Schneier on Security: Recording the Police • Hacker News Board

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#51

Post by matwood » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:12 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #17

matwood wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand what the poster was talking about. I live in a decent neighborhood where it's mostly on street parking. The way my street sets up, even though it is a 2-way street it's mostly one way traffic. This leads to people parallel parking on both sides of the street while facing the same way (it's a fine to parallel park facing opposite of traffic). When I moved in over 18 months ago everyone was parked…

That is something I don't really agree with. Maybe they didn't patrol that area, maybe they didn't have enough people, maybe for some other reason... Anyways, you know you can get a fine for parking the wrong way, yet you did it. If you said you don't agree with that rule, I might concur. What exactly did they do wrong? I hope that since then everyone is parking correctly. Isn't that the whole point of fining people?

If you're right about not patrolling then that means they NEVER drove through my rather small townhouse community in almost 13 months. So much for police doing routine patrols.

What bothered me about the whole thing was inconsistent enforcement. It's okay to park that way for over a year and then one day it's not. Enforcing an ordinance or law only when it's convenient (to hit a quota) for the officer makes me think the particular law isn't about safety but about revenue generation. If it was truly about safety it would be enforced all of the time.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#52

Post by isleyaardvark » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:15 PM UTC

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.

I was under the impression that this sort of information is already publicly available. Cops are already uniformed, they have badge numbers, their names are on the police reports, and their names show up if it goes to court since the accused has a right to confront witnesses under the 6th amendment.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#53

Post by zaphar » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 3:48 PM UTC

In the case of recording police can they really have any expectation of privacy when anything they do in the course of their duties may be examined in a court of law? I should think that would remove any expectation they had legally speaking. IANAL so if any lawyers feel like answering I would be curious to hear their opinion.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#54

Post by thedaveoflife » Wed, Dec 22, 2010, 6:13 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #46

thedaveoflife wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

police officers have a hard and dangerous job to do and they do it for our safety. if they have to worry about being video taped all the time they will be less effective in this job.

if they have to worry about being video taped all the time they will be less effective in this job. Too bad. You can't give people guns and mace and handcuffs and a "legal right" to use force, and then say "you can't ask them to be accountable for their actions."

who said they shouldn't be held accountable? I was just pointing out one possible arguement against video taping police officers. In a job where they are often required to only think once, this may cause them to think twice. Obviously you don't agree with this line of thinking, but it's not the same as saying they should not be held accountable.

Re: Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

#55

Post by bootload » Fri, Dec 24, 2010, 12:01 AM UTC

"... The lawyer leading the class action said some people who watched footage of the incidents dubbed the city watchhouse ''Canberra's Abu Ghraib'', in reference to the Baghdad prison where US military personnel abused Iraqi prisoners. ..."

In todays news.

"Ex-police officers accused of torture" (The Age, Jenna Hand, 2010DEC24) ~ http://www.theage.com.au/national/expolice-officers-accused-...