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..."
In Soviet Russa (Score:5, Funny)
Police deports your first post to siberia.
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.
Rule of Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:5, Informative)
It stops being the rule of law and becomes the rule of man when you cannot punish the prosecutor for abusing his power.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Most citizen review boards are rubber stamps for the police leadership, exonerating police brutality and OKing police shootings.
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding. Here in Omaha we had an independent police auditor. She had the audacity to actually do her job, and issued a report saying that the Omaha Police disproportionately pull over black people. The mayor promptly fired her and eliminated the position.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:5, Informative)
Last city I lived in with alot of police shootings of civilian non suspects was Portland Oregon.
Where we have things like the police shooting unarmed people in the back.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/family_of_aaron_campbell_files.html [oregonlive.com]
"Campbell, 25, was shot in an apartment parking lot in North Portland. Police had been called to the scene on a report of a suicidal man who was armed. Campbell came out of the apartment with his hands behind his head, walking backward toward police, witnesses said. Police, who said he ignored commands to put his hands up, hit him with six beanbag rounds. Frashour then hit him in the back, firing the fatal shot with his AR-15 rifle. The officer said he saw Campbell reaching with both hands toward the back waistband of his pants and thought he might be reaching for a gun."
But I'm sure to you everyone is a "perp".
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4, Insightful)
"
But I'm sure to you everyone is a "perp".
I am not a cop, but I am dating one. Having done ride alongs I understand the other side of this. It really sucks when a you are not sure a perp has a gun or not - and sometime they do - and sometimes cops get shot.
When a suspect does not obey orders, and could potentially be going for a weapon, Cops get scared. Abuse of authority? Perhaps. Reasonable justifiable fear? YES.
Some cop shootings are justified, some are not. Cops are people. People get scared. Somehow people seem to think that Cops have this mythical "spidey sense" and they can just know what is actually going on and judge the situations accordingly. They don't. They also, unfortunately spend a great deal of time if working on patrol dealing with lots of people who are belligerent and dangerous.
Unfortunately, this makes them jaded.
Are there bad cops? Yes. Just as there are good and bad people. Cops are people. People make mistakes.
Having said all that, if my GF was involved in a shooting, I would much rather it be her who pulled the trigger. Not the perp.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said all that, if my GF was involved in a shooting, I would much rather it be her who pulled the trigger. Not the perp.
Of course you would prefer that. And the family of the individual who was shot would prefer the other outcome. This is not about emotions.
If policemen/women shoot people for inappropriate reasons, they need to answer for it in criminal court, the same as anybody else. What's unfortunate is that we see lying and coverups that sometimes happen among "brother officers" to cover each other's backs -- a real shame. That's where citizen recording can promote justice and help fix the system.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. However, many civilians watching some of the tapes draw inappropriate conclusions regarding the outcomes.
They pass judgments on the officers without the proper context.
That's what trials are for. If the jury is leaping to conclusions, have your defense attorney provide the proper context. If it's good enough for citizens, it's good enough for cops.
I don't know if the need for a criminal court is always needed
Yes, always. The review boards do nothing but whitewash criminal conduct. A cop should go through the same process as everyone else. If it's a justifiable shooting, you can present that as a defense. Oh, and cops should be required to use public defenders. Again, if they are good enough for us, they're good enough for everyone else.
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4)
The question that raises would we have more dead cops if they worried about trials even when they feel justified?
Would we have more dead civilians if cops aren't worried about being punished for shooting inappropriately?
Would a jury of their peers be valid given that the peers would be civilians?
Peers, in 18th century speak, means "not nobility". The phrase is a carry over from the Magna Carta, and doesn't mean much in America where there are no nobles. At least in theory, we are all equal in the eyes of the law.
I am not saying I don't think courts and trials for shooting are a bad idea - on the contrary - but I am wondering how we come up with a situation where we can ensure fairness for everyone involved. I am not entirely convinced at this point that a trial jury is the right option yet.
Put the cops through the same legal system everyone goes through. That way the cops have incentive to make the process as fair as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Cops are held to a higher standard. That's supposed to come along with those special rights and weapons they're given. They should not be as uncertain and scared in situations like that as the rest of us. If they want to be as scared and trigger-happy as the rest of us "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to kill
Re: (Score:3)
Cops are held to a higher standard. That's supposed to come along with those special rights and weapons they're given. They should not be as uncertain and scared in situations like that as the rest of us. If they want to be as scared and trigger-happy as the rest of us "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to kill someone any more then the rest of us "people".
They should not be as uncertain and scared in situations like that? What? Are you suggesting Cops should be sociopaths?
How about this example - near my GF's house, 4 officers were shot in cold blood in a coffee house. They were drinking coffee. The assailant got away, and the assailant was known to have the "death by cop" wish. One of the dead officers was a friend of hers.
Think about that - some people want to die, so their solution is "death by cop" because they don't have the will to just commit regular
Re:Rule of Law (Score:4, Insightful)
How about this example - near my GF's house, 4 officers were shot in cold blood in a coffee house. They were drinking coffee. The assailant got away, and the assailant was known to have the "death by cop" wish. One of the dead officers was a friend of hers.
That's the Lakewood shooting. I still don't feel any sympathy.
"Death by cop" is only a "thing" because the police have this nasty habit of committing senseless violent acts and cold-blooded murder while hiding behind their infamous "blue wall of silence".
Take the recent unprovoked cold-blooded murder of John T. Williams for example. (There are tons of other examples -- the vast majority of the time, the murderous cops get away with their crimes.)
(Recently released footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE [youtube.com])
Mr. Williams, a partially deaf elderly man, was shot 5 times in the side by a police officer less than 30 seconds after leaving his cruiser.
The blood-thirsty officer, Ian Birk, has been on paid administrative leave since the incident.
If you're not a cop, and you kill someone, you spend time in jail awaiting trial. If you're a cop, you get paid vacation while the "incident" is "investigated" by your cop buddies.
If the police are afraid to leave the house in uniform, it's their own fault. The constant abuses perpetrated against the public -- which habitually go unpunished -- is exactly what has caused the tension between law enforcement and the citizenry.
When that tension turns violent and a cop gets hurt, I say that's fair. Perhaps they'll learn that with the power they've been granted comes responsibility and that the People will no longer tolerate the abuse of the rights and privileges we entrusted to them.
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: (Score:3)
"
When a suspect does not obey orders, and could potentially be going for a weapon, Cops get scared
Cops get "scared" because they refuse to even consider the possibililty that the suspect is deaf, wearing ear plugs, or doesn't speak the same language as the cops. Deaf people get beat up and shot all the time for "not following a cop's orders". Get a clue.
Cops get beat up and shot all the time for trying to be nice and lenient. Get a clue.
Re: (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, Insightful)
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.
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:Rule of Law (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you stop a sober moron from doing the same?
Re: (Score:3)
How about make laws that target the behavior and not the condition of the person doing the behavior?
So would it be ok if I wandered into the streets or yelled at passer-bys while stone cold sober?
I now have an arrest record from college. West Lafayette likes to selectively enforce the Public Intoxication laws. No other college student I've talked to from any where else has laws like this. Heck some states such as Nevada it's actually illegal to be prosecuted for being drunk in public.
And of course everyone
How I handle it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of this, I will consider the police and prosecutors to be liars until proven otherwise.
If the cop had to shoot a guy because "he was resisting arrest", the cop better have an unaltered video of it happening because I will consider him to be a liar without it. You see all these type of cases [wpix.com] in news where all the police cameras failed at the same time and it happens when the police used questionable force on a suspect.
It's one sided. Only they are allowed to video and as a result, they can control which video is available.
Until this horseshit of prosecuting citizens for recording of police ends, then as far as I'm concerned, the police are lying until proven otherwise.
Someone gets their ass kicked by the cops, well there better be video showing that it was necessary.
If the cops don't like it, then they can get another job. My local police are constantly turning applicants away so there's no problem replacing any cry baby cop who says "it's rough out there!".
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. A daily log of which cameras are malfunctioning should be kept. At the end of each day, that log should be handed over to a 3rd party for safe keeping.
It should then be assumed that every camera not in that log was functioning, and that if it SHOULD have caught evidence then it did, and that the evidence has been destroyed. If footage of an incident is 'missing' it should be assumed that the party in posession of it destroyed it because it was unfavourable to them (and so make any chance of a co
Re: (Score:3)
You see all these type of cases in news where all the police cameras failed at the same time and it happens when the police used questionable force on a suspect.
Every button on an officer's uniform should be a mini-cam. I'd be happy with them driving google cars too. They all can't fail then...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately your opinion doesn't matter to them. You cant hassle them and throw them in jail. You can't give them a ticket for whatever you feel like. You can't beat them senseless and claim they were resisting arrest. they don't give a shit if you think they are liars and should be fired. And they most certainly wont be fired because you think they should be.
The imbalance of power and lack of checks is sickening.
Re: (Score:3)
And look at Officer Bubbles. The fucker doesn't even know the difference between assault and battery.
I mean, dustiest table in Pompeii, but still, it's a basic split in law.
There is no expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no expectation of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
I just heard on the radio today that cops arrested some Maryland Libertarians who were trying to collect signatures to appear on the state ballot. The LP members were asked to stop, and then when one of them whipped out a camera to document the unconstitutional limitation (the MD SC already ruled in favor of ACORN that petitioning is legal), the cops arrested them for assault.
This is the second time. About two weeks ago a motorcyclist with a helmet cam was arrested when he posted a traffic stop on youtube. The cop had pulled a gun on the citizen w/o identifying himself AS a cop (he was plain clothes), and then the Police Bureau arrested the man after the Chief saw the video online. It seems Maryland is turning into a tyranny.
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:There is no expectation of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, what you're saying sounds very close to, "I am a ticking time bomb." It would behoove you to not state such things publicly, in a forum where posts can not be deleted. If I were an FBI agent, I'd start a file on you, just from that post. You sound like a potential terrorist, from the point of view of a government agent.
And, for everyone else's sake, please don't stock up on ammo and fertilizer.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all cops know this law. [purdueexponent.org]
The camera man wasn't in the cops face. He wasn't in the face of the emergency personel. This wouldn't have made it to youtube or the cover of our school's paper if the cop didn't act like he did.
The police chief came out later and said the cameraman was in the right. But that doesn't prevent the cop from acting like an asshole the entire time. The cameraman was physically shaking from being intimidated.
Foul Bruce - Link to Actual Article (Score:5, Insightful)
The link is to a stub article with no real content on Bruce's blog that just points to the real article:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras [reason.com]
Bruce has useful articles sometimes but it isn't any more legitimate for Bruce to use his blog as gateway page to real articles than anyone else trying to scam hits for content that isn't theirs.
Re:Foul Bruce - Link to Actual Article (Score:4, Insightful)
The link is to a stub article with no real content on Bruce's blog that just points to the real article:
I disagree. His commentary about how privacy for the powerful decreases overall liberty while privacy for the common man increase liberty is a very succinct and insightful analysis. It may even be more important than the narrow topic of stupid legal tricks regarding the recording of on-duty cops.
Radley Balko has written a lot more about this. (Score:4, Informative)
Start here.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/21/how-to-record-the-cops [reason.com]
Chicago Artist Faces 15 Years (Score:5, Informative)
The Chicago artist Chris Drew was charged with a felony and faces 15 years imprisonment for making an audio recording of his own arrest:
http://www.c-drew.com/blog
http://www.wellesparkbulldog.com/news/chris-drew-granted-a-continuance-in-free-speech-trial
http://chilaborarts.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/why-is-it-a-felony-to-record-your-own-arrest-c-drew/
Re: (Score:3)
The Chicago artist Chris Drew was charged with a felony and faces 15 years imprisonment for making an audio recording of his own arrest:
http://www.c-drew.com/blog
http://www.wellesparkbulldog.com/news/chris-drew-granted-a-continuance-in-free-speech-trial
http://chilaborarts.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/why-is-it-a-felony-to-record-your-own-arrest-c-drew/
At least this was someone that was consciously challenging a probably unjust, unconstitutional law, as opposed to someone that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That said, I really hope the law is invalidated by the courts.
Not just wiretapping laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutors are able to get away with these bad faith prosecutions because of a doctrine called "prosecutorial immunity". We need a way to hold these prosecutors responsible for their actions, that will require the abolition of prosecutorial immunity.
Re:Not just wiretapping laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just wiretapping laws (Score:4, Insightful)
This is correct because courts have ruled in several states that recording a police officer in the process of a traffic stop or otherwise conducting his official duty on a public street is not a violation of the "all parties" wire tap laws, yet prosecutors keep bringing these charges.
I think it is kind of like the other crap in the legal system these days. As the little guy you might be 100% in the right but since you have comparatively very limited resources they bank on people being too afraid to having to spend tons of money proving their innocence. So they get to make it more or less illegal without the actual political blow back of making it illegal.
Re:Not just wiretapping laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally speaking, prosecutorial immunity is a) applied to civil, not criminal, offenses, and b) does not cover acts that prosecutor knows or should know are illegal.
What's needed is somebody, like Allison, to dig in their heels and push it and push it, until it gets to the Supreme Court, where he will win.
And if you want prosecutors put in prison for abusing their power, vote for people who will do so. Make it your only issue, and get your neighbors involved, too. If you won't, because "it won't do any good," you're part of the problem.
Re:Not just wiretapping laws (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't be troubled to stand up for your rights, you have none, and deserve none. People like you are the reason politicians (and corrupt cops and prosecutors) know they can get away with, literally, murder. Enjoy your utopia.
You're violating Contempt Laws (Score:3)
Contempt of cop that is.
It's video such as... (Score:4, Insightful)
...this of harassment by the Detroit PD [examiner.com] which is the reason why our gov't officials want to make videotaping of LEOs [thefirearmsforum.com] illegal.
Yet further evidence of our (as in US) slow slip into the grips of a police state.
Re:It's video such as... (Score:5, Insightful)
Police side of things. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play.
That assumes the video doesn't mysteriously go missing or the camera doesn't mysteriously malfunction during crucial moments. Both have happened before.
The police can argue context and the benefit of the doubt can be given. However, some video is quite c
Re:Police side of things. (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes the video doesn't mysteriously go missing or the camera doesn't mysteriously malfunction during crucial moments. Both have happened before.
Right, but the aspect where police can record themselves is complemented by the public being able to record them as well. We need -both-.
That way if the "public" produces video that casts the police in a bad light, the police can contribute their video that puts it into context. There is nothing the public will be able to record that that will harm an innocent officer because he'll have his own "alibi tape". And the argument against the public recording them goes out the window.
Now your comment that police may withhold video that is 'damaging' to their position is bang on, but then we'll have the public recording to work from. And if the police camera that exonerates them "failed at that crucial moment"... the courts can sort it out, with an annotation that perhaps they should invest in cameras that "work better" for their own protection.
Re:Police side of things. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer.
Then a court of law will sort it out.
Your cop friend, frankly, sounds like a thin-blue-line, don't-mess-with-the-brotherhood asshole. He should realize that accountability is a *good* thing. Well, assuming he cared about cops actually being held accountable.
I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play
Absolutely! As you say, there is a *very* obvious solution to this problem: When a cop is involved in a law enforcement action, *the police record themselves*. Problem solved.
But, of course, that would involve transparency, and cops actually, possibly being held accountable for their actions. And who really wants that?
Re:Police side of things. (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's the old "sure I kept clubbing him, but you gotta believe me, he resisted arrest twelve minutes before the camera started rolling" defense, eh?
Re:Police side of things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you apply a little logic that defense seems a lot more probable than 'I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong and the officer started clubbing me.'
It does, huh? Apparently you didn't watch any of the news coverage vis a vis the G20 demonstrations... innocent people beaten and/or arrested by cops rendered unidentifiable by their "safety" equipment, thus rendering them immune to prosecution.
In short: I trust a cop about as far as I can throw them. Anecdotal comments like those in the OP only make me *more* suspicious.
Re:Police side of things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? So a guy is on the ground and the cop is beating him, and beating him, and beating him, and nowhere is the suspect seen trying to resist except to cover his head with his arms so he won't be knocked unconscious, you're going to accept the defense that it's OK because we just happened to miss the part where the guy was resisting arrest? How long does a police officer have to beat a suspect before they're considered to be subdued? The argument doesn't even have to me "I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong" -- if I was on a jury watching the videotape, I would convict a police officer for beating a guy for twelve minutes even if I knew the guy had committed a crime.
Re:Police side of things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Context still matters (Score:3)
There's a couple reasons:
1) What force is appropriate depends on the situation. If you are standing peacefully, following all instructions, almost no force is appropriate. They can grab hold of you and handcuff you if you are being arrested, and guide you in to their car, but that is about it. Anything else is probably excessive since you are offering no resistance. However if you come at them swinging, well then a good deal more force is authorized. They can fight back to subdue you. Doesn't mean any amoun
Re:Context still matters (Score:5, Insightful)
You do have to account for human emotions. If you expect the police to be perfect inhuman robots that never react emotionally, then you are an idiot. So if someone punches a cop in the face and the cop hauls off and punches them, that has to be considered.
That only works one way. If I react emotionally to a cop, I'm going to jail for a long time, and that's the best I can hope for. Nothing will be considered. Worst case, the thin blue line arranges for me to be beat either by cop or by inmates at the holding cell.
So why is it that you only cut slack to the cop, who is trained, armed, and paid to be professional, and not to the citizen, who is none of those things, and will not get the benefit of the doubt?
Re: (Score:3)
No officer should be convicted of anything based on a video taken out of context. If a video taken out of context shows a cop appearing to do something illegal when he's really not, then he can explain it to the judge and jury during his trial, and if his explanation makes sense, he will be acquitted. If the person who made that recording did so maliciously, then the officer can sue for libel.
Why should the police have extra protections against false prosecutions beyond what every citizen has?
Why the citizens do it (Score:3)
Personally, I do not think it is all that surprising that so many people have a pro
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Police side of things. (Score:4, Insightful)
Arguably, if the cops are recording it too, they can show the context you didn't see in the shock vid on YouTube. I fail to see why the cops are against this; it's nice to be able to prove you're telling the truth when you have the public calling for your blood.
The police should embrace public video (Score:5, Insightful)
A recent Canadian survey shows that people, while they overwhelmingly still support the police, do not support them as much as they used to.
We have had several police abuses of power that came to light only because of video. The worst was the killing of a Polish man at Vancouver airport. Also we had the beating of innocent people during demonstrations at the recent G20 meeting in Toronto.
An officer has been charged in one of the G20 beatings because video made it possible to identify him.
The disturbing thing is that the police stood in solidarity with their brother officers in their own Mafia style code of silence. Only one officer could be found who was willing to identify those seen in the videos.
It won't take too many more incidents before the population turns on the police. They have had the benefit of the doubt until now. At some point that will end. The police, if they knew what is good for them, should embrace video as a tool for cleaning out the goons who should never be allowed to wear a badge.
The police are the face of the law itself (Score:4, Insightful)
The police do not want to be videotaped because after so many years of enforcing the sort of laws that created this situation, they know that there are people out there who want to discredit the police. The police know that their job is unpopular and they do not want the citizens to have the ability to make the police look bad. They know that they are not just going after bad people. They know that they are losing the support of the population, and that in many cases they are sent on patrol in areas where they have already lost that support.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason is we all slip up, or goof off, or whatever while working from time to time. None of us like the idea that something like that is forever committed to tape, subject to review and so on. I mean how would you feel if at work your employer wanted to watch you all the time? Not like cameras in the halls, but a camera on you, and on your computer, that all the time they wanted to record what you did, and have the ability to review it at any time for things they find fault with? I bet you'd be against that, even though you are probably a perfectly upstanding employee with nothing to hide overall. It is just uncomfortable the idea that you'll be recorded all the time and someone could look over everything you do.
It certainly is, but police officers have significant powers that a normal citizen does not have. They are someone who, in the course of their work, can employ, and even initiate, deadly force. And I think that this power alone is reason enough to allow citizens to record any interaction.
Illegal Wiretapping by the Gov? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not the video... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its not the video... (Score:5, Funny)
my advice would be wearing a T-shirt that states by being in your presence you are agreeing to be audio recorded.
Congratulations! You, sir, have just invented the EULA and won yourself the obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com].
Recording the Police (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the key to recording the Police is never to let Andy Summers solo for more than one measure. All the musicians went a little wild with the improvisations on the recent reunion tours and I think the songs suffered for the lack of restraint.
Re:Recording the Police (Score:4, Funny)
I believe the key to recording the Police is never to let Andy Summers solo for more than one measure. All the musicians went a little wild with the improvisations on the recent reunion tours and I think the songs suffered for the lack of restraint.
Also: Don't stand
Don't stand so
Don't stand so close to them
The one-way mirror state (Score:5, Informative)
There is a related opinion piece on Salon.com right now:
The government's one-way mirror [salon.com]
Well then, CHANGE the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
In many States, citizens possess the power of initiative, where laws can be presented directly to the people.
A law that decriminalizes recording law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties or acting during their working hours (and immunizes the same conduct) is something, I suspect, that the general voting population would support.
If you care, get out there, conspire with others and ACT. I guarantee that you will be surprised at your results.
Look at what the no-tax freaks accomplished. It IS possible--don't let the naysayers with their weak arguments keep you down. Look at the crime victims' bill of rights that many states now have--those generally come from citizen activity!
There is almost zero downside to political activism of this sort in the US. You won't get killed (like you might in some other country) and you are likely to face negligible negative consequences. The worst that can likely happen is that you will fail. But think of all that you will learn in the process: Media manipulation . . . public speaking . . . organization . . . logistics . . .. That experience will make you more effective the next time . . .
And then you will be a politician, my son.
Now, get off my lawn!
Maryland precedent (Score:3)
In Maryland, the police recently got their asses handed to them.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html [baltimoresun.com]
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Had you RTFA, you would know Schneier's reasoning for making it legal to record the police, and you would consequently realize that those reasons would not apply to your counter-examples, thus rendering your rebuttal useless.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's not kid ourselves; the reason you have cameras on store clerks is because store clerks steal. There's this stereotype that convenience stores are always getting robbed. Trust me, though, when I worked at a 7-Eleven as a kid, the camera wasn't pointed straight down at the register because that's where they thought I would be standing when I was robbed at gunpoint. The cameras are there for theft prevention, and nine times out of then the thief is an employee.
So if it's OK to use cameras to prevent store clerks from committing crimes (or document them), why is it not OK to use cameras to prevent police officers from committing crimes (or document them)? Not only do police officers sometimes commit pretty heinous crimes, including robbery and battery, but I would argue that just about any crime committed by a police officer is more serious than one committed by a store clerk, both because of the abuse of authority and the breakdown of societal values that inevitably occurs as a result.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then clearly they have nothing to hide.
Simplified (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting more to the point, a police officer holds the special right to employ coercion (meaning physical force) against you (not in defense, but in offense). No private individual or organization holds that right, and thus a police officer is automatically more deserving of extreme scrutiny (not to mention how they're supposed to be working "for us" in the first place, supposedly not the other way around).
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:Simplified (Score:5, Insightful)
However what you described is only what is on paper and leaves out the many unwritten laws. Such as that the police, being above the law, get to decide when the law is enforced and may always claim a misinterpretation of the law to justify what would otherwise be criminal acts.
My favorite example of this is the HB police officer who was stalking a coke using stripper and eventually stalked her leaving her work, pulled her over, blew his load on her face and sweater and then left. Despite the DA prosecuting him proving that he had ran her plates through CLETS 30 minutes prior to her leaving her work and his pulling her over, and despite catching him in several perjuring statements in court, the judge and jury some how ruled that because she was a stripper, she was a professional at using her body to manipulate men, and that she had some how manipulated the officer into the circumstances to get out of the traffic incident.
Of course, then there is the case in San Diego where they mobilized the swat team to apprehend a teenager over a stolen PS3 and when they went to arrest him at his parents house opened up with their automatic weapons through a frosted glass door because the kid "had a weapon" when he was holding the PS3 controller...
Or then there is the guy who is serving time in jail for shooting a cop when the police were serving a no-knock warrant on a criminal who had left the apartment complex 6 months prior, and whose apartment was on the other side of the complex. The police broke into his apartment, never announced who they were and the guy reacted what any rational person would do, he immediately grabbed a handgun and went to his infant babies room and shot at the first armed attacker that came after him.
Or how about the mayor who uses a separate last name from his wife who received a random shipment of drugs. And despite the FBI, DEA and the state police knowing that it was just a blind ship and that the criminals often snatch it from the porch before the home owners get the package, the local police, decide to do a dynamic entry on the mayor. Breaking in and killing their two dogs (who were fleeing the cops) and arresting the mayor and his wife for drug trafficking...
Well, I can go on and on, but the facts remain that the police can basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what some mere paper says their authority is restricted to.
Re:and we should also... (Score:4, Informative)
So if it's OK to use cameras to prevent store clerks from committing crimes (or document them), why is it not OK to use cameras to prevent police officers from committing crimes (or document them)?
Because the USA has become a police state.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really apples and oranges. Surveillance on store employees is always OK, because the store is private property, so if the store owner wants to record stuff in his own property, that's his right. How anyone could make an argument against private surveillance inside a private business, I have no idea.
Police recording, however, generally concerns recording their activities in public spaces: on sidewalks, on streets, etc. There's two issues here: 1) in public spaces, how can there be any expectation of privacy? Some stupid States might have laws against photographing people in public, but such a law is stupid. If you're in public, you have no right to expect privacy. If you want privacy, go someplace private, not out on a street with hundreds of people surrounding you. Police officers in public shouldn't have any more expectation of privacy than anyone else standing on the street. 2) the police are government agents, and the government is supposed to be accountable to the People. If these uniformed government agents (who are not secret agents, unlike certain sectors of government that require secrecy) are in public, their actions should be allowed to be recorded by third parties, in order to maintain that accountability. If we lose accountability of the Police to the People, then we might as well give the Police brown shirts to wear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Company wide-
We fire at least 100-200 employees per year for theft.
We generally get burglarized a few times a year.
We've been robbed at gunpoint twice in the past decade.
Of the burglaries and robberies that I know of, at least half were inside jobs, with former or current employees to blame. So well over 99% of theft is internal,
Re:9 times out of 10? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of them get a lower wage because of the "tip"?
Re:9 times out of 10? (Score:4, Informative)
9 out of 10? Wow, is that a real statistic?
That's a statistic that I made up. At the particular 7-Eleven store I mention, the real figure was actually 10 out of 10. And if I want to rely strictly on my own experience, I'm not sure I'm aware of any cases in all my history of working retail where money was taken from a store where the culprit wasn't an employee. That includes cases where an employee and his friends staged a fake robbery for the cameras.
I'm talking cash money now. Merchandise? Sure. People steal merchandise all the time. But cameras don't usually catch people stealing merchandise. Cameras catch employees taking money from the till.
Maybe there's something to this thing about treating employees decently?
Quit jerking yourself off. My boss at this particular 7-Eleven was a great guy. I'm really sad that he's dead of cancer now. He was suffering from cancer the entire time I worked there, and I pulled many a double shift when some asshole failed to show up for work, because I sure as hell wasn't calling this poor guy up in the middle of the night to close the shop because my relief hadn't shown up. If he had any fault, I reckon it was hiring the wrong people -- because the clowns he put his faith in stole from him left and right. I tried to warn him, others tried to warn him, but if you're of a certain generation, I guess, you tend to trust people you shouldn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Robbery - the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.
Theft and robbery are two different things.
Re:9 times out of 10? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a load of horseshit. I was working at a 7-Eleven, yes. It was shitty hours for shitty pay. On the other hand, they respected me, a 17-year-old kid at the time; they gave me some responsibility and some work experience; and they paid me promptly every two weeks. Then again, it was shitty hours for shitty pay. But you know what? I'm not a fucking thief.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "the government" or even police who are trying to make you believe they are ethically superior. It's been an ongoing theme from the right-wing "law and order" crowd for decades. You hear it constantly from conservative media. You're constantly hearing about how they love law enforcement, how those who are accused of crimes are always guilty (of something) and how the police are "doing a very difficult job for very little pay".
You get the same stuff about the military. We always hear how the military are "the best and brightest", which really hasn't been my experience. The new convention is that whenever a caller says they're in the military, you'll hear "thank you for your service" and fawning praise for every knucklehead who walked into a recruitment office and signed up. It's because "they are protecting our freedoms" which is a load of crap. You don't "protect your freedom" by invading some shithole halfway around the world, you protect your freedom by...videotaping the po-lice for chrissake. They believe deference must be paid to the judgment of people who've put on a uniform, because I guess it makes them feel a little less like the soft, privileged lard-asses that they are. We heard this constantly from Republicans during the debate over the repeal of DADT: "We'll vote for it when the military leaders say we should vote for it" and how we have to protect our fighting men from...the licentious gay soldiers who will have nothing better to do in the middle of a firefight except stare at the butt of the guy in front of them. Wait, what? We have civilian oversight of the military, but the civilians charged with that oversight suddenly have nothing to say. Except when military leaders (chairman of the joint chiefs, secdef, etc) say "OK, we ought to repeal DADT, then the argument became "we should ask the enlisted men". When the enlisted men said "It's OK with us" the argument became "We should only ask the people who hate queers".
The whole idea of deferring to law enforcement or the military is anti-American. The Founders decided that we'd have a civilian-led military for very good reason. Because the judgment of someone who wants to pick up a gun and leave home to go out and fight bad guys just can't be trusted. The same thing with law enforcement. There are places in the world where the police are the absolute power in a community, but in this country, they work for the civilian government, not the other way around. And ultimately, the civilian government is us.
So it's our goddamn civic duty to keep on eye on law enforcement and the military. There's a good reason that most people don't want to become cops or soldiers, and the ones who do bear watching.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
You hear it constantly from conservative media. You're constantly hearing about how they love law enforcement, how those who are accused of crimes are always guilty (of something) and how the police are "doing a very difficult job for very little pay". ... We always hear how the military are "the best and brightest", ... deference must be paid to the judgment of people who've put on a uniform, ...
What is especially curious is that this sort of praise for the police and military seems to come from the same people who keep telling us that the government can't ever do anything right. They don't seem to be aware that the police and military are pretty much all government employees, working from some of the biggest government bureaucracies that exist.
So which is it? Are government employeess always incompetent and untrustworthy? Or are the police and military above suspicion?
(My personal conjecture is that they're all just humans, with pretty much the same foibles and failings -- and successes -- as the rest of us. But what do I know? I do suspect that we might learn something about the truth if we monitor them and make their activities public knowedge. Maybe we could hire the wikileaks folks for that data-collection task? ;-)
Re:and we should also... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is especially curious is that this sort of praise for the police and military seems to come from the same people who keep telling us that the government can't ever do anything right. They don't seem to be aware that the police and military are pretty much all government employees, working from some of the biggest government bureaucracies that exist.
I respect those who voluneteer for our armed forces, follow our duly elected civilian leaders, and protect our country. Even if that means they are deployed in cases which they may not agree with, or even are unjust/unwarranted. I respect them because it takes courage to volunteer for dangerous, low pay jobs in support of your country. I respect them even if I disagree with the politicians who sent them to war.
I consider myself conservative/libertarian, and despite my respect for the milatary, and in some capacities law enforcement, I absolutely believe that neither group is above the law.
1. There is absolutely no circumstance that comes to mind where it should be illegal for a civilian to record his/her own interaction with the police. If the police question/talk/harass/interrogate me, and I have the ability to record it, it should absolutely be protected 100%. If you are a member of law enforcement, you simply have no right to privacy with respect to the people you are interacting with. Furthermore, if you are properly enforcing the law, you have nothing to fear!
2. It should additionally be absolutely protected for third parties to record police interactions, as long as it occurs in a public forum -- streets, parks, building lobbies, open resturants, etc. A law enforcement official enforcing the law in a public forum has no expectation of privacy whatsoever, period.
Unfortunately, I see no long term path that can take us effectively towards this goal. Our best hope is a number of hard-fought battles in a federal court.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely it is a real world instance of de-facto doublethink.
Where the original idea behind doublethink had the individual engaging in it be fully aware of the dischordant nature of the two systems being imposed, in this case it would appear that the internal dischord is resolved through pure ignorance of the existence of that dischord-- EG, the thought that police officers are part of the government never crosses their beady little talk-radio addled minds.
Bringing it up causes the dischord to appear. Si
Re:and we should also... (Score:4, Funny)
Nah too complicated, just have the Donuts Shop Owner turn over the surveillance tapes instead of Protection money.
Re:and we should also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because organised crime could find a lot of uses for a database of the faces of police officers?
If organized crime cares, it can just buy copies of HR documents on each police officer. Or if the mafia has nothing better to do, they may send some kids to take photos of officers and then follow them home. Over time they will get everyone, and it's 100% legal.
Besides, police officers interact primarily with lawbreakers. They already show them their faces and their badges. A LEO in Las Vegas has no reason to be worried that some geek in China will see his face. That LEO better be worried that a local gangbanger saw him and followed him home. And you don't need a camera for that; binoculars would be far more effective.
Police objects to recording of their actions for only one reason: their actions can be used to hang them. Everyone makes mistakes. Raise your hand everyone who hasn't exceeded the posted speed even for one second on your way to work today. Won't be many hands raised, unless you all rode bicycles. Now imagine that the car automatically fines you each time when the number '65' changes to '66'. It wouldn't be worth going to work. In case of police, their errors (regardless of the reason) *also* can have them punished, fired or accused of a crime. Naturally they don't want this to happen. Neither do I or you, but we can't forbid others from seeing our misdeeds. Police can, currently, but that's wrong. If some officers say "we do dangerous work, with gun in hand, so if we shoot a family dog or a kid now and then we shouldn't be accountable." If they can't do their job safely and within the law they should quit; and if the whole police force quits then Wild West, here we come, for better or for worse.
Camera in eyeglasses (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Perhaps eyeglass-mounted cameras and a video-in connector on the cellphones."
That doesn't help the contact wearers, or lasik people....or even those rare people with normal uncorrected vision, unless they happen to be out in daylight wearing shades.
Just as it once was, asking a person if they were a cop will turn into the police asking if you are recording this interaction.
The only difference being, if an undercover police officer says no, so what, try to prove entrapment in a court of law. On the other hand, if you say no to an officer, you are obstructing justice.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, with the police, add a firearm. Hint: Many officers carry a concealed throw away firearm. In my humble opinion, concealed throw aways sho
Re:Camera in eyeglasses (Score:5, Informative)
Undercover police are allowed to say they aren't cops. That's kind of the whole point.
Entrapment laws are to protect people from going to jail for something they wouldn't have done if they weren't asked to; not for something they wouldn't have done if they didn't think they could get away with it.
Re: (Score:3)
...record things going (*whooosh!*) wherever it occurs...
Re: (Score:3)
Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
That's such a massive problem in state's where it's legal, it's bringing the whole structure of society to a grinding halt.
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
How will officer's ever cope, such an amazing new technology. So different from anything that's ever existed. Never before have people stopped to look at what the police do, no one was ever blessed with any method of visually observing officers before this amazing invention. No police officer has ever in the history of existence had to deal with a crowd of gawking on lookers. Just how c
Re: (Score:3)
Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
A high-speed police chase?
A hostage scenario?
A drug bust that turns violent?
There are already laws against interference with police duties, which cover all the situations that you describe. (Though it should be noted that in states were recording is legal, those laws are sometimes abused by police to prevent such legal recording by claiming that a mere presence of the camera is "interference").
On another point, when these officers are being recorded, so are the suspected criminals, and possibly even victims. What about their privacy rights?
Of those states which have the requirement that all parties must be aware of the recording for the conversation to be recorded, most have the "expectation of privacy" provision. The gist of t
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: