TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The War on Cameras

173 点作者 ccoop超过 14 年前

18 条评论

rbranson超过 14 年前
As someone who's been arrested for a misdemeanor due to a case of mistaken identity and basically forced to take a plea entirely because of a falsified police report, the FOP spokesperson's claim that we must trust the police is laughable. If it's happened to me, a friendly white guy in a nice part of town, I can't imagine what happens in less advantageous situations. I sure wish I would have had a video of the situation at the time.
评论 #2000972 未加载
pyre超过 14 年前
Remember that through all of that muddle mess of 'what is really illegal' is the fact that 'ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.' So if the prosecutor won't even comment on 'hypothetical situations' then how is a normal citizen supposed to evaluate these things for themselves? Accidentally cross the line, and then find yourself in jail as an example to others? Is this the 'justice' that we want? Throwing people in jail as part of the process of figuring out where we should 'draw the line?' Just throwing people under the bus?
评论 #1999566 未加载
评论 #1999659 未加载
评论 #1999419 未加载
评论 #2000022 未加载
评论 #2016177 未加载
评论 #2000053 未加载
delackner超过 14 年前
The persistent failure of US state and federal government to fix this situation has a deeply corrosive effect on the public trust. With trust in public officials plummeting for various reasons, this represents an alarming threat to the long-term health of the United States.
评论 #1999993 未加载
iwwr超过 14 年前
The word of a police officer is taken at a higher value in court, in the absence of any other evidence. The police having that power and being entrusted with the collection of evidence means ordinary citizens are already at a great disadvantage once in court. Surveillance is sometimes the only resort the public have to defend themselves from abuse.<p>Not saying that the police are abusive by definition, but when they do act in that manner (or tamper with evidence), there is little an ordinary citizen can do to defend himself.<p>Surveillance has the great advantage that it doesn't particularly hinder honest officers in the line of duty, it only trips up the abusers.
评论 #2001336 未加载
motters超过 14 年前
If they're public officials in a public space performing a public duty then there should be no problem with taking photos or video of them. The recent case of the death of Ian Tomlinson is a good illustration of how important it can be for people to be able to independently photograph police. In that case had a bystander not been taking photos the full circumstances of the case may never have been known.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson</a>
评论 #2000023 未加载
acangiano超过 14 年前
As we've been told many times over, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Let's apply the same principle to our public servants.
评论 #1999769 未加载
billswift超过 14 年前
<i>"have a news-gathering right as to public conversations that wouldn’t also apply to conversations that one party expects to remain private. ..., and either decide that people are free to secretly record any conversation they’re privy to, or have to draw lines between some conversations and other conversations that are hard to justify as a First Amendment matter."</i><p>Since anyone can report on anything that is said to them, with "expectation of privacy" or not, all requiring permission to record from the other person a conversation you are party to is to make it easy for liars. If A says B said X, and B says he didn't, then all a recording could do is determine who's lying. The existence of a recording doesn't constitute a betrayal, the reporting of private conversation does, <i>whether or not there is a recording</i>.
评论 #1999722 未加载
DanielBMarkham超过 14 年前
In a situation like this, where it's obvious that the law has to change, I become more interested in the systems of people that are misaligned to make the confusion worse.<p>It looks to me that if you are an undercover policeman, you cannot participate in any police work aside from your undercover duties. Likewise, if you have ever been a "public" officer, you then can't cross over and become an undercover agent -- not with facial recognition software. There are also considerations for domestic violence, juvenile, and rape cases. No longer can you meet or converse with victims in any sort of public forum (interesting question: can victims of crime also tape their own interviews? How about suspects?)<p>All of this means we have a bunch of retraining and re-organizing to do of the national police force. This is going to be a major change and effects everything from seniority to career tracks, manpower needs, and court appearances. Just guessing, I'm betting that it adds a lot more cops than we had before. Not sure who is going to pay for those cops or if, in the end, we don't end up in a worse spot from where we started.<p>Having said that, because of the severity and broad scale of the problem, this will probably end up being settled at the national level. Probably after some crisis occurs. Wonder what that crisis would be?<p>I'd also note that it is the edge cases that are driving the change. There are probably dozens of cops taped everyday without incident. And probably dozens that illegally prevent taping. We just don't know. The only things we know are those things which are publicized effectively.<p>The point being that it's easy to think in terms of what the perfect world is or should be. The interesting part comes when real people and systems are bounced up against necessary changes.
nodata超过 14 年前
It's worth point out that the title applies only to non-government. There is a war on cameras used by the public, but there has been an explosion of cameras used the other way round.
Estragon超过 14 年前
My brief scan of the law in NYS suggests that recording public officials without their knowledge or consent is legal here.<p><a href="http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art250" rel="nofollow">http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm...</a>
Groxx超过 14 年前
Non-print single page: <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/singlepage" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/sin...</a>
alanh超过 14 年前
Carlos Miller's excellent blog "Photography is Not a Crime" is highly relevant.
评论 #1999847 未加载
z0r超过 14 年前
The police must be held to a higher standard than the citizens they regulate. They should be subject to panopticon.
zmitri超过 14 年前
The thing that seems so absurd to me is that shows like "COPS" are so ridiculously successful.
评论 #1999455 未加载
milkmandan超过 14 年前
The public must Miranda the cops now. "Everything you say..." etc.
VladRussian超过 14 年前
instead of recording on your device, just call a voicemail set up in a state with no wiretapping law.
评论 #2001391 未加载
Mizza超过 14 年前
Working on an app to fix this. 95% finished. Launching soon.
uriel超过 14 年前
See also Cato's insightful "Cops on Camera": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8</a>