Videotaping police a felony?

*DanP*

Quote by nismaratwork

It may not be proof, but it's a powerful to tool to reduce the natural assymetry between the implicit trust placed in an officer's testimony, and the need for that to at least match observation.

A judge's business is not to place implicit trust in anything. The testimony of an officer of the law is no more valuable than the testimony of your average Joe on the streets.

Law Enforcement is probably the profession most exposed to corruption from all the professions on this Earth. Some of the individuals which take part in it are not very different by the very man they are payed to hunt down.

*nismaratwork*

Quote by DanP

A judge's business is not to place implicit trust in anything. The testimony of an officer of the law is no more valuable than the testimony of your average Joe on the streets.

Law Enforcement is probably the profession most exposed to corruption from all the professions on this Earth. Some of the individuals which take part in it are not very different by the very man they are payed to hunt down.

Yet in practice, it is.

edit: Hence the asymmetry I was talking about correcting.

*mugaliens*

Quote by jarednjames

Video can be easily manipulated these days.

Not as easy as Hollywood may lead people to believe, and certainly very time-consuming to get things to the point where most people could no longer tell it'd been manipulated. The Matrix was shot in far less time than it took for it's post-production special effects.

This secure storage you speak of, someone must have access (even if only for maintenance) and therefore 'admin' rights on it. Nothing is full proof.

Nothing is fool proof, but video streamed live to a respected/trusted third-party storage company can be electronically "sealed" until such time as a specialist from that company can appear in trial and testify the date/time it was taken, when they received it, and whether or not anyone has accessed it since then. It's primary use would be to play it alongside the original recording from the camera to verify the original tape had remained free from tampering.

Video can be subject to problems of its own.

It may catch me and you interacting, but it may not see the specifics. Leaving things open to interpretation, and therefore a potential bias.

This is partially true. There was a recent case in Seattle (I think) where a law enforcement officer shot a whittling homeless man five times in the side of his chest. The dash cam shows the man crossing the street while whittling, passing to the right, out of the field of view, and the LEO chasing after him. It also recorded the LEO's audio. From what I recall, the LEO is suspended without pay, no badge/gun, and the case is pending further investigation.

The the LEO's dash cam were the only evidence, it wouldn't have gone down like this. As it turns out, there were two eyewitnesses who refused the LEO's testimony, and a few days later, another video angle from a nearby security camera told the rest of the story.

In the meantime, there are forensic videologists specifically trained to interpret what's being seen in a video, particularly when the quality or angle isn't quite right, and report the same in courts of law.

FlexGunship

Quote by mugaliens

Not as easy as Hollywood may lead people to believe, and certainly very time-consuming to get things to the point where most people could no longer tell it'd been manipulated. The Matrix was shot in far less time than it took for it's post-production special effects.

Check out Freddie Wong on YouTube (username: freddiew (http://www.youtube.com/user/freddiew)). Check out some of his video editing tutorials. I would argue that editing video is easier than trying to hang a hubcap from a fishing line these days.

He has tutorials, and if you watch how quickly he works, I think you'd be surprised.

Still... video is way more reliable than eye witness accounts.

JaredJames

Of course, I'd trust video over an eye witness any day.

You'd really want to do some damage to go out of your way and edit video for that purpose.

*nismaratwork*

I'd add, what Freddie Wong can edit, another can find those telltales. The trick is to remember that video evidence is often used as a means of identification or establishing a time-line... most crimes are not caught on video as they happen. There's also the matter of time: you can edit video quickly, but to cover your tracks well enough to not be hauled up on felony charges?... better be REALLY fast, and you need M.M.O. like any other crime. Generally speaking, video is collected VERY rapidly, and what if you edit 3 angles, but miss the ATM cam? Whooooops!

*mugaliens*

Quote by jarednjames

Of course, I'd trust video over an eye witness any day.

You'd really want to do some damage to go out of your way and edit video for that purpose.

It would definately have to be explicitely intentional, and at that, you'd be leaving traces behind, such as:

Quote by nismaratwork

I'd add, what Freddie Wong can edit, another can find those telltales.

One of the colleagues I worked with in the military had a brother who worked on visual effects for The Matrix. I never met his brother, but they were twins, and they had the same bug, as did I, so I got an earful. I even did a preliminary interview with the team in the hopes of doing an article on their network/storage requirements.

As for telltales, they're prolific. Given a single, ordinary picture involving a subject and it's background, if altered, there aren't just a few telltales, there are dozens, if not hundreds. Fuzzy logic and a host of algorithms available to video forensics can spot even a single pixel which appears to be out of place, given known RAW to JPG algorithms for modern cameras, and the same for chip to video compression schemas.

My point is, when you wind up with a video frame with pixels that cannot possibly have come from any known image using any known commercial video compression algorithm, you have a fake.

A corollary is that the only known way to fake a fake (to make it look real) is to alter the video, then stream it as if it were a camera feed, allowing for compression, and walla.

Problems: This means that it's an inside job, complete with access logs, and even then, my friends tell me there are ways of spotting this (they call it "older") trick.

So... Fake a video? Not likely.

Fake a real-time, date/time coded video stored on third-party servers with auditing seals?

Yeah, right. Figure that one out and wright your ticket to the next blockbuster movie hit.

As it is, police footage is largely (but not always) stored in a locked case inside the trunk. Either Internal Affairs or a similarly-dislocated unit reporting on high has access, and any unauthorized access would result in an immediate investigation as to how/why the LEO who signed out the vehicle allowed this to happen.

I think this is why you see so much police video, even that which incriminates the LEOs themselves, available on YouTube.

The trick is to remember that video evidence is often used as a means of identification or establishing a time-line... most crimes are not caught on video as they happen. There's also the matter of time: you can edit video quickly, but to cover your tracks well enough to not be hauled up on felony charges?... better be REALLY fast, and you need M.M.O. like any other crime. Generally speaking, video is collected VERY rapidly, and what if you edit 3 angles, but miss the ATM cam? Whooooops!

More than that, if you warp one video stream, telltales will be left, and if you warp a second stream, all it takes is one pixel of discrepancy to invalidate both video streams.

No, the only way I see of conducting the perfect video crime is....

*nismaratwork*

Quote by mugaliens

It would definately have to be explicitely intentional, and at that, you'd be leaving traces behind, such as:

One of the colleagues I worked with in the military had a brother who worked on visual effects for The Matrix. I never met his brother, but they were twins, and they had the same bug, as did I, so I got an earful. I even did a preliminary interview with the team in the hopes of doing an article on their network/storage requirements.

As for telltales, they're prolific. Given a single, ordinary picture involving a subject and it's background, if altered, there aren't just a few telltales, there are dozens, if not hundreds. Fuzzy logic and a host of algorithms available to video forensics can spot even a single pixel which appears to be out of place, given known RAW to JPG algorithms for modern cameras, and the same for chip to video compression schemas.

My point is, when you wind up with a video frame with pixels that cannot possibly have come from any known image using any known commercial video compression algorithm, you have a fake.

A corollary is that the only known way to fake a fake (to make it look real) is to alter the video, then stream it as if it were a camera feed, allowing for compression, and walla.

Problems: This means that it's an inside job, complete with access logs, and even then, my friends tell me there are ways of spotting this (they call it "older") trick.

So... Fake a video? Not likely.

Fake a real-time, date/time coded video stored on third-party servers with auditing seals?

Yeah, right. Figure that one out and wright your ticket to the next blockbuster movie hit.

As it is, police footage is largely (but not always) stored in a locked case inside the trunk. Either Internal Affairs or a similarly-dislocated unit reporting on high has access, and any unauthorized access would result in an immediate investigation as to how/why the LEO who signed out the vehicle allowed this to happen.

I think this is why you see so much police video, even that which incriminates the LEOs themselves, available on YouTube.

More than that, if you warp one video stream, telltales will be left, and if you warp a second stream, all it takes is one pixel of discrepancy to invalidate both video streams.

No, the only way I see of conducting the perfect video crime is....

Yep... and once it becomes a major conspiracy, you're back to "why", and "how?!". As for the perfect crime, everyone knows it's the one you...

then you twist the wrist widdershins for an hour.... ...RIGHT in the eyeball... ...not to close to a pudding factor, but close enough for... ...and then you laugh.

*Proton Soup*

oh, in case anyone missed it, it appears that it is currently legal to tape police when they are on duty. at least until it gets appealed, eh?

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on...nd_the_ri.html
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/leg...urt_ruling.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/30/...ting-officers/

"The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs."

i hope that puts the brakes on some of the crazy intimidation that's been going on. the republic is scaring me lately.

Evo

Quote by Proton Soup

oh, in case anyone missed it, it appears that it is currently legal to tape police when they are on duty. at least until it gets appealed, eh?

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on...nd_the_ri.html
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/leg...urt_ruling.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/30/...ting-officers/

i hope that puts the brakes on some of the crazy intimidation that's been going on. the republic is scaring me lately.

But that's the Circuit Court of New England.

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/circuits.html

*Proton Soup*

Quote by Evo

But that's the Circuit Court of New England.

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/circuits.html

yeah, i realize it's not very solid. but what does that mean exactly? those states in the court's jurisdiction may not safely ignore the ruling, but others are free to do as they will?

Evo

Quote by Proton Soup

yeah, i realize it's not very solid. but what does that mean exactly? those states in the court's jurisdiction may not safely ignore the ruling, but others are free to do as they will?

They can, especially if they have existing laws making it illegal. In other words do not assume that this ruling applies to you if you aren't in New England.

However, in federal systems the division between federal and local law may result in complex interactions. For example, state courts in the United States are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system. While state courts must follow decisions of the United States Supreme Court on issues of federal law, federal courts must follow decisions of the courts of each state on issues of that state's law. If there is no decision on point from the highest court of a state, the federal courts must attempt to predict how the state courts would resolve the issue, by looking at decisions from state appellate courts at all levels. Decisions of the lower federal courts (i.e. the federal circuit courts and district courts) are not binding on any state courts, meaning that interpretations of certain federal statutes can and occasionally have diverged depending upon whether the forum is state or federal. In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize forum shopping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis#Verticality

FlexGunship

Quote by Proton Soup

yeah, i realize it's not very solid. but what does that mean exactly? those states in the court's jurisdiction may not safely ignore the ruling, but others are free to do as they will?

Quote by Evo

They can, especially if they have existing laws making it illegal. In other words do not assume that this ruling applies to you if you aren't in New England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis#Verticality

I only have an anecdotal contribution. But I was recently attempting to gather evidence for my defense in a "right-on-red" hearing coming up. Basically, the sign ("No right turn on red") is not visible from the intersection, so I was take a few pictures as evidence of this fact.

Anyway, I noticed that every time I returned to get additional photos (differing weather and traffic conditions), there was always a police cruiser at the intersection. I'm under the impression, now, that the police "stake out" that intersection because they know people can't see the sign and take the turn (safely) on a red light. Since most people won't fight a $42 traffic ticket, they think it's easy money.

I asked Officer He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named if it was okay if I took a picture of him at the intersection and he "reminded me" that it was illegal. This was only three weeks ago. So, before the articles presented by Soupy, but not by much.

EDIT: I am in New Hampshire.

*ThomasT*

http://www.newser.com/story/122075/e...s-dropped.html

Galteeth

On a practical level, given that nearly all phones these days are also cameras, this seems difficult to enforce. It definitely is an effective deterrent against police abuse.

Similar Threads for: Videotaping police a felony?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Blagojevich indicited on 16 felony counts, inc. extortion, rackateering, & wire fraud	Current Events	0
Police Question.....	Introductory Physics Homework	1
Mail Felony	General Discussion	6
Career with felony convictions?	Career Guidance	7

JaredJames Blog Entries: 8 Recognitions: Gold Member	Of course, I'd trust video over an eye witness any day. You'd really want to do some damage to go out of your way and edit video for that purpose.

ThomasT	http://www.newser.com/story/122075/e...s-dropped.html

Galteeth	On a practical level, given that nearly all phones these days are also cameras, this seems difficult to enforce. It definitely is an effective deterrent against police abuse.