the police.
What would you do if you filmed a cop beating someone and they asked for the video camera? If you answered anything but give the camera over, expect to be in pain and most likely jail.
Shooting back (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder why they didn't mention Shooting Back [btselem.org]?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried this - And was searched as a terrorist (Score:5, Interesting)
I was catching a bus from Walthamstow Bus Station, part of a busy transport interchange in East London. On my way I saw the police kicking the living crap out of someone. I went up to start filming, and was told by a "Community Support" [wikipedia.org] officer not to take pictures. I asked what law I was violating, and was met with the witty answer of "the law that says you can't film that over there". Right then. Seeing no point in continuing this conversation while the man continued to be smashed around by the Metropolitan Police, I went to the other side of a toughened glass barrier, stood on some chairs and started filming from there. It was at this point that I was grabbed by two officers and stopped and searched under the terrorism act, 2004. Unfortunately, as I shut the shutter on my K800i, all footage was lost :(
They're actually allowed to arbitrarily search anyone in London under this law, arbitrarily, as it's designated a zone of terrorist threat or somesuch. The mistake the officer searching me (whos full details I do have) claimed that I had been filming covertly. Standing on a chair holding a camera above my head, I'd not felt this to be covert, so I submitted the "stop and account" slip to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who handed the investigation back to the local force, who stalled the investigation for long enough that the CCTV had been erased!
The rest is history, I'm afraid. There are wranglings going on with my MP regarding this, but should I be in such a position again I'll be damn sure to make certain that the footage is saved.
rodney king proved this in 1991 (Score:5, Insightful)
citizens with cameras is an idea that destroys the outdated orwellian dystopian fantasy so many posit as their philosophical starting point when evaluating trends in the modern world
"big brother" as a viable concept is dead. "1984" is pure fiction. it will never come to pass. the citizens merely use the government's own tactics and technology against them
long live "little brother"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King [wikipedia.org]
The Smaller Cameras Get (Score:3, Insightful)
The smaller cameras get, the more common this is going to become.
Security guards and such get all bent out of shape if you try to take a picture inside of a mall. Cops get all bent out of shape when you record them being cops. But when the camera is so small that it can't be easily spotted...
Seussveillance (Score:5, Funny)
Forget Sousveillance, you want Seussveillance. You have to wear a big long stripey jumper and speak in rhymes.
'Excuse me officer, would you mind,
would I be fined, maligned or confined,
if I were to tape your daily grind?
Sir, I'd like to believe,
that you and me we've
both come to perceive
That your job affords you - the responsibility to be true!
(I couldn't conceive of a way you'd
deceive me my friend, aggreive or bereave!)
A hasty repreive!; My hypothetical weave
does you an injustice. (And speaking of justice)
Enough of confession: let's return to my question.
I got impression of obsession with oppression.
Is this a true fact, or idle digression?
Would recording your good self be found a transgression?
Am I a free man?
or need I grab my tape, my cape and escape?'
Recording others (Score:3, Insightful)
I've often wondered about this... Whenever I call my credit card company, utility companies, etc. the first thing you hear on the call is "this call may be recorded...." Does that give me implicit permission to record the call without notifying whoever I end up talking to? It doesn't say "this call may be recorded by Acme corporation for training purposes but you do not have permission to record this call".
I wonder if such an assumption can be made when it comes to getting pulled over by the police, etc. It seems to be common knowledge that a lot of police cars are now equipped with cameras, so is there any reason I, as a private citizen, couldn't hook up a similar video camera to my dashboard that records video & sound just like a cop car, and not even bother to tell an officer who happens to pull me over.
Traffic Stops (Score:3, Informative)
This is why they have cameras in most cars now, in a sealed box that the patrol officer cant get into.
Hard to fake the evidence when you get get to it. It serves to watch *both* parities for when they end up in court.
When I was around 8 years old... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Light of Other Days (Score:3, Informative)
This is beginning to remind me of the story "The Light of Other Days". In it the technology is discovered to allow anyone to view someone else, no mater where they are (Wormhole CAM). The concept of privacy is completely destroyed.
Here in Portland, OR... (Score:3, Interesting)
...the cops take an extreme dislike to perfectly legal citizens who employ any sort of cop-watch, especially so with cameras. The link below is a video beginning with a citizen filming the abject harassment of two citizens on the street in an upscale part of downtown, ending with the cops confiscating his camera.
http://blip.tv/file/778170
The Case of Brett Darrow (Score:5, Informative)
Q. I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over.
A. The case of Brett Darrow, Missouri:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2715792117793977759& [google.com]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5591813350444656353&q=source:010563705515560372049&hl=en [google.com]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/100907Motorist.htm [prisonplanet.com]
Any other questions?, I got a whole folder dedicated to "official" ABUSE.
Related:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/128000201931?r=261000401931#261000401931 [arstechnica.com]
EyeFi to the Rescue (product plug) (Score:4, Informative)
The Eye-Fi products [www.eye.fi] will help anyone in a situation where pictures are attempted to be deleted from a camera. By buffering images then transmitting pictures to the internet via WiFi, you can effectively remove the ability for people to confiscate film or memory cards.
All you need is a near-by wifi station... Which isn't too hard, but it would be awesome if WiFi devices (phones) had client that could receive as well. You and your friend could embed in a crowd and if the photographer is discovered, your friend's cell phone could be the backup. With the iphone, and other phones you could then automatically email images to others in near-real time...
The eyefi also somewhat supports GPS tagging too, which may help with authenticity.
(I am not affiliated with Eye-fi in anyway, other than having one on my wish-list)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have one guy and one camera this is a possibility, but when you have a situation where there are dozens of cameras...
Even now most cell phones do video. Think what it will be like in 10 years. Look at what services like YouTube have done to peoples reflexive camera response; you have the camera, and you have a public forum to air the footage, so you whip that camera out at the least provokation, at the mere possibility that you might see something worth recording.
The government has a tiny fraction of the recording resources of the population, and they have more and more dangerous secrets. Who has the most to be afraid of in this situation?