This is pretty messed up...

[Natebishop3]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20735

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization cheered the decision, stating that he "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars.

He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."

As Ms. Moore and Mr. Drew contemplate on what their life might be like spending the next decade and a half on a prison cot, many in other states face similar situations. Massachusetts and Oregon both make it illegal to digitally record (i.e. "eavesdrop") on an officer. And a number of states are considering similar legislation.

I had heard about the law against recording someone without their knowledge, but I had no idea they could throw someone behind bars for 10+ years for recording a police officer (whether on video or audio). That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Minstrel]

He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."

He continued, saying, "Why, a police officer might have to reconsider doing something illegal, for fear of being caught and found guilty in a court of a law. A police officer concerned with legalities is not a police officer prepared to do his or her job. I think that much is clear. amirite?"

 

[Natebishop3]

He continued, saying, "Why, a police officer might have to reconsider doing something illegal, for fear of being caught and found guilty in a court of a law. A police officer concerned with legalities is not a police officer prepared to do his or her job. I think that much is clear. amirite?"

I would hate for police officers to have to worry about being held accountable for breaking the law... that would be just terrible. Just terrible.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This law needs to be immediately enforced against everyone who breaks it!

Just last year in Portland the PPD pulled over a young black mail for suspiciously driving a honda. A citizen filmed it the police approaching the car and the guy pulled a gun him the police. The police justifiably shot and killed him. It was a clean shoot, the video proved it but the woman who filmed it broke the law. Why wasn't she arrested? Why isn't she in jail?

Over on the Oregon coast some nut job shot a police officer last night, the news has been showing him driving his 1980's era shit box Dodge Powerwagon with the police chasing him. This video was also taken by some random citizen who decided to break the law by illegally filming the police.

If we're going to have a law that says we can't film the police then everyone who does needs to be arrested, not just selectively when it shows the police doing something wrong.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Being a mod means that I'm a journalist and not just some average citizen right?

 

[Natebishop3]

Being a mod means that I'm a journalist and not just some average citizen right?

No, it just means that we're smarter than everyone else

 

[Minstrel]

No, it just means that we're smarter than everyone else

Wow, mods are arrogant.

Good thing we don't have any laws against quoting mods without their consent, capturing their wrongdoing. Consider yourselves on notice.

 

[Natebishop3]

Wow, mods are arrogant.

Good thing we don't have any laws against quoting mods without their consent, capturing their wrongdoing. Consider yourselves on notice.

Fortunately we can just edit or delete your quotes, thus erasing any evidence of our wrongdoing. Carry on citizen.

 

[Minstrel]

 

[Sug]

The more power the man has, the less you have. It is getting a little bit hairy as we now live under one of the most intrusive laws of our nations history when it comes to privacy and freedom. In California now they have allowed cellphones to be searched without a warrant. The extension of the Patriot Act against the entire population is a sad thing. Meanwhile the millionaires and billionaires lie, cheat, and steal with no fear of prosecution. They simply pay for the best lawyers and do as they please. Sad times, and there is nothing on the horizon that looks to change it. I always laugh at the 2nd amendment folks that think their guns will in someway protect them, it is the pen that will take you down not the sword. In addition I think we have moved beyond the musket to musket theory of the right to bear arms. If the government is coming for you, they are coming strapped with more firepower than you and a hell of a lot more technology. Your Desert Eagle and .50 Cal sniper rifle might seem nice, but when they fly a drone over your house from 2,000 miles away and say bye bye it really doesn't matter.

 

[Natebishop3]

The more power the man has, the less you have. It is getting a little bit hairy as we now live under one of the most intrusive laws of our nations history when it comes to privacy and freedom. In California now they have allowed cellphones to be searched without a warrant. The extension of the Patriot Act against the entire population is a sad thing. Meanwhile the millionaires and billionaires lie, cheat, and steal with no fear of prosecution. They simply pay for the best lawyers and do as they please. Sad times, and there is nothing on the horizon that looks to change it. I always laugh at the 2nd amendment folks that think their guns will in someway protect them, it is the pen that will take you down not the sword. In addition I think we have moved beyond the musket to musket theory of the right to bear arms. If the government is coming for you, they are coming strapped with more firepower than you and a hell of a lot more technology. Your Desert Eagle and .50 Cal sniper rifle might seem nice, but when they fly a drone over your house from 2,000 miles away and say bye bye it really doesn't matter.

All the technology in the world wouldn't save the government if the populace turned on them. Well, I guess if they decided to turn nukes on their own people, that might do it.

 

[barfo]

Wow, mods are arrogant.

Is it arrogance? Or are they really just a higher form of life?
I don't think mere citizens such as we should judge until we've walked a mile in their shoes, slept with their wives, wrecked their cars, and turned them in to Homeland Security.

barfo

 

[crandc]

It's not quite true that it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge. This is true (i'm no lawyer but I think this is the gist) where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - in someone's home, for example. It's illegal to tape secretly people in a locker room shower. In a medical consultation.

A public street is not the same, I can take photos in public if I want and don't have to ask permission.

That being said, it's because of amateur videos that people like Oscar Grant got any measure of justice.

 

[Ed O]

This is a complicated matter. I can understand that police who break the law should be punished, and I fear that police power can run amok without proper controls.

But police who respond entirely legitimately may have their actions chilled by the knowledge that their actions can be selectively recorded. They should focus on doing their job at that moment, and not have to worry about whether someone with an ax to grind is going to only record the response, rather than the event leading to it.

Some police are clearly bad people, but I think that without some basic trust in the system (and in the people that carry it out) then the system will never work, anyway. Given the number of citizens that have issues with authority or specific axes to grind, it's quite possible that people recording police activity will endanger police, the public, and the system more than it would help those things.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is a complicated matter. I can understand that police who break the law should be punished, and I fear that police power can run amok without proper controls.

But police who respond entirely legitimately may have their actions chilled by the knowledge that their actions can be selectively recorded. They should focus on doing their job at that moment, and not have to worry about whether someone with an ax to grind is going to only record the response, rather than the event leading to it.

Some police are clearly bad people, but I think that without some basic trust in the system (and in the people that carry it out) then the system will never work, anyway. Given the number of citizens that have issues with authority or specific axes to grind, it's quite possible that people recording police activity will endanger police, the public, and the system more than it would help those things.

Ed O.

I hear what you're saying Ed, but there's another side to this argument. The government films me without my consent to hand out speeding tickets or for running a red light. They use cameras to catch bad guys and they record our phone conversations with phone taps. Why is it okay for the government to use recordings, whether video or audio, for their purposes but we cannot? It's totally okay to use those mediums to control the populace, but we can't return the favor. Seems kind of hypocritical.

 

[bluefrog]

I was taught in civics that it is legal to record police activity as long as it doesn't interfere with police work (stakeouts etc...) and you attend the video while recording.

There is something called the single-party consent statutes that states recording is legal as long as one party condones it. The law varies from state to state though, Illinois being a state that requires all parties to consent.

 

[Ed O]

I hear what you're saying Ed, but there's another side to this argument. The government films me without my consent to hand out speeding tickets or for running a red light. They use cameras to catch bad guys and they record our phone conversations with phone taps. Why is it okay for the government to use recordings, whether video or audio, for their purposes but we cannot? It's totally okay to use those mediums to control the populace, but we can't return the favor. Seems kind of hypocritical.

Definitely some hypocrisy there. No question.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the government is out to get you or not. Most of us fall in the massive gray space between total trust and total paranoia, and I'm not sure where I am... maybe because I change from day to day or because I lack consistency on that front between issues.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

Definitely some hypocrisy there. No question.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the government is out to get you or not. Most of us fall in the massive gray space between total trust and total paranoia, and I'm not sure where I am... maybe because I change from day to day or because I lack consistency on that front between issues.

Ed O.

Well, conspiracy theories aside, we do know that they use cameras for ticketing purposes, and they've been using phone taps for decades. I just think the hypocrisy is pretty outrageous, but it seems like there's not much we can do. The article said the ACLU went to bat against the law and lost.

 

[Ed O]

Well, conspiracy theories aside, we do know that they use cameras for ticketing purposes, and they've been using phone taps for decades. I just think the hypocrisy is pretty outrageous, but it seems like there's not much we can do. The article said the ACLU went to bat against the law and lost.

Why is it BAD hypocrisy, though?

A parent can drive, but a child cannot. A man can pee standing up, but a woman doing the same would be a bad move.

A state (meaning government entity, not a subset of our federal system) can do things that a citizen cannot do. The state, presumably, could take pictures of police without penalty.

Do I want a random individual listening in on my phone calls? No. Do I want some random person taking pictures of red lights being run? No. I'd much rather have the state doing that.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to have hypocrisy between government and individuals, although it obviously can be at times.

Ed O.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why is it BAD hypocrisy, though?

A parent can drive, but a child cannot. A man can pee standing up, but a woman doing the same would be a bad move.

A state (meaning government entity, not a subset of our federal system) can do things that a citizen cannot do. The state, presumably, could take pictures of police without penalty.

Do I want a random individual listening in on my phone calls? No. Do I want some random person taking pictures of red lights being run? No. I'd much rather have the state doing that.

I don't think it's inherently wrong to have hypocrisy between government and individuals, although it obviously can be at times.

Ed O.

No, you're right, but how often do we see videos of cops NOT doing bad things on the internet? If it's something mundane like eating a donut, I'm sure it won't see the light of day, but usually we see videos of cops doing wrong. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's accountability. They don't have to be cops. They assume the role of public magistrate and they should also assume the criticisms that come with it. They are enforcing the law, therefore they should be setting the best example possible. Are cops perfect? Absolutely not, but when they behave badly or when they break the rules, they should be punished. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be videotaped or recorded when they are breaking the law.

 

[MARIS61]

The more power the man has, the less you have. It is getting a little bit hairy as we now live under one of the most intrusive laws of our nations history when it comes to privacy and freedom. In California now they have allowed cellphones to be searched without a warrant. The extension of the Patriot Act against the entire population is a sad thing. Meanwhile the millionaires and billionaires lie, cheat, and steal with no fear of prosecution. They simply pay for the best lawyers and do as they please. Sad times, and there is nothing on the horizon that looks to change it. I always laugh at the 2nd amendment folks that think their guns will in someway protect them, it is the pen that will take you down not the sword. In addition I think we have moved beyond the musket to musket theory of the right to bear arms. If the government is coming for you, they are coming strapped with more firepower than you and a hell of a lot more technology. Your Desert Eagle and .50 Cal sniper rifle might seem nice, but when they fly a drone over your house from 2,000 miles away and say bye bye it really doesn't matter.

Actually a 50 caliber in the right hands can be pretty effective against a drone, and only a moron would be caught sitting in his house during a military coup.

In total numbers, no other civilian populace in the world is as heavily armed as Americans.

No other civilian populace in the world is as willing to fight to the death defending their way of life.

Those brave Americans, not your corporate-controlled military, are the reason you are free.

 

[MARIS61]

Do I want a random individual listening in on my phone calls? No. Do I want some random person taking pictures of red lights being run? No. I'd much rather have the state doing that.

Ed O.

That's like saying you don't want Mixum to screw your wife, you'd much rather have some Portland cop do her.

I'd rather see the Constitution and Bill of Rights still have some relevance, and not have a government ABOVE and OVER the people.

 

[maxiep]

I find it disturbing that the government--that works for me--won't allow me to supervise people that I help pay for. WE run the government, not the other way around.

 

[Natebishop3]

I find it disturbing that the government--that works for me--won't allow me to supervise people that I help pay for. WE run the government, not the other way around.

We used to run the government. Not anymore. The US government became self-aware.... what.... sixty years ago? seventy years ago? Now it's just all about sustaining the government. I swear, I've never seen a more lazy, unmotivated, and overpaid group of individuals. Nobody in government wants to change anything, nobody wants to improve anything, and nobody damn sure wants to save money. All the government cares about is keeping things as they are. Maintain the status quo. Get re-elected. Stay in office. It makes me sick.

 

[maxiep]

We used to run the government. Not anymore. The US government became self-aware.... what.... sixty years ago? seventy years ago? Now it's just all about sustaining the government. I swear, I've never seen a more lazy, unmotivated, and overpaid group of individuals. Nobody in government wants to change anything, nobody wants to improve anything, and nobody damn sure wants to save money. All the government cares about is keeping things as they are. Maintain the status quo. Get re-elected. Stay in office. It makes me sick.

And your post is why--although I'm not a member of any party--I most closely align with Tea Partiers. We no longer have a government that is of, by and for the people. We have a Leviathan.

 

[barfo]

We used to run the government. Not anymore. The US government became self-aware.... what.... sixty years ago? seventy years ago? Now it's just all about sustaining the government. I swear, I've never seen a more lazy, unmotivated, and overpaid group of individuals. Nobody in government wants to change anything, nobody wants to improve anything, and nobody damn sure wants to save money. All the government cares about is keeping things as they are. Maintain the status quo. Get re-elected. Stay in office. It makes me sick.

I see the over-generalization fairy paid you a visit tonight.

barfo

 

[Ed O]

That's like saying you don't want Mixum to screw your wife, you'd much rather have some Portland cop do her.

It is, sort of.

But red lights exist for a reason. I want people to NOT RUN THEM. If they do, I want them to pay the price... in terms of a ticket, not in terms of t-boning some innocent driver or killing a pedestrian. Having the state take pictures of offenders (a) acts as a deterrent, and (b) punishes people who are breaking the law.

That is utility from my perspective, unlike with your hypothetical, where none is created for me.

If we don't like the red light laws? Repeal them. But if they're there, I think we should enforce them by catching the people who break them.

Ed O.