Recording the Police 515
Bruce Schneier says "I've written a lot on the 'War on Photography,' where normal people are harassed as potential terrorists for taking pictures of things in public. This article is different; it's about recording the police: Allison's predicament is an extreme example of a growing and disturbing trend. As citizens increase their scrutiny of law enforcement officials through technologies such as cell phones..."
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4, Interesting)
It will take conscientious effort by a large part of the population to peacefully reverse this disturbing trend.
But that is the rule of law. It only wouldn't be if you couldn't do that under the law.
The rule of law also includes your right to question the actions of the police before a judge.
And many jurisdictions have official boards of citizens who listen to complaints about the police and can cause much grief to the police hierarchy [google.com] if the rank-and-file are abusing their badges.
But that doesn't stop perps who get their necks stepped on from shouting "police brutality!" even though they deserve it.
Police side of things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Its not the video... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rule of Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that rarely happens, but apparently the current DoJ is changing the rules to increase the rate. [wsj.com]
Re:There is no expectation of privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
The sad thing is one day I might not be able to live in it. I am sliding more and more into a warrior's philosophy each day... I try to stay out of it, but one day I'm going to look around and realize I can't let things be the way they are.
It doesn't matter. The whole impact of my existence is zero; if I die today it's fine. Never had a girlfriend, no kids, no need for that sort of thing; and I've completely rejected the part of society directly connected to me in the biological tree. and anyone tied to them usefully in the association graph.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:3, Interesting)
And most people are bloodthirsty bastards who make snap judgments and love to see police beatings (see: Cops) and would happily have public hangings for even minor offenses without a moment's thought.
--Jeremy
Re:Rule of Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Targeted application of laws which are not generally enforced should be the most terrifying thing in the world to you if you worry about a police state evolving. The general lack of enforcement means that the public is unaware and/or unconcerned about the law, meaning penalties can be stiff, and that violations are common because the general public doesn't know any better. The upshot being that nearly anyone the police or judiciary doesn't like can be thrown into prison for decades, which is practically the definition of a police state, and the scary thing is that it already exists in the good old US of A. The wiretap laws are hardly the most commonly used for this purpose, but the ridiculous penalties (can easily be 100 years in prison if you have multiple offenses) make it one of the most terrifying.
Parent is absolutely right. I think the rule should be that ALL laws are applied in order of their severity at all times.
If there was a stupid law about being drunk in public and everyone who walked from a bar into a cab got a ticket during that 5ft walk... I bet the laws would be changed in a hurry. Yet, as it stands, a cop can selectively apply these ridiculous laws to effectively harass anyone they want.
The only way laws change is if the general public stands up to them. If they cherry pick people to abuse then they mostly go unnoticed.
Re:Simplified (Score:1, Interesting)
What do you mean we don't work for the police? But.. but... They do a hard job with little pay! They save our lives by beating the shit out of black people! They protect us against terrorism by taking away your computer for watching a video of two lesbians engaged in the act of fisting (that's perverted, it's a proven scientific fact, and perverts are all terrorists)! They stop thugs by being rude and disrespectful to us when they ask us questions! And the law is in their hands, it's theirs, it belongs to them. And I'm sure they are much better human beings than we are, if they were not superior they would not be allowed to be police officers, would they?
I don't know fro which planet you come from... We SHOULD work for the police. We're safe, free and happy thanks to them.
Re:and we should also... (Score:1, Interesting)
Your strawman called. He's been abused enough and wants to go home now.
None of my right-wing friends have ever held a "cops can do no wrong" agenda-driven viewpoint. As far as I can tell, the gulf exists primarily between the "if a cop does anything that looks rough it MUST BE ABUSE" viewpoint and the "well, you don't really know all the details leading up to the problem that put said 'victim' in a position to draw the 'abuse' they maybe rightly suffered" viewpoint. Case in point is all the dark horse instigators the left places at right-wing events with the sole intention of causing an "incident" that might reflect badly on the organizers. None of these shenanigans would work if the media actually did their jobs and provided honest investigative journalism instead of just the presentation of foregone conclusions. A 30-second video tells the entire story, AMIRITE?
Before you lash out, consider that we're no longer talking about Rodney King types of abuse; we're talking about a random bump or harsh language or some other silly shit that you wouldn't even get in trouble for in high school. It's all about the any-violence-is-evil crowd making it so you can't have an honest fisticuffs now and then when people bite off more than they can chew.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember "perp = perpetrator != suspect != citizen". It's all right to refer to the "perpetrator of a crime" as a fill in the blank when you don't know who did the crime, but when referring to an actual person, they are at best a suspect. And only if you actually suspect them of committing a crime.
I know "perp" sounds cool, but if used improperly it is prejudicial to justice.
Re:Simplified (Score:5, Interesting)
In the British tradition, a police constable is a person who is paid to do the same duty he owes to the peace as a private citizen. We all have the duty to chase down robbers, and we just had a court case in Toronto (Canada) that underscored a shopkeeper's right to chase down, arrest and hold a thief for the police.
Regrettably, in some jurisdictions, including mine, a police constable is privileged and armed, without being under the same stringent laws as a member of the military.
Returning to the point of the article, some few wold like to prevent themselves from being photographed. They haven't succeeded, and one constable was just charged for beating up a spectator at the G20 summit, courtesy of citizens who did their duty and recorded the assault and provided the films to the newspapers, youtube and the courts.
--dave
Re:In Soviet Russa (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey! My grandmother was deported to Siberia, you insensitive clod!!
No. Really. I'm 100% serious. Not kidding at all. Her father was a bit of a hero during the earlier Polish-Bolshevik war - a little effort near the village of Ladycyzn (which I think is now in the Ukraine and called something else) where some big machine gun caissons had overturned so he went into the village to recruit some help and subsequently saved a good chunk of the Polish cavalry when they came high-tailing it back west in retreat. Naturally, as a totalitarian regime I suppose you wouldn't want that sort of guy around when you're occupying a country, retired or otherwise. Same for the family.
I understand she totally freaked everyone out when she and her sister visited, showed up in town again 60 years later. Think "really tiny small rural nowhere farming village". But I digress. Carry on, gentlemen.
Re:I don't need privacy if I can record. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was looking for a place to put this, just to make sure somebody records it as "prior art [wikipedia.org]". Every vehicle and potentially non-vehicle items, should be capable of transmitting fail-safe video uploads to a public server. That server should receive video which is made public at any instance where, after a pre-set time, if a password is not entered, the site will automatically make it public.
As an example, many if not most cars would have at least four cameras which constantly record audio and video which are constantly uploaded to a internet server. That video remains private so long as a password is entered at an appropriate time, but becomes public if it is not. Non-public video is available with the password for download for a specific period of time then deleted by the host. If you forget your password, or deliberately pick an invisible password, your video becomes public without any interaction on your part. Every dangerous driving episode you witness is potentially evidence against the perpetrator, but so is every interaction you have with anybody, police included.
Here's how I imagine a hypothetical routine traffic stop proceeding in one of two ways, Scenario One:
...(time passes)
...(time passes) ... and as shown by Ever Vigilant surveillance recordings presented by a stopped speeder, courtesy beco
Officer: License and registration please.
Driver: Here you are officer, and though it may be legal not to, as a courtesy, I would like to draw your attention to the "Ever Vigilant" stickers on my car. These stickers indicate the cameras which record all activity in the vicinity of my car. My interactions with law enforcement have always been good, and I expect this record to show the same.
Officer: This is not a public record and I'm giving you a lawful order to desist recording now.
Driver: I do not have the ability to cease recording and the legal rights to do so are defended by the "Ever Vigilant" corporation, but I will gladly comply with any lawful requests that I can. As you can see, I'm reading from the script provided on the sticker on my dashboard.
Officer: Thank you for making the situation clear. I am now ordering you to leave your vehicle and accompany me to my patrol car.
Driver: As advised by "Ever Vigilant" I will do so but must ask, is there a reason you cannot continue providing the public service you provide within the scope of the recording devices provided by "Ever Vigilant" equipment?
Officer: Leave your vehicle now.
Jury: We find the officer guilty of the following offenses...
Scenario two:
Officer: License and registration please.
Driver: Here you are officer, and though it may be legal not to, as a courtesy, I would like to draw your attention to the "Ever Vigilant" stickers on my car. These stickers indicate the cameras which record all activity in the vicinity of my car. My interactions with law enforcement have always been good, and I expect this record to show the same.
Officer: Thank you for saying so, but officers of Dallas County are trained to notice such things, and of course consent even if not legally required to recordings. Thank you for your license and registration, do you know why I pulled you over today?
Driver: You're welcome, but I don't know why you pulled me over.
Officer: Our radar equipment recorded you exceeding the speed limit, is there an emergency which would require you to exceed the speed limit today?
Driver: I wasn't aware that I was breaking any laws, but I hope that the "Ever Vigilant" software will show that I was following a reasonable application of the law. (You may note that I'm reading a sticker on my dashboad as recommended by "Ever Vigliant.")
Officer: I see that, please wait in your car.
(non-contest plea, video public, and don't laugh, I personally appreciate obvious courtesy and training even if guilty of an offense)
Commanding officer:
Re:There is no expectation of privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to have forgotten that in America we have something called Freedom of Speech. This includes saying I disagree with the government, and I'm going to work to change it in any way possible. America was born out of "terrorist" actions performed by "common criminals" and "dissidents", I apparently must also remind you.
I will agree with one thing Elbereth said. Don't stock up on ammo and fertilizer. Learn to make it yourself. That way, if the government does go totalitarian, you aren't dependent on others.