If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   Boston police would like to remind everybody that it is a felony to use your cell phone to record them roughing up a suspect   (boston.com) divider line 288
    More: PSA, Boston Police, Simon Glik, Attorney General Martha Coakley, wiretaps, cellphones, felony, Boston University, Internet and Society  
•       •       •

22128 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2010 at 1:37 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-12 09:32:20 AM  
That makes dashcam videos illegal too.
 
2010-01-12 10:34:28 AM  
jehovahs witness protection: That makes dashcam videos illegal too.

Do they record audio? That's the sticking point.

I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.
 
2010-01-12 10:38:53 AM  
EvilEgg: I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.

THIS!
 
2010-01-12 10:46:09 AM  
EvilEgg: I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.

You can "maintain" whatever you want--doesn't matter, since the men with the guns disagree.
 
2010-01-12 10:53:28 AM  
ne2d: EvilEgg: I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.

You can "maintain" whatever you want--doesn't matter, since the men with the guns disagree.


Well, yeah. But this is still an injustice, that I don't like, but hasn't effected me enough to do anything about except post on a message board. That'll show'em.
 
2010-01-12 11:00:40 AM  
There are a lot more camera phones out there than there are cops to steal them. Keep screwing with people's civil rights you WILL EITHER be caught and prosecuted or people will eventually take the law into their own hands.

/Arrested a lawyer?
//BAD move
 
2010-01-12 11:08:19 AM  
ne2d: EvilEgg: I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.

You can "maintain" whatever you want--doesn't matter, since the men with the guns disagree.


Well if it means anything, in the end the men with the phones will be vindicated:

"The statute [of two-party consent] has been misconstrued by Boston police,'' said June Jensen, the lawyer who represented Glik and succeeded in getting his charges dismissed. The law, she said, does not prohibit public recording of anyone.

Too bad your phone and the recording will probably mysteriously disappear all the same.
 
2010-01-12 11:11:38 AM  
I need to make a bumber sticker that says "By talking to me, you are consenting to being recorded."
 
2010-01-12 11:17:07 AM  
America - land of the free/home of the brave.
 
2010-01-12 11:32:35 AM  
A full videotaped sequence of getting beaten brutally by LA Police didn't help Rodney King out at all. They all walked.
 
2010-01-12 11:39:29 AM  
GurneyHalleck: A full videotaped sequence of getting beaten brutally by LA Police didn't help Rodney King out at all. They all walked.

There was a more recent incident as well.
 
2010-01-12 12:06:12 PM  
Weaver95: America - land of the free/home of the brave.

Sarcasm?

The invidual recording was exercising his freedom and certainly brave for standing up to the cops overstepping their authority by defending the civil rights of the suspect and himself. This is the very definition of American ideals.
 
2010-01-12 12:35:24 PM  
In 1968, Massachusetts became a "two-party'' consent state, one of 12 currently in the country. Two-party consent means that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on a telephone or other audio device; otherwise, the recording of conversation is illegal.

Hmm. I don't like this law. I'll be writing to my state senator and representative today.
 
2010-01-12 12:41:55 PM  
coyote1284: standing up to the cops Massachusetts General Assembly overstepping their authority by defending the civil rights of the suspect and himself

There. Much better. I doubt the federal supreme court would ever uphold these kind of shenanigans, should it come to that. If you are out in public with other people, civil servant or not, that's tacit permission, as I see it.

What if other civil servants could decide whom they would allow to tape them? I'll give a press conference, said the governor, but I don't give Channel 7 permission to tape me, only Channel 4 and 5.
 
2010-01-12 12:43:06 PM  
The big problem I see is that the police can use this law to destroy any such recording before it ever makes it to the net.

Did the guy's recordings ever see the light of day or were the police successful in suppressing the evidence against them?
 
2010-01-12 01:03:48 PM  
Radley Balko's been good on this issue for a long while. As for this nonsense, not only should it be legal to record the police while they are on duty and in public, I would hold that it's protected by the 1st Amendment freedom of the press, as well.

/second the mandatory clip-cams for all cops, all the time
//the word of a cop vs. the word of the defendant should never itself be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
 
2010-01-12 01:27:14 PM  
notmtwain: The big problem I see is that the police can use this law to destroy any such recording before it ever makes it to the net.

qik.com
 
2010-01-12 01:30:52 PM  
Failing_Junk: notmtwain: The big problem I see is that the police can use this law to destroy any such recording before it ever makes it to the net.

qik.com


Yes I know it's relatively easy to live stream, but how many people have their phones set up to do this with one or two clicks?
 
2010-01-12 01:38:05 PM  
So basically someone needs to make a "Help, The Cops Are Beating Me" cell phone app that records video but no audio.
 
2010-01-12 01:38:37 PM  
Huh. I got just 2 words for the criminal justice system in Massachusetts:

JURY. NULLIFICATION.

Go ahead and take it to trial, asshats.

/yeah, I know, dream on.
 
2010-01-12 01:38:45 PM  
"If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,'' she said.

And how is recording the officers actions interfering?

Also: Public property. Next.

EvilEgg: jehovahs witness protection: That makes dashcam videos illegal too.

Do they record audio? That's the sticking point.

I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.


Yes, many of them do, and the cops would get away with it in the same manner that they get away with illegally searching your car: "Look, sir, you can either let me search your car right now or we can go downtown and you can sit in a cell while I get a warrant and then I'll search your car anyway."
 
2010-01-12 01:39:18 PM  
dethmagnetic: So basically someone needs to make a "Help, The Cops Are Beating Me" cell phone app that records video but no audio.

The iRodney.
 
2010-01-12 01:41:53 PM  
10 points to anyone who can link us to a video of a pig getting killed.

Hell- 20 points!!!
 
2010-01-12 01:42:12 PM  
Oh_Enough_Already: The only reason they're against this is because cops - like everybody else with even half a brian - knows that being violent, abusive, menacing, etc are part and partial of their day-to-day "duties" so to speak.

Think about it: for every instance we see of cops behaving badly that is caught on tape how many hundreds or thousands aren't?

And yet, still, it's almost daily that some new tape emerges . . .

The technology already exists for cops to wear "clip-on" cameras that would record every single interaction they have with citizens - and should be mandatory just as so many other government employees are under surveilance all day long - and would lessen a cop's chances of being falsely charged with brutality, etc but they're all 100% against it.

Why?

Because brutality is just one of their tools and if they were, you know actually held to a standard of professionalism (let alone be expected not to break the law by brutalising anybody who's just the slightest bit "lippy") most of them wouldn't last 6 months on the force.


I usually prefer a full Brian.

/just sayin'
 
2010-01-12 01:42:56 PM  
Nearing the 3-year anniversary

www.joelogon.com

/hot
 
2010-01-12 01:43:07 PM  
Weaver95: America - land of the free/home of the brave.

Only on the internet.
 
2010-01-12 01:44:48 PM  
EvilEgg: jehovahs witness protection: That makes dashcam videos illegal too.

Do they record audio? That's the sticking point.

I would maintain that your privacy rights cannot be violated by recording you in public.


i would also maintain that a public servant in the act of performing his duties has no expectation of privacy.

but in general, the police should ask themselves if they really want to have all that much in common with the iranian basiji.
 
2010-01-12 01:45:02 PM  
Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll rejected the notion that police are abusing the law to block citizen oversight, saying the department trains officers about the wiretap law. "If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,''

So since that's not happening, the arrests will stop, right?
 
2010-01-12 01:46:06 PM  
Oh_Enough_Already: like everybody else with even half a brian

upload.wikimedia.org
you're gonna cut me in half?!?
 
2010-01-12 01:46:29 PM  
So the question is, if you are pulled over for a traffic stop, and you do declare that you have a recording device and that you are recording, can the officer force you to stop? I suspect yes, because I doubt that many (if any) states wave officer privacy while on-duty.

Also, why can police officers use dash cams on a suspect without a warrant? Why do officers get to wave my right to privacy in a public place if the reverse is not true?

Shiat like this makes me want to sign up for Weaver95's newsletter.
 
2010-01-12 01:47:26 PM  
xcannabis.com

/obvs
 
2010-01-12 01:47:27 PM  
burndtdan: but in general, the police should ask themselves if they really want to have all that much in common with the iranian basiji.

I would wager that, yes, by and large, they would.
 
2010-01-12 01:48:31 PM  
Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."
 
2010-01-12 01:48:41 PM  
While I usually refrain from participating in FARK's trademark cop-hate threads because most of you self-proclaimed "pig haters" would spend your days inside pissing your pants if there were no police...

I will point out that Boston is notorious for police corruption.
 
2010-01-12 01:49:02 PM  
"The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,''

Thanks captain obvious.
 
2010-01-12 01:49:06 PM  
Public recording has nothing to do with the law. This is a false arrest.
 
2010-01-12 01:49:11 PM  
dethmagnetic: So basically someone needs to make a "Help, The Cops Are Beating Me" cell phone app that records video but no audio.

Funny but actually true!
 
2010-01-12 01:50:02 PM  
So if you get pulled over for anything you should say "good evening officer, her's my license, and I must advise you that you are being recorded right now." Thanks.
 
2010-01-12 01:50:43 PM  
Atomic Spunk: Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."

So maybe cops should wear lapel cameras? It could record all the context you could handle.
 
2010-01-12 01:50:50 PM  
Atomic Spunk: Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."

That is a well reasoned thought out counter argument. You don't belong here.
 
2010-01-12 01:51:38 PM  
This is why you use a program like Qik to record video with -- not only is it recording it to your phone, but it's _instantly recording it online as well, where it's stored. It's available for almost any type of phone.
 
2010-01-12 01:52:09 PM  
These laws need to be reformed to conform to the reality that today recording and communication devices are ubiquitous and essentially extensions of ourselves. What public benefit is there, ever, to consider the recording of an event by a person who is visibly present, in public place where others may be present or arrive at any time, to be less allowable than the fact they are witnessing and hearing what is going on in front of them?
 
2010-01-12 01:52:43 PM  
This is strictly an audio issue? WTF?

Also, if you make your recording "secretive" thats illegal but if you make it obvious its ok?
 
2010-01-12 01:52:49 PM  
nmiguy: So if you get pulled over for anything you should say "good evening officer, her's my license, and I must advise you that you are being recorded right now." Thanks.

The way that works is that they tell you to turn it off. Then if you do they beat you while it is off, and if you don't they tase you turn it if, then beat and arrest you for "resisting" and not complying with the officers instructions.
 
2010-01-12 01:52:56 PM  
Dinjiin: So the question is, if you are pulled over for a traffic stop, and you do declare that you have a recording device and that you are recording, can the officer force you to stop? I suspect yes, because I doubt that many (if any) states wave officer privacy while on-duty.

Also, why can police officers use dash cams on a suspect without a warrant? Why do officers get to wave my right to privacy in a public place if the reverse is not true?

Shiat like this makes me want to sign up for Weaver95's newsletter.


Mainly because the wiretapping law has nothing to do with recording things in public. The cops are deliberately misinterpreting the law to somehow give them power to stop people from recording their actions.

Wire tapping laws were put into place to specifically prevent electronic communications from being recorded without consent, since the people on the call have an expectation of privacy. No such expectation exists when the police are performing an action on the streets (or when you are just out walking the dog for that matter).

If that wasn't the case, you could make the argument that you aren't even allowed to be talking on a cell phone in public, since there is a possibility that the party on the other end of your call could hear someone near you having a conversation. Clearly that is not what the law is intended to cover.

The police are just abusing their authority... as usual.
 
2010-01-12 01:52:56 PM  
Legal farkers out there, can't he simply argue alter-ego self defense/necessity?
 
2010-01-12 01:53:03 PM  
Boobiesontheside: Atomic Spunk: Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."

So maybe cops should wear lapel cameras? It could record all the context you could handle.


I agree. That would be the best solution. It'll never happen, but it sure would be nice if it did.
 
2010-01-12 01:53:30 PM  
Dinjiin: So the question is, if you are pulled over for a traffic stop, and you do declare that you have a recording device and that you are recording, can the officer force you to stop? I suspect yes, because I doubt that many (if any) states wave officer privacy while on-duty.

Also, why can police officers use dash cams on a suspect without a warrant? Why do officers get to wave my right to privacy in a public place if the reverse is not true?

Shiat like this makes me want to sign up for Weaver95's newsletter.


I don't have an answer for your question, but the word is 'waive', not 'wave'. Carry on.
 
2010-01-12 01:54:02 PM  
jehovahs witness protection, done in one you motha ucka'!!

took the words right outta my mouth

do we get to lay charges for not consenting to their dashboard cams?
 
2010-01-12 01:54:29 PM  
I've just bought a cheapy camera that I plan to wear and record when I'm riding my bike, maybe even when driving.

I'm going with better safe than sorry when it comes to traffic cops and them making crap up when they need to meet their quotas.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report