As someone who's been arrested for a misdemeanor due to a case of mistaken identity and basically forced to take a plea entirely because of a falsified police report, the FOP spokesperson's claim that we must trust the police is laughable. If it's happened to me, a friendly white guy in a nice part of town, I can't imagine what happens in less advantageous situations. I sure wish I would have had a video of the situation at the time.
When the word of an officer is worth more than the word of a member of the public being able to record the officer in the course of their work is the only way to defend yourself. Yes this might lead to an increase in people getting off on technicalities but saying that is a good enough reason to turn law enforcement into an entity above reproach is very dangerous.
The ability for the courts or police to shutdown any practical oversight by members of the public turns changes the power dynamic completely. Any person is one pissed off cop away from having to deal with being arrested. It becomes a big game of chance. The (vast) majority of the time we don't interact with cops/the courts, the (vast) majority of cops are concerned about the general good and protecting people but even 1% of 1% in a country this big leads to a lot of hardship.
The 1% of 1% is so damaging..it can effect lives, and those around those lives. The problem, to me, is the "blue line" of protectionist policies of departments, which, camera's would never be an issue if this was not the case.
Remember that through all of that muddle mess of 'what is really illegal' is the fact that 'ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.' So if the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations' then how is a normal citizen supposed to evaluate these things for themselves? Accidentally cross the line, and then find yourself in jail as an example to others? Is this the 'justice' that we want? Throwing people in jail as part of the process of figuring out where we should 'draw the line?' Just throwing people under the bus?
The interface between "ignorance is no excuse" and the vagueness and selective enforcement of a great deal of law is always a difficult gray area.
I think that the most important thing about a political system is predictability, not "democracy" or "justice" or some other vague, high minded ideal. The number one job of our elected and appointed officials should be providing this predictability.
This is a particularly stark example of what happens when that duty is shirked. Corruption and incompetence flow into every crevice not solidly plugged with deterministic law.
I have to disagree. Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I don't want to know for sure, unquestionably that if I speak out against the government me and my family will be fed into a wood chipper, no matter how predictable that response would be.
Predictability is quite important, but often the most brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want.
I agree that a predictable rule of law isn't enough for a worthwhile society. At the same time, it's worth noting that many repressive regimes are very unpredictable.
Look at Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Stalin's Russia; Unpredictable terror is an important weapon in a dictator's arsenal. It forces people to go beyond the normal call of duty in defense of the state. It produces something like "learned helplessness" in the population. It prevents rivals from acting against the leader.
Intermittent reinforcement is the most effective form of operant conditioning. Unpredictable punishments in a wide gray area will make people stay well clear of even the shallow end of that gray area.
You make a great argument, and I've been thinking about it, because I know intermittent reinforcement/operant conditioning has extremely strong evidence in its favor. A HN comment from today[1] brought the problem to my mind again, but this time with a possible solution.
At their roots, operant conditioning and classical conditioning are both learning mechanisms. Since the time of operant conditioning, spaced repetition[2] has gained a lot of popularity. It's a further refinement that depends on beginning with short intervals, and proceeding to longer ones.
The idea this suggests to me is that speeding tickets happen to many people infrequently enough that the enhanced learning never takes place. Draconian crackdowns, however, happen frequently and with high salience because of media coverage--the only time you know about someone else getting a speeding ticket is when you see them pulled over, and it's hard to feel as personally involved with that as when you hear all the details of someone's arrest and imprisonment on the news.
One piece of evidence for media coverage changing behavior is that people buy lottery tickets; because they've seen lottery winners on the news, the probability of winning has a much higher salience than it deserves.
This is exactly the line of reasoning I wanted to suggest; operant conditioning, as with all forms of learning, has nonlinear results below a certain threshold of involvement. We're not good at expectation values, especially in these cases:
1. Rare events, like receiving a speeding ticket, are relatively underweighted. Every time you drive without receiving a ticket reinforces speeding behavior.
2. Extremely salient events, like winning the lottery, tend to be overweighted--possibly because they're so important to our cognition, and we tell ourselves plausible stories about winning.
There's also a difference between negative and positive reinforcement and punishment. Receiving a speeding ticket is positive punishment; the lottery is positive reinforcement. Couple that with differential media coverage, like you mentioned, and you get significantly different behavior.
They don't 'disappear' you or send you to the torture chamber for going over the speed limit. They do send you away for speaking out against the leader.
I think this is more related to inadvertent vs. intentional recording. For example, you can inadvertently record someone who is shouting at you if you were on the phone, leaving a voicemail message.
I really wish I could remember who said it, but it always comes to mind when I read a story like this. "He who stands against the law shall die, for the law is god." [That should probably be an upper-case "G".]
Essentially that is this man's crime. From a judge's perspective, he didn't really say that the law in question was invalid or that he was unjustly persecuted, but that the authority of law was invalid. From the judge's seat he might as well have been a murder arguing that murder was OK by killing someone in the courtroom. In the end, that is the single greatest crime that anyone can commit.
Someone with a little more common sense would have gone to a higher court and argued that he wasn't allowed a court reporter, an act that contradicted the entire point of his argument.
Growing up, I always found this odd as well. Now I think when they say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" what they actually mean is "just because you didn't know (perhaps because there was no way to know), we're still going to punish you".
By keeping the laws vague you can pretty much arrest whoever you want for whatever you want. And, when you've got enough ridiculous laws on the books that the average citizen can't avoid regularly committing felonies, a police state isn't far behind. That's not to say that the ones who wrote the laws, or the ones who enforce them, are doing so to that end. But when the pieces are put in place, even if unwittingly, it's only a matter of time.
Underpinning all police states is a system that a citizen can be arrested for just about anything. This is how you keep citizens in check.
I found it interesting (and also saddening) that all the "law enforcement" people automatically line up to oppose the use of cameras. It's as if they live in a different world than the rest of us, who see cameras as ubiquitous and handy. This separation of society into 2 classes, the "law enforcers" and "average citizens", is another harbinger of a police state.
I'm sure many here will say: so what? I'm not bothering anybody, so why should I worry? The problem is, all of this capricious police action weakens society as a whole. We can't move forward if we're governed by 20th century laws applied at whim.
The persistent failure of US state and federal government to fix this situation has a deeply corrosive effect on the public trust. With trust in public officials plummeting for various reasons, this represents an alarming threat to the long-term health of the United States.
The word of a police officer is taken at a higher value in court, in the absence of any other evidence. The police having that power and being entrusted with the collection of evidence means ordinary citizens are already at a great disadvantage once in court. Surveillance is sometimes the only resort the public have to defend themselves from abuse.
Not saying that the police are abusive by definition, but when they do act in that manner (or tamper with evidence), there is little an ordinary citizen can do to defend himself.
Surveillance has the great advantage that it doesn't particularly hinder honest officers in the line of duty, it only trips up the abusers.
If they're public officials in a public space performing a public duty then there should be no problem with taking photos or video of them. The recent case of the death of Ian Tomlinson is a good illustration of how important it can be for people to be able to independently photograph police. In that case had a bystander not been taking photos the full circumstances of the case may never have been known.
I think the way I'd put it would be that if I could be in any sort of legal trouble (or if there's any insinuation from an officer of the law that I could be in any sort of legal trouble) if I just got up and left, I'd damned well better be legally allowed to record the interaction. It should also be at least a felony for any officer of the government to interfere in any way with my recording of such an interaction with them.
I really can't see any reason to oppose such measures, unless a person wants to make sure police officers have free reign to abuse captives, or lie about what they say.
Originally it was the curtains, not a bathroom door, and it is from "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other
Misunderstandings of Privacy" [1]. A very nice read.
Not sure why this is downvoted. If the argument "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a bad one (which it it), it's also a bad argument to use against the gov't.
I think there are very good arguments to hold our public officials accountable, but they stand on their own merit.
There is a fundamental power imbalance between the government and an individual. This is why the privacy of the individual is paramount, while the privacy of the government should be minimal. The master here should be the individual and the public official a servant.
"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either decide that people are free to secretly record any conversation they’re privy to, or have to draw lines between some conversations and other conversations that are hard to justify as a First Amendment matter."
Since anyone can report on anything that is said to them, with "expectation of privacy" or not, all requiring permission to record from the other person a conversation you are party to is to make it easy for liars. If A says B said X, and B says he didn't, then all a recording could do is determine who's lying. The existence of a recording doesn't constitute a betrayal, the reporting of private conversation does, whether or not there is a recording.
Agreed. While it's clear why it's illegal to record other people's conversations, I don't get why it has ever been illegal to secretly record a conversation in which one is a known participant. How is that "wiretapping"???
I think if I say something to you, you should be able to hold me accountable for it. I don't have a problem with that. Does anyone here understand why these laws prohibit recording of one's own conversations???
In a situation like this, where it's obvious that the law has to change, I become more interested in the systems of people that are misaligned to make the confusion worse.
It looks to me that if you are an undercover policeman, you cannot participate in any police work aside from your undercover duties. Likewise, if you have ever been a "public" officer, you then can't cross over and become an undercover agent -- not with facial recognition software. There are also considerations for domestic violence, juvenile, and rape cases. No longer can you meet or converse with victims in any sort of public forum (interesting question: can victims of crime also tape their own interviews? How about suspects?)
All of this means we have a bunch of retraining and re-organizing to do of the national police force. This is going to be a major change and effects everything from seniority to career tracks, manpower needs, and court appearances. Just guessing, I'm betting that it adds a lot more cops than we had before. Not sure who is going to pay for those cops or if, in the end, we don't end up in a worse spot from where we started.
Having said that, because of the severity and broad scale of the problem, this will probably end up being settled at the national level. Probably after some crisis occurs. Wonder what that crisis would be?
I'd also note that it is the edge cases that are driving the change. There are probably dozens of cops taped everyday without incident. And probably dozens that illegally prevent taping. We just don't know. The only things we know are those things which are publicized effectively.
The point being that it's easy to think in terms of what the perfect world is or should be. The interesting part comes when real people and systems are bounced up against necessary changes.
It's worth point out that the title applies only to non-government. There is a war on cameras used by the public, but there has been an explosion of cameras used the other way round.
"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get.
What they're trying to do is still wrong. Were I a legislator, I would immediately do one or more of the following:
-change the wiretapping laws to set explicit "No Record" areas or situations, allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. (Best)
-Allow public servants to be recorded, and citizens must inform servants they are being legally recorded. (Better than current, but not so great)
-require cops to inform citizens that recording is prohibited (bad for soooo many reasons)
> allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases.
I'm tempted to go so far as to say that a public official (especially in law enforcement) acting in her official capacity should have no expectation of privacy from recording, though I'm willing to admit that there might be some case I'm not thinking of.
3. Confidentiality of people other than the public servants. A lot of government work deals with heavily stigmatized things other than crime – poverty, disease, etc. It’s hard to record a social worker without bringing unjustly harmful attention to the people they work with.
I strongly agree with your general principle. I just don’t think it would work without some compromises.
As to the other points, I should clarify my statement above: I only meant that they should have no expectation of privacy from the person they're dealing with. Planting a bug in the police station or eavesdropping on a conversation to which you aren't a party seem reasonable to leave as illegal. I'm tempted to agree with other commenters that recording any conversation to which you are a party should be okay, but I haven't given it enough thought.
For diplomacy, it seems like the people who would be doing the recording would most likely be other diplomats, and therefore immune from US law anyways.
Case 3, it's easy enough to just say that while the social worker has no expectation of privacy, their clients do. If someone is having an interaction with the social worker where someone else's confidential information is disclosed, the social worker is the one who has messed up here, with the person recording it being, at most, auxiliary.
You seem to be trying to disagree with a comment that basically agrees with yours. The points you raise are covered by common-sense interpretations of what I said.
On point 2 specifically: as hard as it might be to imagine in the US at the moment, in many times and places people doing legitimate law enforcement are intimidated by gangs. This ends up being bad for everyone. While it’s rarely a problem here and now, it ought to be protected against.
I agree. Even when dealing with officers, sometimes the conversations that take place have confidential or otherwise private information that should not be available to the public. However, if the citizen wants it, they should be able to record all interactions they have with servants.
Right, but the people who were being arrested didn't.
Regardless of whether the video is used in court, it's still being recorded. Isn't that the same thing?
Do you think they take advantage of the defendants "dire" situations to get them to sign release forms in order to subsidize their court defense? How is filming them prior to having their consent not the exact same thing?
'"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get.'
But what about the privacy of the suspects that the COPS voiceover reminds us are 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.'
Did they have any say in a film crew marching in after the police, filming the inside of their house and whatever interactions occur for broadcast? This seems like a far greater violation of privacy that the recording of public officials doing official business in public locations.
They get releases from (and probably pay, though that is conjecture) all those people before the video is broadcast. Ever notice that some faces are obscured? Those folks wouldn't sign the release.
Or to make it legally even more interesting: Always run a (video) phone call with a group of volunteers, who will act as witnesses. Is this even wiretapping?
One day soon it will be routine for people's cell phones (or some similar device) to record every moment of the person's life in audio and video. Almost everyone will have a permanent record of everything they do, of every conversation they have had, with every person they meet. I can't recall where I read about this, it may have been something Negroponte wrote about.
As a society we are going to have to figure out how to deal with this end of privacy. It's bigger than just law enforcement.
The movie The Final Cut has some interesting commentary on a similar concept. In it, a neural implant installed before birth records every moment of a person's life: waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc.
Yes, I agree. But for the situation described in the article, creating a situation where you don't record anything, but just add a few more listeners would be an interesting test.
