Big brother is watching, but dont watch him.

[stevelkinevil]

Another step toward a Police state folks. Unbelievable, the founding fathers must be generating friction by turning over in their graves so much. Sad state of affairs indeed.

http://breakthematrix.com/politics/government/police-state-government-politics/courageous-illinois-man-faces-75-years-prison-recording-cops/

[Ronin13]

What!? That is crazy! I guess freedom is just going right out the window... protect cops from what? When they break the law there is no hard evidence against them. Sounds like IL is going to be the first of many to have "perfect" cops all the time.

[Lex_Luthor]

Wow, that is F'd up!

[KevDen2005]

The law won't even let you record the cops if they are on your own private property. Spooky as he'll that this is happening in 12 states. Who will watch the cops if we can't?


Is that state specific? You can record the police in this state.

[Irving]

Someone sent me this article just today.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html


Seems to me that if people started doing "flash mobs" of people showing up to film state and federal employees while they work, this would change things real quick. I'd love to set up a tripod and film a speed trap or a DUI check point.

"Hello sir, what are you doing with that video camera?"
"Exactly the same thing you are doing. Sitting around waiting for someone to fuck up."

I don't see why every government employee shouldn't have a camera on them at all times that they are at work. No more back room deals. Mandatory live streaming of web cams from every government owned laptop, with publicly posted links. Want to see what your dipshit Governor is doing right now? Just log on and see for yourself.

Here is the article, since that site seems buggy.


Hear ye, hear ye!!

The First Circuit Court of Appeals--the highest federal court for New England just below the U.S. Supreme Court--last Friday handed down a ground-breaking decision defending our right to videotape the police and other public officials as they engage in their official duties--including when, as in this case, the cops appear to be beating a man on the Boston Common.

As I described in my June 8 "On Liberty" blog, the case involved Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common who pulled out his cell phone video camera when he saw the Boston police punching a man as bystanders shouted, "You're hurting him."

Rather than walk away, Simon pulled out his cell phone. Standing 10 feet away, he videotaped the incident. Although he never interfered with the officers' actions, the police arrested Simon--handcuffing him and seizing his phone. They charged him with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording (although police admit that they were aware Simon was not acting secretly), aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace.

A court subsequently threw out all criminal charges against Simon as lacking merit. But the effort to intimidate him was clear.

So Simon and the ACLU filed a civil rights suit to ensure that other innocent people won't be similarly arrested for doing what most people would consider a civic duty--documenting public instances of police misconduct.

On Friday, the First Circuit agreed. In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

"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."

Attorneys for the city argued that police should have been immune from a civil rights lawsuits in this case because, they asserted, the law is unclear as to whether there is a "constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public".

Making the law crystal clear, the Court responded: "Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative."

The Court further stated that such protections should have been clear to the police all along, noting that the right to videotape police carrying out their duties in a public forum is "fundamental and virtually self-evident", particularly on the Boston Common--the "apotheosis of a public forum."

The Court also made it clear that the right to videotape public officials isn't limited to the press. Rather, the Court noted, "the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press."

"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw," the Court continued. "The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."

The Court also acknowledged the need for balance between holding public officials "accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."

Nonetheless, the court concluded, "In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment right."

"[T]hough not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."

Huzzah!

[OneGuy67]

Its the party knowledge of the recording that is the issue. Here in Colorado, a recording of a conversation can happen as long as one of the parties knows it is being recorded.

Back when I first started in law enforcement, cordless phones had just come out and they were able to be picked up by scanners. People used to listen to their neighbors phone calls with scanners, but that changed in 1994/1995 when it became a federal felony to do so.

Laws can't keep up with the technology curve and sometimes activity is tried to be shoehorned into old laws. For example: the 18th Judicial District still charges wiretapping if during a dispute with someone, you grab the phone or cell phone out of a person's hand. It is a felony. I was never on board with this practice, but it was used during domestic situations because the victim party was scared of the other party who exercised control over them and the phone. It isn't what the wiretapping statute was written for.

[Irving]

Its the party knowledge of the recording that is the issue.

Bullshit! They are in public! If that was really the issue, than no one would ever pay a red light ticket or speed camera ticket, ever, and security camera footage wouldn't be able to be used in court.

[hammer03]

Bullshit! They are in public! If that was really the issue, than no one would ever pay a red light ticket or speed camera ticket, ever, and security camera footage wouldn't be able to be used in court.

As I understand the most common application of these laws, since none of those have audio, they aren't an issue. So if you mute your camera phone maybe it isn't an issue? Ha...

[OneGuy67]

Bullshit! They are in public! If that was really the issue, than no one would ever pay a red light ticket or speed camera ticket, ever, and security camera footage wouldn't be able to be used in court.

You misunderstand Stu. I was referring to audio communication, not video. Two parties have a conversation; one knows it is being recorded, that is okay. Both parties don't know it is being recorded, not okay.

[KevDen2005]

You misunderstand Stu. I was referring to audio communication, not video. Two parties have a conversation; one knows it is being recorded, that is okay. Both parties don't know it is being recorded, not okay.

If you really wanna piss someone off record your supervisor then have them tell you they are looking for any reason whatsoever to suspend you....

needless to say I didn't violate law or policy but they did try...

[Irving]

You misunderstand Stu. I was referring to audio communication, not video. Two parties have a conversation; one knows it is being recorded, that is okay. Both parties don't know it is being recorded, not okay.

That makes more sense.