Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Ars Technica)   Judge affirms you have the right to record cops who enter your home. Obviously, the cop who took a woman's laptop and deleted her recording disagrees   (arstechnica.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Sacramento Police Department, Eastern District of California, metal theft  
•       •       •

8724 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2014 at 6:22 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-17 05:39:20 PM  
This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.
 
2014-08-17 06:05:54 PM  
This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.
 
2014-08-17 06:25:02 PM  

fusillade762: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.


I just picture a bunch of cops screaming at each other to stop recording.
 
ecl
2014-08-17 06:25:34 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


Beware serious PN postings... they contain undeniable truths that might blind you if you look too long.
 
2014-08-17 06:29:21 PM  
Release the Crago!
 
2014-08-17 06:29:56 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


It's almost like you can craft a law that would answer all of these questions and not just one that says "Police officers wear cameras starting x date"

And people wonder why legislation can be 2700 pages.
 
2014-08-17 06:30:38 PM  
Why would you care that you're being recorded if you aren't doing anything wrong, right? ...right?
 
2014-08-17 06:40:29 PM  

Delta1212: Why would you care that you're being recorded if you aren't doing anything wrong, right? ...right?


Why you're being recorded doing nothing wrong, you'll be inadvertently recording someone else doing something very wrong.
 
2014-08-17 06:42:46 PM  
Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.
 
2014-08-17 06:45:42 PM  
ecl:
Beware serious PN postings... they contain undeniable truths that might blind you if you look too long.

Holy shiat, that was a PN post? Now we know why he does what he normally does, his true form is too much for those on Fark to handle all the time.

I feel if we're going to be in a police big brother state ANYWAYS, we might as well start with the police first. Better to roll it all out systematic to make sure we don't get loopholes and exceptions for those that need watching most, rather then having it done half-assed by corporations and only having accountability for the little people.
 
2014-08-17 07:04:25 PM  
I wonder if she taped herself while she was smoking meth? No? OH, i see...a OPPORTUNISTIC right to video. You don't want anyone taping you breaking the law, bur you're first in line to tape the police. And yes, she has that right imo, but seems a bit hypocritical to me that she's banging down the drugs but the second the cops show up, she tapes them in case they break the law? Hmmmm.
 
2014-08-17 07:05:06 PM  
GenericHumanFive:  Better to roll it all out systematic to make sure we don't get loopholes and exceptions for those that need watching most, rather then having it done half-assed by corporations union protected corrupt police organizations and only having accountability for the little people.

FTFY.
 
2014-08-17 07:06:42 PM  
I'd just be happy with the police being held to the same standards of accountability as the citizenry, if not higher standards.
 
2014-08-17 07:07:07 PM  
And i'm the first to say that all police everywhere should be on camera while doing their duties. That not only protects the citizens, but the police against bogus charges. I have no issue with someone filming cops. Do their job right? No worries. If you can tape me from your squad car, and that is legal, why is it illegal for me to tape you? Truth should go both ways.
 
2014-08-17 07:10:31 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


All Police Officers should be required to wear Google Glass, recording video, at all times while on duty.  Any potential infringements of the rights of individuals will be completely made up for by the ability for those individuals to scream 'Go go Google glass, search horse dick monkey porn' and escape in the confusion.
 
2014-08-17 07:11:08 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly?

Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation?


Yes. Doesn't that happen all the time? They miss something first time around and come back later.

How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers?

What's wrong with that? It is more accurate than the cop's testimony. I'd also like that for traffic tickets and parking tickets as well (if I contest it in court).

And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact?

Record all the time they are on duty. All contacts are recorded.

Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong?

Then I'll show that the police officer is racially profiling. Without video evidence, the officer can do that without impunity.

Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms?

Yes. The camera will be attached to the belt and so when he is in the bathroom, he can leave his camera, gun etc in the car.

What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography?

What if I'm filming birds in the park and suddenly film two kids screwing around in the park? Is it child pornography?

How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers?

Yes, they can request those tapes (provided there is a good reason).

The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

People behave differently when they are being watched or know that their behavior can be watched. All recordings should be made and stored. There are too many ill behaved asshole cops and cops doing bad things.

Gone are the days when the cop seeing something bad would pull you the corner and let you off with a stern but friendly warning. Now, they act like thugs who own the place and are violent if you don't show them respect.
 
2014-08-17 07:11:13 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I wonder if she taped herself while she was smoking meth? No? OH, i see...a OPPORTUNISTIC right to video. You don't want anyone taping you breaking the law, bur you're first in line to tape the police. And yes, she has that right imo, but seems a bit hypocritical to me that she's banging down the drugs but the second the cops show up, she tapes them in case they break the law? Hmmmm.


Beauty about rights, how they can be applied opportunistically and all. It would be a strange place if they could only be applied inconsequentially.
 
2014-08-17 07:11:47 PM  

psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.


Livestream app isn't bad because your event can be starting at that very second; but you do have to hit post to officially make it post I believe. If not, you would have to hope others are seeing the event as you broadcast live.
 
2014-08-17 07:14:02 PM  
I'd say, in cases where you are recording while a police officer is in your home or asking to search your person or car it's more about ensuring the Fourth than the First, although they both apply.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And while we are on the subject, how, if no warrant is to be issued except by oath or affirmation can we have search warrants based on anonymous tips if we also have the right to face our accuser?

As for the libertarian argument against cops wearing cameras, I'd say it's weaker than the libertarian argument for cops wearing cameras.  I suppose, you could put some safeguards into the legislation to the effect that the officers only can review the tape at as part of a defense against accusations of illegal opportunity but that defense attorneys can review it whenever they want?
 
2014-08-17 07:28:23 PM  

TheManofPA: Livestream app isn't bad because your event can be starting at that very second; but you do have to hit post to officially make it post I believe. If not, you would have to hope others are seeing the event as you broadcast live.


Thanks, I'll check it out. Actually  streaming the interaction is a bonus; I'm just looking for a reliable, offsite repository that helps avoid what happened to the chick in the article, or the confiscation of the recording that woman made of Michael Brown being shot a few times.

And then a few times more.

Then, additional shots.

And the final shots too.
 
2014-08-17 07:29:32 PM  

psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.


I believe the Bambuser app does this.
 
2014-08-17 07:45:33 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly?


Cop clocks in for the day, picks up and turns on camera. Clocks out for day, docks and turns off camera. Camera on dock uploads daily recording. It's not that hard.

Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording?

If they are there on Official Business, yes.

What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation?

I doubt they will be reviewing 99.999% of these recordings- they literally will not have the time/manpower to do so. So you're little fantasy of 'Big Brother' watching everything you do is just that- a fantasy. But, Yes, if they were reviewing a tape, and see something they missed, that could be used to get a warrant for further investigation. Just as if they saw that something 'live'.

How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers?

Great. The fakers who claim the cops abused them will be shown as liars, and the cops who lie about what happened will be exposed as liars. What's not to like?

And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact?


Just as long as they can see you, without initiating contact.

What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong?


It means nothing. If the 'suspect' doesn't break the law, they have nothing to fear. And if the cops try to get them on some obscure infraction, the 'suspect' can subpena all the cops footage, and show they were following him for hours and hours, thus proving they were targeting him unfairly. Case dismissed, and sanctions against the cops.

Are these cameras operating during breaks?

Paid breaks? Yes. Unpaid breaks? No.

In bathrooms?

Why not? The cameras are usually on the chest, pointed forward, so they aren't going to show anything 'naughty'. (If you insist, maybe a 'bathroom break' button that puts it in audio-only mode for a pre-set time.)

What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography?

Nope. Unless it's watched by someone with the intention of getting sexually excited. Then it is. (This is similar to how nude sculptures ('David') aren't "porn")

How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers?


Um, if they have a case that is relevant, they have access to the recordings. The same with any evidence.

The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

Most people don't' seem to have a problem with it. Sure, it's possible to come up with hypotheticals that, if they ever really happened, might need special handling. But over all, it's not much more complicated than store's having cameras aimed at their cashiers, or banks at their tellers.
 
2014-08-17 07:57:51 PM  
 
2014-08-17 08:08:47 PM  

TheManofPA: psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.

Livestream app isn't bad because your event can be starting at that very second; but you do have to hit post to officially make it post I believe. If not, you would have to hope others are seeing the event as you broadcast live.


Livestream app - does it work on all phones?
 
2014-08-17 08:23:15 PM  

ecl: Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

Beware serious PN postings... they contain undeniable truths that might blind you if you look too long.


Horseshiat.
 
2014-08-17 08:25:46 PM  

psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.


The ALCU-NJ has an app that does this. It's called Police Tape and it uploads the recording to the ALCU offices.
 
2014-08-17 08:27:00 PM  
 
2014-08-17 08:28:14 PM  
brimed03:

The ALCU-NJ has an app that does this. It's called Police Tape and it uploads the recording to the ALCU offices.

My post is better it has links =p
 
2014-08-17 08:30:33 PM  
I have a solutions. Camera all the homes.
 
2014-08-17 08:32:08 PM  

brimed03: psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?

Or, even better, eliminates local recording and just sends the shiat to the cloud? Open the app, push record, and BAM. Seems like an app like this would eliminate the possibility of interested parties confiscating cards or media or the entire recording device.

I thought some streaming services would work, but you have to schedule times, name events, etc. etc. - things you can't do rapidly. Cloud backup works, unless the device is shut off, the card is removed or the device's network connection is lost prior to the device's next scheduled sync.

The ALCU-NJ has an app that does this. It's called Police Tape and it uploads the recording to the ALCU offices.


Thanks autocorrect. WTF is the ALCU?

It should, of course, read ACLU.
 
2014-08-17 08:34:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/03/28/fact-check-do-police-cameras-d ec rease-police-complaints/
It works.  It makes them accountable.  Who cares if they watch all day long to catch someone doing something wrong.  If they are going to do something illegal it was time well spent.
 
2014-08-17 08:37:44 PM  

brimed03: Thanks autocorrect. WTF is the ALCU?


I had a torn ACLU once.
 
2014-08-17 08:48:06 PM  
brimed03:Thanks autocorrect. WTF is the ALCU?

I think Alcu was Dracula's emo son in Castlevania III.
 
2014-08-17 08:53:40 PM  
If he had nothing to fear, he wouldn't have had a problem with the recording existing.
 
2014-08-17 08:54:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


If out in public,you have no expectation of privacy. That is why we can record the police and they can't object (yes, they still do, fark 'em).  In a private home, things get bit murky.  You have the right to record in your own home, but I do have a problem with someone else recording in a private home.  I think (pulling out my fark law ged) that it's going to be decided that if you voluntarily allow the police in your home, you are giving implied consent to them recording.  Obviously, if they are executing a warrant, you don't get a choice.  My personal recommendation is to step out on the front porch to talk with the police instead of allowing them in.
 
2014-08-17 08:55:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.


So turn it around on them. Have normal citizens doing the recording. Be Big Brother's Big Brother.

Cops who don't abuse the system, few and far between as they may be, shouldn't have a problem with this because it covers their asses too.
 
2014-08-17 09:00:09 PM  

BullBearMS: What happens when the police are forced to wear cameras that constantly record their actions while they are on duty?

When researchers studied the effect of cameras on police behavior, the conclusions were striking. Within a year, the number of complaints filed against police officers in Rialto fell by 88 percent and "use of force" fell by 59 percent. "When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better," Chief William A. Farrar, the Rialto police chief, told the New York Times. "And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better."

...such devices would also save money, not only by reducing lawsuits against the police force but also by helping the force to dismiss cases in court with digital evidence proving that police acted appropriately. Allegations of excessive or unnecessary force; unlawful stops, searches, or frisks; unwarranted arrests, tickets, threats, or traffic stops; and disrespectful demeanors or profanity would all "be easier to resolve with the use of video footage," the city concluded.


As a genuine Libertarian, this issue is huge...and I can't lie, I'm on the fence.  The ability to no longer fear the police, in return for the possibility there's a cop somewhere with a camera.  I gotta say...I kinda/sorta like the tradeoff in return for an 88% drop in complaints and less people/dogs gunned down in small dick frustration.
 
2014-08-17 09:07:24 PM  

fusillade762: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.


Yes, then we could watch Michael Brown Attacks II. (In 3D)
 
2014-08-17 09:14:32 PM  

Fade2black: BullBearMS: What happens when the police are forced to wear cameras that constantly record their actions while they are on duty?

When researchers studied the effect of cameras on police behavior, the conclusions were striking. Within a year, the number of complaints filed against police officers in Rialto fell by 88 percent and "use of force" fell by 59 percent. "When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better," Chief William A. Farrar, the Rialto police chief, told the New York Times. "And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better."

...such devices would also save money, not only by reducing lawsuits against the police force but also by helping the force to dismiss cases in court with digital evidence proving that police acted appropriately. Allegations of excessive or unnecessary force; unlawful stops, searches, or frisks; unwarranted arrests, tickets, threats, or traffic stops; and disrespectful demeanors or profanity would all "be easier to resolve with the use of video footage," the city concluded.

As a genuine Libertarian, this issue is huge...and I can't lie, I'm on the fence.  The ability to no longer fear the police, in return for the possibility there's a cop somewhere with a camera.  I gotta say...I kinda/sorta like the tradeoff in return for an 88% drop in complaints and less people/dogs gunned down in small dick frustration.


Society grants exceptional powers to police officers. With great power should come great accountability.
 
2014-08-17 09:17:45 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I wonder if she taped herself while she was smoking meth? No? OH, i see...a OPPORTUNISTIC right to video. You don't want anyone taping you breaking the law, bur you're first in line to tape the police. And yes, she has that right imo, but seems a bit hypocritical to me that she's banging down the drugs but the second the cops show up, she tapes them in case they break the law? Hmmmm.


Are you suggesting she had some kind of moral obligation to incriminate herself, and if she didnt do so then she had no moral right to protect herself?

Are you mental?
 
2014-08-17 09:20:16 PM  

Boo_Guy: brimed03:

The ALCU-NJ has an app that does this. It's called Police Tape and it uploads the recording to the ALCU offices.

My post is better it has links =p


Lol and it spelled ACLU correctly.
 
2014-08-17 09:22:50 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: If he had nothing to fear, he wouldn't have had a problem with the recording existing.


This is my favorite comment ITT. And there have been a few really good ones... but the others were mainly making fun of my autocorrect error.
 
2014-08-17 09:27:27 PM  

OgreMagi: Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

If out in public,you have no expectation of privacy. That is why we can record the police and they can't object (yes, they still do, fark 'em).  In a private home, things get bit murky.  You have the right to record in your own home, but I do have a problem with someone else recording in a private home.  I think (pulling out my fark law ged) that it's going to be decided that if you voluntarily allow the police in your home, you are giving implied consent to them recording.  Obviously, if they are executing a warrant, you don't get a choice.  My personal recommendation is to step out on the front porch to talk with the police instead of allowing them in.


According to tfa, the judge seems to feel that the right to tape in public implies a right to tape at home. I'm paraphrasing heavily because mobile, but I don't think the judge is making the distinction you suggest.

Obviously this doesn't mean you can tape guests using your bathroom. He's talking about any time police enter your house on official business.
 
2014-08-17 09:28:49 PM  

OgreMagi: Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

If out in public,you have no expectation of privacy. That is why we can record the police and they can't object (yes, they still do, fark 'em).  In a private home, things get bit murky.  You have the right to record in your own home, but I do have a problem with someone else recording in a private home.  I think (pulling out my fark law ged) that it's going to be decided that if you voluntarily allow the police in your home, you are giving implied consent to them recording.  Obviously, if they are executing a warrant, you don't get a choice.  My personal recommendation is to step out on the front porch to talk with the police instead of allowing them in.


Ah. I misread you. Never mind.
 
2014-08-17 09:34:32 PM  

ecl: Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

Beware serious PN postings... they contain undeniable truths that might blind you if you look too long.


I'm convinced his posts are transmissions from an alien intelligence coded with subliminal signals meant to smooth the way for when his people arrive on our planet.
 
2014-08-17 09:40:10 PM  

psychopathic tendencies: Here's question  - anyone know of an app (smartphone, ideally) that simultaneously uploads audio/video as it is being locally recorded?


https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-nj-releases-apple-vers io n-police-accountability-app

Records and uploads to an ACLU server for analysis.  A pure nightmare for law enforcement.
 
2014-08-17 09:48:21 PM  
Three caveats regarding the ACLU-NJ app:

1. It is designed for use in NJ. You can of course use it elsewhere, but the law may be different. The app is designed for stealth recording of audio or audio and video. I'm in MD now and it's a dual-consent state. So I believe I would have to inform the cops that I'm recording.

2. You have to press a few buttons to upload the recording. It's not automatic.

3. Once uploaded, it can be viewed by *anyone* through the ACLU-NJ website. There is no private option, nor can you delete it yourself.
 
2014-08-17 09:55:16 PM  

ecl: Pocket Ninja: This has been mentioned before, but all cops should be required to wear cameras while on duty.

This line of thought fascinates me, especially hearing it (as I did over drinks last evening) coming from someone who normally styles himself quite the Libertarian. The solution to law enforcement being overly assertive, trampling individual rights, and essentially embodying a "big brother" philosophy is ... to turn every law enforcement officer into a walking lens for Big Brother? How would this work, exactly? Whenever a police officer comes into your home, they're recording? What if they see something on a review of the recording that they missed before -- do they get to come back as a result for further investigation? How do we feel about every single trial starting with video evidence filmed by the police officers? And along with that, how long are they allowed to record you before deciding to initiate some sort of contact? Long enough to obtain incontrovertible evidence? What does it mean for racial profiling now that police officers can simply record people they suspect might do something wrong long enough for them to actually do something wrong? Are these cameras operating during breaks? In bathrooms? What happens if a police officer catches two kids screwing in a closed park after dark? Is this now child pornography? How freely can prosecutors access these tapes? Defense lawyers? The rabbit hole this entire line of thought creates is so long and twisted that it's almost impossible to estimate its depth, and yet otherwise rationale people are repeating it like gospel. Stunning.

Beware serious PN postings... they contain undeniable truths that might blind you if you look too long.


He is a prophet among fark.
 
2014-08-17 10:32:11 PM  

brimed03: 1. It is designed for use in NJ. You can of course use it elsewhere, but the law may be different. The app is designed for stealth recording of audio or audio and video. I'm in MD now and it's a dual-consent state. So I believe I would have to inform the cops that I'm recording.


Doesn't count if you are recording the police in public.  They have no expectation of privacy and you don't need to inform them.  This has been decided at the Federal court level.
 
2014-08-17 10:52:55 PM  

OgreMagi: brimed03: 1. It is designed for use in NJ. You can of course use it elsewhere, but the law may be different. The app is designed for stealth recording of audio or audio and video. I'm in MD now and it's a dual-consent state. So I believe I would have to inform the cops that I'm recording.

Doesn't count if you are recording the police in public.  They have no expectation of privacy and you don't need to inform them.  This has been decided at the Federal court level.


Interesting. Thanks.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report