Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms • Hacker News Board

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#71

Post by pyre » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:52 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #51

bobjordan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

It's beyond sketchy. As the "producer" of such a video, you can edit and cut it any way you want. You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests. EDIT: I've massively changed my comment because, after thinking this through a bit, the real problem here is that this is a political stunt masquerading as some kind of news story. Husband beats wi…

  Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be
  punished. Neighbor sneaks into house, taping
  husband beating wife, then publishes it online
  as part of taking apart husband's run at mayor,
  it's still a crime, but it's also a political
  stunt. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You're also ignoring this angle of it:

  Husband is never charged. Crimes are swept under
  the rug. Husband lobbies for a law that
  specifically makes it an extra crime to film
  husbands beating their wifes due to 'invasion of
  privacy.'

Also, your original analogy is flawed. If someone lying on a resume is not the same as someone that is breaking and entering. The analogy would go more like:

  Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be
  punished. Concerned 3rd party gets hired on as a
  day laborer, cutting said husband's grass. Films
  husband beating wife through window (for the
  sake of argument, let's say that it's impossible
  to see the windows from public land -- e.g. a
  20-acre estate).

You're also cutting a huge chunk out of investigative journalism. How does one discover what goes on behind closed doors without going undercover? It's not like filming these abuses doesn't already come with risks. If someone is beating an animal to death because (e.g.) it has a broken leg and can't walk, is it really such a leap that this person might severely beat someone discovered to be filming it?

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#72

Post by DanielBMarkham » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #69

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's beyond sketchy. As the "producer" of such a video, you can edit and cut it any way you want. You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests. EDIT: I've massively changed my comment because, after thinking this through a bit, the real problem here is that this is a political stunt masquerading as some kind of news story. Husband beats wi…

So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find themselves in the middle of a commercial farming operation with a video camera? I get that it sucks for someone to be acting in bad faith toward their employer, but isn't that justified and even necessary when the employer is acting in bad faith toward the popula…

Snowden is a hero because he exposed that our political class was lying to us. We make broad exceptions when it comes to the government itself because there is no other form of recourse. If the government is lying to you, you're truly hosed.

Here, all sorts of things could happen to bring crimes to light. A worker might rat out his employer. A news crew could be filming some other story. A civil suit might involve disclosure of practices. The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue.

After all, we've created a seriously complex system of laws and enforcement to handle stuff like this. Are we now saying that they aren't good enough? If not, why not fix them, instead of having people sneak around other people's property? And let's not forget, if you let the special group called "people who care about animal treatment" violate property rights, then you'll be doing it for everybody, including people you don't agree with, like perhaps "people who don't want abortions happening"

Nope, there are tons of ways to catch this crime and punish the criminals. Let's use them and enough with the self-promotional I'm-upset-so-I-have-a-right-to-break-the-rules bullshit. No amount of drama here is going to change my mind about the firm necessity of respecting private property in the abstract (meaning assuming there isn't more to the story.)

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#73

Post by ama729 » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

bobjordan wrote: post #45

ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

To you and the other commenter:

But how is that different from a journalist making the same thing?

If it was false or showing the farmer having sex with his/her wife/husband/alien living in the attic, it would be understandable to ban it[0], but showing a number of abuse and the lack of oversight of a large company doesn't strike as particularly reprehensible.

[0] Amusingly, these kind of things are NOT banned. Cue all the leaked sextapes of celebrities and those websites by Hunter Moore.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#74

Post by boomlinde » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:58 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #51

bobjordan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

It's beyond sketchy. As the "producer" of such a video, you can edit and cut it any way you want. You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests. EDIT: I've massively changed my comment because, after thinking this through a bit, the real problem here is that this is a political stunt masquerading as some kind of news story. Husband beats wi…

    > You're effectively using the trust given to you from somebody to make a political propaganda video damaging their interests.

Unlike PR? You know, the means by which private companies manipulate their (potential) customers and interested parties into thinking one way or another about their products. How is this different from the political propaganda in any other way than the former serves to further business and the latter serves to further an ideology? I agree that it's kind of sketchy, but I don't agree that companies and ideological organizations shouldn't get to play in the same ballpark.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#75

Post by JohnTHaller » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

bobjordan wrote: post #45

ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

If by 'harm your employer' you mean 'expose the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconscionable actions of a corporation and its employees', then I think myself and the vast majority of Americans are all for protecting that speech.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#76

Post by benkulbertis » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 3:59 PM UTC

warineurope wrote: post #65

War (possibly a world war) is breaking out in Eastern Europe, and the top story on hacker news is about cows being caned on farms in Idaho...

Cows have been an enslaved species for thousands of years. More cows die at the hands of humans in a week than all the humans that have been slain in human history. Sounds worse than Putin dicking around to me...

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#77

Post by barrkel » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

bobjordan wrote: post #45

ama729 wrote: post #6

Of all things, you would think that the first amendment would protect such a thing, can any lawyer weight on that? > The measure passed Idaho’s Senate earlier in February to the applause of agricultural representatives who said it would help ensure farmers’ right to privacy. There is a certain irony in the US that everyone can get privacy, except private citizen.

I consider myself a far left liberal and I certainly don't condone abusing farm animals. However, taking a paying job under falsified pretenses with a made up resume and then spending your working hours secretly filming internal operations for future public release with the sole goal of harming your employer, that is just sketchy. If you believe in the cause so much that you call it war - well understood. But protect…

Which is worse: taking a job under false pretenses, or abusing animals?

The balance of the good seems clear to me.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#78

Post by pyre » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 4:05 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #72

resu_nimda wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would you propose someone expose (what they consider to be) criminal or unjust practices? It's only ok if an impartial observer just happened to find themselves in the middle of a commercial farming operation with a video camera? I get that it sucks for someone to be acting in bad faith toward their employer, but isn't that justified and even necessary when the employer is acting in bad faith toward the popula…

Snowden is a hero because he exposed that our political class was lying to us. We make broad exceptions when it comes to the government itself because there is no other form of recourse . If the government is lying to you, you're truly hosed. Here, all sorts of things could happen to bring crimes to light. A worker might rat out his employer. A news crew could be filming some other story. A civil suit might involve d…

> A worker might rat out his employer.

This is just naive. In the places where this happens, such 'ratting out' would incur social penalties from the (local) community. It's better to sweep possibly illegal acts under the rug when the livelihood of the community is (possibly) at stake.

Take Snowden as an example (since it's already on the table). How many people had access to the same information about what the NSA was doing for years, and said nothing? Do you really want the only recourse to be waiting for insiders to come forward?

That said, do we really need more laws here? If "lying on your resume to investigate wrong-doings" is such a generically bad thing, then why is this legislation limited to a specific industry?

> "people who don't want abortions happening"

This is a poor example. What could they possibly exposed to shock the public? That abortions are happening? The whole point of going undercover and releasing footage is to expose something to the public. I'm curious what crimes and/or reprehensible behavior is going on at abortion clinics? Doctors sexually abusing patients? Doctors taking aborted fetuses into a backroom and eating them? I'd argue that if said things were actually happening, it would still be in the public interested even if it was an anti-abortion group that was doing it.

> The FDA might investigate the farm as part of some food chain issue.

Many people believe the government is in the pocket of said industries. It takes a really severe issue (e.g. Mad Cow Disease) to have any significant impact. Just witness how the industry was able to get its own law passed to make it specifically illegal to try and exposed illegal acts behind (their) closed doors. Do you really think that government oversight will work correctly in such an environment?

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#79

Post by knowaveragejoe » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 4:05 PM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #16

chrismcb wrote: post #9

Why do we need legislation like this? TFA says "[jail and a fine] for people who secretly enter ... " Do they not already have trespassing laws?

As far as I understand the U.S. legal system, your crimes add up to your sentence. This means that you could nail someone for both trespassing and filming filming at your farm.

Also, potentially render the video they capture inadmissible in some other case. I'm not 100% sure about that, though.

Re: Idaho law criminalizes secretly filming on farms

#80

Post by keeshawn » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 4:06 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #54

keeshawn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hypothetical rape dungeon is private property, too. I would expect my right to privacy is trumped by the general public's right to not have horrifying crimes committed. If you run an operation like this and someone blows a whistle, they should be legally protected, not prosecuted.

If I stumbled upon you committing a crime in your rape dungeon, recorded and made videos of it public, I would fully expect negative consequences to come my way. For one, the victim probably doesn't want those images shown to others. It seems to me that the more logical course of action would be to report you to the police and let them deal with it, not try to shame you in public.

The victims in this case are cows.