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.
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: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.
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].
Don't record audio in Pennsylvania (Score:1, Informative)
It's illegal to record audio in Pennsylvania without the permission of everyone involved. A car with two people was pulled over. The policeman noticed the passenger was running his video camera and asked the passenger if he was recording audio as well as video. The passenger was arrested.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:You wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Anybody remember Rodney King (Score:2, Informative)
If a cop lies in court, he will get away with it unless you have ironclad proof of it. One good video, even if it doesn't result in the cop going to jail, can really stir up public indignation and put the heat where it needs to be put.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King [wikipedia.org]
The other example that immediately springs to mind is the guy getting tasered to death at the Vancouver airport. That may have turned the tide toward preventing every cop from getting a taser. Now the public is really sensitive and taser stories get front page coverage.
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: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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
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:You wonder? (Score:2, Informative)
I've had to deal with Judges that don't follow the law, and DA's that falsify information. (I've set a president in the state where a DA can present false information, which is objected to, and the defense is not permitted to rebut it)
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.
cop charges you w/wiretapping charges,that's what (Score:2, Informative)
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: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, 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
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.)
recording of a crazed cop (Score:2, Informative)
This is what happened in Missouri:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp
or http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/19812-video-transcript-guy-pulled-over-crazy.html
Re:You wonder? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah? What country does this happen in? It certainly isn't the US. I've been in LE for years and never seen or even heard of anything even approaching this level of misconduct. People love to paint law enforcement as some kind of maniacal, civil-rights violating machine and use them for their authority-hating diatribes. That simply isn't the case and, quite frankly, it gets old hearing it. I do my job with the utmost professionalism and have never had any kind of reprimand regarding conduct. As a matter of fact, all complaints I have EVER seen come into the department have been almost immediately ruled as unfounded when the video/audio is reviewed and found to basically be the opposite of what some d-bag with dollar signs in the eyes has alleged.
"I wonder what happens if you inform a cop that you are recording him when he pulls you over."
Outside the fantasy land of anti-establishment hippies, the response would be something like, "Oh why don't you save your batteries, there are already multiple recording devices active that, unlike yours, include the violation you are being stopped for."
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.
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.
Re:You wonder? (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]:
St. Louis - Here's what happens (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:You wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
Some have theories as to why the Police are becoming more corrupt:
JACK NICHOLSON: My point of view, while extremely cogent, is unpopular.
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Which is?
JACK NICHOLSON: That the repressive nature of the legalities vis-a-vis drugs are destroying the legal system and corrupting the police system.
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Let's talk about acting for a minute."
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/303a.htm [mcwilliams.com]
Re:You wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
Anonymous?
Whatever you say, 121.43.201.19.
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:It so rare... (Score:3, Informative)
To answer my earlier question: "What is the evidence?"
Re:You wonder? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You wonder? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
American Legal Guide to Recording Telephone Conv (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm [callcorder.com]
This varies from state to state. The following is also helpful for noting particular oddities by state:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording [citmedialaw.org]
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html [rcfp.org]
If anyone knows if this covers video recording as well and if it doesn't has a link, please let me know. I like keeping a list of such things.
Re:You wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Authoritarianism is a mental virus (Score:3, Informative)
Is locking someone up punishment, is it an attempt at rehabilitation, or is it simply a means of temporarily removing a danger to society? I think it has been all three to various degrees throughout history and in different cultures.
Punishment itself can be seen as one of two things. It can be a form of rehabilitation, in which case we must judge it on its merits as a form of behavior modification, and I refer you to the works of B.F Skinner and other behaviorists for a treatment of that subject.
But it can also be seen as a form of moral righting of wrongs itself, as balancing things out on some kind of karmic level, and it is here the danger lies. There is no way for a finite intelligence to know if and how the universe is out of balance in a moral sense. Many philosophies posit that the universe can't be out of balance, and most religions say it isn't our place to judge God's creation and plan.
And as far as removing a proven danger from society, I have no problem with that at all. That isn't making a moral judgment, it is making a judgment based on physical safety concerns. Execution I oppose on purely practical grounds, one can never be absolutely certain of a person's guilt. You can't know if you might need them some day. And you can't know if someone can be rehabilitated and made a useful member of society, so it pays to keep people around.
Re:Quick Tip About Kids (Score:3, Informative)
This is factually wrong. It -is- true that you aren't allowed to strike anyone, child or not. But there are exceptions, one of them is to avoid larger consequences, be it in self-defence or in defence of others.
There are -lots- of things you aren't allowed to do, generally, but which is nevertheless perfectly LEGAL in an emergency.
For example, normally you can't trespass. Guess what, if a house is burning and you smash trough a window to search for people in the house -- you're NOT guilty of trespass. (also not "destruction of property" for breaking the window or similar)