This is fucking ridiculous. (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/01/man-faces-jail-for-v.html)
Quote
Police officer Joseph Uhler was caught on film charging out of his unmarked car and waving his gun at a unarmed motorcyclist pulled over for speeding. When the footage was uploaded to YouTube, authorities raided Anthony Graber's home, siezed his computers, arrested him, and charged him with "wiretapping" offenses that could land him in jail for 16 years. Glyn writes in (http://dynamic.boingboing.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=6&id=89981):
QuoteThe ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who potentially faces 16 years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. The ACLU attorney handling the case says, "To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist."
Indeed, Maryland contends that Uhler had a reasonable expectation of privacy while waving his gun around in public and yelling at a motorist with a giant video camera mounted on the top of his helmet.
Remarkably, the state Attorney General has already opined that when police record in public, that is not a private conversation subject to the same laws. In other words, in any public interaction between a police officer and a member of the public in Maryland, it is private for one of them but not the other.
"We have looked, and have not been able to find a single court anywhere in the country that has found an expectation of privacy for an officer in such circumstances," writes the ACLU
Sixteen Years in Prison for Videotaping the Police? (http://www.mclu.org/node/653)
There's an extensive history of this being used in Los Angles in the 60s and 70s (if I'm remembering the dates right). The black community there would keep track of arrests that were obviously done with the intent of showing them who was in charge of LA. Bystanders would write down the circumstances, the name of the arrestee, the arresting officer or officers' badge numbers, and any instances of them "resisting arrest" or "attacking officers."
The motorcyclist was unarmed - what the fuck does a cop need to pull a gun out for in an instance like that? In any case, Anthony Graber was doing something that's been done for decades, albeit on the other side of the country and with a camera instead of a notepad. A police officer is in the service of his city and while he is doing such, he is most certainly not a private person.
Since when do wiretapping laws have criminal charges associated with them?
Huh, it actually is a felony in Maryland, except that 16 years is way over the limit (5 years).
Also I find this amusing
Quote
(4) (i) It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if:
1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation;
So basically, its ok for the cops to record you, but not for you to record them.
This is also apparently becoming very common in a couple other states.
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
http://www.copwatchla.org/
^ This is going to be fun if it happens here.
It gets better, the state attorney's general office says the county is full of shit for trying this, and the county hasn't backed down. :lulz:
This is all good to know.
Wow it sure would be nice if cops existed to make people safe.
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
You have got to be joking.
I could agree with that, for a certain definition of "nothing to hide" which requires that there be nothing in your history that you could possibly get in trouble for and reliable witnesses at every stage in your life to publically dispute any fabricated evidence of wrongdoing.
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 01, 2010, 10:43:19 PM
You have got to be joking.
In the sense that I think it's a fallacious argument - yes. In the sense that I think it's funny to use said argument against the machine which invented it - no. In the sense that precisely the reason why we'd want the freedom to record police behaviour is because they have plenty to hide, thus creating an interesting cognitive dissonance - welcome to PD.com :wink:
Quote from: Ferka Zarco on August 01, 2010, 11:27:40 PM
I could agree with that, for a certain definition of "nothing to hide" which requires that there be nothing in your history that you could possibly get in trouble for and reliable witnesses at every stage in your life to publically dispute any fabricated evidence of wrongdoing.
And a fair legal system.
Quote from: Cain on August 02, 2010, 12:06:18 AM
Quote from: Ferka Zarco on August 01, 2010, 11:27:40 PM
I could agree with that, for a certain definition of "nothing to hide" which requires that there be nothing in your history that you could possibly get in trouble for and reliable witnesses at every stage in your life to publically dispute any fabricated evidence of wrongdoing.
And a fair legal system.
And police who would never wrongfully harm a suspect.
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 02, 2010, 12:08:53 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 02, 2010, 12:06:18 AM
Quote from: Ferka Zarco on August 01, 2010, 11:27:40 PM
I could agree with that, for a certain definition of "nothing to hide" which requires that there be nothing in your history that you could possibly get in trouble for and reliable witnesses at every stage in your life to publically dispute any fabricated evidence of wrongdoing.
And a fair legal system.
And police who would never wrongfully harm a suspect.
AND the right to have court fees waived once your innocence is proven.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 01, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 01, 2010, 10:43:19 PM
You have got to be joking.
In the sense that I think it's a fallacious argument - yes. In the sense that I think it's funny to use said argument against the machine which invented it - no. In the sense that precisely the reason why we'd want the freedom to record police behaviour is because they have plenty to hide, thus creating an interesting cognitive dissonance - welcome to PD.com :wink:
This post is irritating to read
in the sense that it is confusing.
Are you having difficulty with the writing or the concepts?
Quote from: Ferka Zarco on August 01, 2010, 11:27:40 PM
I could agree with that, for a certain definition of "nothing to hide" which requires that there be nothing in your history that you could possibly get in trouble for and reliable witnesses at every stage in your life to publically dispute any fabricated evidence of wrongdoing.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 02, 2010, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 01, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 01, 2010, 10:43:19 PM
You have got to be joking.
In the sense that I think it's a fallacious argument - yes. In the sense that I think it's funny to use said argument against the machine which invented it - no. In the sense that precisely the reason why we'd want the freedom to record police behaviour is because they have plenty to hide, thus creating an interesting cognitive dissonance - welcome to PD.com :wink:
This post is irritating to read in the sense that it is confusing.
For some reason I got the sense he was being sarcastic, but that may be because my irony sensors have been down for maintenance recently.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on August 02, 2010, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 02, 2010, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 01, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 01, 2010, 10:43:19 PM
You have got to be joking.
In the sense that I think it's a fallacious argument - yes. In the sense that I think it's funny to use said argument against the machine which invented it - no. In the sense that precisely the reason why we'd want the freedom to record police behaviour is because they have plenty to hide, thus creating an interesting cognitive dissonance - welcome to PD.com :wink:
This post is irritating to read in the sense that it is confusing.
For some reason I got the sense he was being sarcastic, but that may be because my irony sensors have been down for maintenance recently.
I understood Cpt. Utopia's post as turning that old cliché on its head, and saying that if the police have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from a video camera wielding civilian.
Yup, which made me wonder for a minute if the cliché was correct.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 02, 2010, 12:28:18 AM
Are you having difficulty with the writing or the concepts?
Both actually... like what's a pro-noun and why does it get paided more then a noun
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 02, 2010, 01:10:21 AM
Yup, which made me wonder for a minute if the cliché was correct.
Ohh. No, I couldn't tell. My brain locked up on that one, so I didn't get it. :lol:
Quote from: Pastor-Monkey Zucchini on August 02, 2010, 12:43:45 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on August 02, 2010, 12:36:54 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 02, 2010, 12:11:17 AM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 01, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 01, 2010, 10:43:19 PM
You have got to be joking.
In the sense that I think it's a fallacious argument - yes. In the sense that I think it's funny to use said argument against the machine which invented it - no. In the sense that precisely the reason why we'd want the freedom to record police behaviour is because they have plenty to hide, thus creating an interesting cognitive dissonance - welcome to PD.com :wink:
This post is irritating to read in the sense that it is confusing.
For some reason I got the sense he was being sarcastic, but that may be because my irony sensors have been down for maintenance recently.
I understood Cpt. Utopia's post as turning that old cliché on its head, and saying that if the police have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from a video camera wielding civilian.
Concur :)
ALL LINE UP FOR STATES' RIGHTS HERE!
See, one thing Jeffersonian spags forget, the protection of the weak is usually compromised when states' RIGHTS TO HAVE TEH RIGHTS trumps those of the individual. I'm finding cases like this as well as the Prop 8 fiasco falling under this category, and there's many more like them. Arizona's recent Operation Wetback Mach II barks high and loud in this key.