News Is Recording Police Interactions a Felony?

[Proton Soup]

Forget lottery, what about those who don't pay tax?

in the US, those seem to be the people that have the most interaction with law enforcement.

 

[mugaliens]

So you can carry guns freely, but also feel the need to have a recorder into cover yourself.

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

I must say, this 'American Freedom' lark sounds bloody amazing.

In what way?

^{(This isn't an attack on guns before anyone takes it that way.)}

No worries. :)

How does CCTV work then? If you were a cop breaking the rules whilst speaking to someone you just pulled over, and some local shop CCTV captured it, where does that leave the shop owner?

I see a number of problems with these laws which to me, make them simply about 'getting revenge' on a person who catches a cop doing something they shouldn't be.

Good points.

 

[JaredJames]

Nope. I'm a writer, and got tired of both carrying around a notebook, writing it in, and laboriously typing up what I wrote. It's a lot easier to have Dragon simply convert the clips into searcheable text.

I simply figured as long as I'm carrying it around, why not have it running, just in case? As for encounters, I don't expect any adverse encounters here in Colorado, at least not with law enforcement. I know several of the officers assigned to the local division, less than a mile from where I live.

Sorry, I misinterpretted 'carrying' as referring to guns not the recorder. Apologies.

In what way?

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Well I see a country where people will sue for pretty much anything, and so people feel the need to cover themselves via such means as recording devices. (Unfortunately, this sueing culture is extending to Britain.)

I'll sue you for that!

 

[Evo]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information. Also, don't repost unless there is actually a charge for videotaping.

No one denies that police abuse their power or that in stressful situations make poor decisions. Those videos didn't show any wrong doing on the part of the officer and your link didn't show any charges for videotaping.

Also, California is a two party consent state.

Laws need to be changed, but our country allows states to make individual laws.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sorry, that was a highly biased source. You can repost with a mainstream news source that contains all information.

It looks like most newspapers are just syndicating the LA Times story. Here's one that isn't:
http://citywatchla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4289

I haven't read it or the LA Times story (other than the first page).

 

[Proton Soup]

here's a site that reports on this sort of thing

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248"

 

[FlexGunship]

Reviving this thread because of a newly released story!

Source: http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/2...-public-places-and-outside-federal-buildings/

There is a link to the actual settlement on that site (which is why I chose to include it instead of other news sources).

Officers should not seize the camera or its contents, and must be cautious not to give such ‘orders’ to a photographer to erase the contents of a camera, as this constitutes a seizure or detention.

(Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39623305/Federal-Courthouse-Photography-Settlement)

 

[Alfi]

from Stranger in a Strange Land by R.H.H
Stranger in a Strange Land is a 1961 science fiction novel by American author Robert A. Heinlein.
In this book the author introduces a concept. The Fair Witness.
Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.

Having read this thread, I am surprised that no one mentioned this possibility. Cameras are a possible source for this profession, in that they can stream video to a secure site that are 'read only' and therefore could be offered in courts of law as irrefutable evidence. No manipulation possible being the key point. As Evo pointed out earlier. post #34
Fair Witnesses are prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. Video does this.
It may not offer a complete story about the instance, but it is not subject to memory lose or bias.

Perhaps technology has caught up with Sci-Fi ... or soon will.

 

[JaredJames]

Video can be easily manipulated these days. 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.

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

we've had a couple of officers here local going to trial for beating a guy who was unconscious. the Fair Witness in this case is the camera on the dash of the patrol car. if you want to see, just look for david wayne doran and barrett g. dewitt.

 

[nismaratwork]

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

Proof? No, but a very valuable data-point, and in practice, a means of inducing prosecution were it may not have otherwise been pursued.

 

[DanP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

It would definitely 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_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/glik_v_cunniffe/appeals_court_ruling.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/30/first-circuit-upholds-right-to-videotape-arresting-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]

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_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html
http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/glik_v_cunniffe/appeals_court_ruling.pdf
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/30/first-circuit-upholds-right-to-videotape-arresting-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]

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]

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]

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.

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/...ing-rochester-police-has-charges-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.