Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#21

Post by Anechoic »

hugh3 wrote: post #19
Anechoic wrote: post #8

I've always believed that it should be legal to audio and/or video record any government employee/contractor during the performance of their official duties (and I say that as a govt contractor). If we can't be accountable to the public, how can we expect to serve the public?

OK, please send me your address so I can set up a camera in your office.

Most of my government work is field work (sound & vibration measurements). My next definitive government project will be sometime in winter/spring 2011: http://www.ntionline.com/CourseInfo.asp?CourseNumber=TPE16 . You'll probably have to check with NTI, but I'm fine if you want to record it (although NTI won't probably won't let you put it up on YouTube since they charge admission to the course).

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#22

Post by Anechoic »

hugh3 wrote: post #18
bootload wrote: post #11

"... This is all important. Being able to record the police is one of the best ways to ensure that the police are held accountable for their actions. ..." It's not only Police. In the local news today it's "ticket inspectors" using unreasonable force: "Brouwer says too much force not the ticket" [0] ~ http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brouwer-says-too-much-forc... [0] The Age, Nick McKenzie 2010DEC22

Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the recei…

which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them

Do we know that for sure? In the US at least, generally workers in those positions specifically do not have the power to apprehend people - if there is a problem, you call the police or the designated security personnel. It's really easy for a person without the proper martial training to unnecessarily hurt someone, or get hurt themselves.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#23

Post by Anechoic »

brown9-2 wrote: post #14

Can anyone explain the argument against the legality/morality of videotaping a police officer performing their official duties?

Two of the arguments bandied about are: 1) police have an expectation of privacy, and 2) people trying to videotape can interfere with police (if they get too close, etc).

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#24

Post by pmorici »

hugh3 wrote: post #16
brown9-2 wrote: post #14

Can anyone explain the argument against the legality/morality of videotaping a police officer performing their official duties?

Under certain circumstances I can see it as legitimate to protect officers from retaliation for doing their jobs. Example: Police officers raid a [whatever] belonging to an organized crime syndicate. Some dude is standing by with a video camera as the officers carry the evidence to their cars. Two weeks later, every officer involved finds that his house has burned to the ground.

You don't need to video tape for that to happen.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#25

Post by barrkel »

hugh3 wrote: post #18
bootload wrote: post #11

"... This is all important. Being able to record the police is one of the best ways to ensure that the police are held accountable for their actions. ..." It's not only Police. In the local news today it's "ticket inspectors" using unreasonable force: "Brouwer says too much force not the ticket" [0] ~ http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brouwer-says-too-much-forc... [0] The Age, Nick McKenzie 2010DEC22

Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the recei…

That's an interesting chain of logic. The mere responsibility of a job gives you powers of arrest? Why are there police in the US at all, if private citizens may so easily be empowered?

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#26

Post by hugh3 »

Anechoic wrote: post #22
hugh3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the recei…

which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them Do we know that for sure? In the US at least, generally workers in those positions specifically do not have the power to apprehend people - if there is a problem, you call the police or the designated security personnel. It's really easy for a person without the proper martial training to unnecessarily hurt someone, or get hurt themselves.

Wikipedia says it only indirectly, but yes:

"In New South Wales, revenue protection on its rail network is primarily the responsibility of Transit Officers. Like their Victorian counterparts, these transit officers also carry out security patrols on trains and railway stations, with the power of issuing on-the-spot fines for minor offences, and even to use "reasonable force" to make arrests."

Which I read as saying that ticket officers in both NSW and Victoria (where this story takes place) are allowed to use reasonable force.

(In America, of course, things are different. For instance the BART has its own police force, which 999,999 times out of every million can be guaranteed not to shoot you in the back while you're lying on the ground.)

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#27

Post by hugh3 »

barrkel wrote: post #25
hugh3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the recei…

That's an interesting chain of logic. The mere responsibility of a job gives you powers of arrest? Why are there police in the US at all, if private citizens may so easily be empowered?

No, actually in this specific case the law specifically gives ticket inspectors the power of arrest as I said in a comment either up there ^^^ or down there VVVV.

But actually in most common-law jurisdictions, citizens do have arrest powers, which is why we have the term "Citizen's arrest":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

Which (if you look up the bit about Victoria) would probably apply in this case even if the ticket inspector were not specifically empowered to make arrests.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#28

Post by hugh3 »

pmorici wrote: post #24
hugh3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under certain circumstances I can see it as legitimate to protect officers from retaliation for doing their jobs. Example: Police officers raid a [whatever] belonging to an organized crime syndicate. Some dude is standing by with a video camera as the officers carry the evidence to their cars. Two weeks later, every officer involved finds that his house has burned to the ground.

You don't need to video tape for that to happen.

No, but it makes it a lot easier.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#29

Post by barrkel »

hugh3 wrote: post #27
barrkel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting chain of logic. The mere responsibility of a job gives you powers of arrest? Why are there police in the US at all, if private citizens may so easily be empowered?

No, actually in this specific case the law specifically gives ticket inspectors the power of arrest as I said in a comment either up there ^^^ or down there VVVV. But actually in most common-law jurisdictions, citizens do have arrest powers, which is why we have the term "Citizen's arrest": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest Which (if you look up the bit about Victoria) would probably apply in this case…

However, transport is usually under some form of contract, so people who break those contracts are more usually guilty of breaking civil law, not criminal law. The penalties for such very rarely involve loss of liberty. I'm fairly sure citizen's arrest is targeted at getting the public to aid in apprehending criminals instead.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#30

Post by dkarl »

viraptor wrote: post #4
ronnier wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot is discussed about cops using racial profiling and targeting certain neighborhoods. I have a theory that there's another form of profiling that targets more affluent areas for traffic citations to bring in revenue. Is this a concern for anybody?

What do you mean by "targets"? If people are fined for something they did, then it's not a problem. If they're going to be fined even though they're not guilty, they should be able to challenge it and go to court. Or is it a different situation?

I live in a city where speed limits are sensibly enforced. Lazy cops don't randomly set up shop and start ticketing people for normal, safe behavior. Officers here are known to sit beside the freeway letting hundreds of people drive by at 70-75 mph and then go lights flashing after the one guy weaving in and out of traffic at 90 mph. That kind of sanity is impressive to me, who never expected professionalism and intelligence (of all things!) out of police officers.

The reason people complain about speeding tickets is that speed limits are inconsistently enforced. Speed limits are usually about 10 mph too low for normal conditions, and enforcement reflects that. Yet in some places, enforcement is strict, and it's impossible to predict where without local knowledge. For instance, on a major road near my apartment that goes out to some major suburbs, there is a little stretch going through a separate municipality where the speed limit drops inexplicably and is very strictly enforced, practically 24/7. All the locals know it, but woe to the out-of-towner who fails to heed the locals' example and hit the brakes.

But at least that's consistent. Where I grew up, inconsistency was the key. You never saw them set up twice in the same place, unless the speed limit was especially unreasonable at that place. Enforcement was so random that everybody ignored it, and everybody had paranoid theories. (It's the end of the month; they're just filling their quotas. My ex-wife's brother is a cop, I bet he asked his buddy to go after me. Goddamn white cops don't like seeing a Mexican with a pretty white girl. Goddamn Mexican cops don't like seeing a white guy with a pretty Mexican girl.) There was no pragmatic benefit to ticketing people for driving safe, normal speeds, so naturally everybody came up with unflattering theories and nobody changed their driving behavior.

So yeah, traffic citations can be bullshit even if the driver is guilty.

Post reply on HN