
The War on Cameras - ccoop
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras/print
======
rbranson
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.

~~~
duke_sam
When the word of an officer is worth more than the word of a member of the
public being able to record the officer in the course of their work is the
only way to defend yourself. Yes this might lead to an increase in people
getting off on technicalities but saying that is a good enough reason to turn
law enforcement into an entity above reproach is very dangerous.

The ability for the courts or police to shutdown any practical oversight by
members of the public turns changes the power dynamic completely. Any person
is one pissed off cop away from having to deal with being arrested. It becomes
a big game of chance. The (vast) majority of the time we don't interact with
cops/the courts, the (vast) majority of cops are concerned about the general
good and protecting people but even 1% of 1% in a country this big leads to a
lot of hardship.

~~~
salemh
The 1% of 1% is so damaging..it can effect lives, and those around those
lives. The problem, to me, is the "blue line" of protectionist policies of
departments, which, camera's would never be an issue if this was not the case.

------
pyre
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?

~~~
noonespecial
The interface between "ignorance is no excuse" and the vagueness and selective
enforcement of a great deal of law is always a difficult gray area.

I think that the most important thing about a political system is
_predictability_ , not "democracy" or "justice" or some other vague, high
minded ideal. The number one job of our elected and appointed officials should
be providing this predictability.

This is a particularly stark example of what happens when that duty is
shirked. Corruption and incompetence flow into every crevice not solidly
plugged with deterministic law.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I have to disagree. Predictability is quite important, but often the most
brutal regimes are the most predictable, and that's not something I want. I
don't want to know for sure, unquestionably that if I speak out against the
government me and my family will be fed into a wood chipper, no matter how
predictable that response would be.

~~~
khafra
Intermittent reinforcement is the most effective form of operant conditioning.
Unpredictable punishments in a wide gray area will make people stay well clear
of even the shallow end of that gray area.

~~~
aphyr
...which is why nobody speeds.

~~~
khafra
You make a great argument, and I've been thinking about it, because I _know_
intermittent reinforcement/operant conditioning has extremely strong evidence
in its favor. A HN comment from today[1] brought the problem to my mind again,
but this time with a possible solution.

At their roots, operant conditioning and classical conditioning are both
learning mechanisms. Since the time of operant conditioning, spaced
repetition[2] has gained a lot of popularity. It's a further refinement that
depends on beginning with short intervals, and proceeding to longer ones.

The idea this suggests to me is that speeding tickets happen to many people
infrequently enough that the enhanced learning never takes place. Draconian
crackdowns, however, happen frequently and with high salience because of media
coverage--the only time you know about someone else getting a speeding ticket
is when you see them pulled over, and it's hard to feel as personally involved
with that as when you hear all the details of someone's arrest and
imprisonment on the news.

One piece of evidence for media coverage changing behavior is that people buy
lottery tickets; because they've seen lottery winners on the news, the
probability of winning has a much higher salience than it deserves.

[1]<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2030038>

[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition>

~~~
aphyr
This is exactly the line of reasoning I wanted to suggest; operant
conditioning, as with all forms of learning, has nonlinear results below a
certain threshold of involvement. We're not good at expectation values,
especially in these cases:

1\. Rare events, like receiving a speeding ticket, are relatively
underweighted. Every time you drive without receiving a ticket reinforces
speeding behavior.

2\. Extremely salient events, like winning the lottery, tend to be
overweighted--possibly because they're so important to our cognition, and we
tell ourselves plausible stories about winning.

There's also a difference between negative and positive reinforcement and
punishment. Receiving a speeding ticket is positive punishment; the lottery is
positive reinforcement. Couple that with differential media coverage, like you
mentioned, and you get significantly different behavior.

------
delackner
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.

~~~
rbanffy
Sadly, I can't upvote you more...

------
iwwr
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.

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.

Surveillance has the great advantage that it doesn't particularly hinder
honest officers in the line of duty, it only trips up the abusers.

~~~
Hoff
While certainly useful, video can also be used to misrepresent reality.

Ask Shirley Sherrod about that, for instance.

------
motters
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.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson>

~~~
ewjordan
I think the way I'd put it would be that if I could be in any sort of legal
trouble (or if there's any insinuation from an officer of the law that I
_could be_ in any sort of legal trouble) if I just got up and left, I'd damned
well better be legally allowed to record the interaction. It should also be at
least a felony for any officer of the government to interfere in any way with
my recording of such an interaction with them.

I really can't see any reason to oppose such measures, unless a person wants
to make sure police officers have free reign to abuse captives, or lie about
what they say.

------
acangiano
As we've been told many times over, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Let's
apply the same principle to our public servants.

~~~
varaon
Simple retort: Really? Why do you close the bathroom door?

~~~
vanschelven
Not sure why this is downvoted. If the argument "nothing to hide, nothing to
fear" is a bad one (which it it), it's also a bad argument to use against the
gov't.

I think there are very good arguments to hold our public officials
accountable, but they stand on their own merit.

~~~
loewenskind
Sometimes the most effective way to show someone how bad their own argument is
is to use it on them.

------
billswift
_"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."_

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, _whether or not there is a recording_.

~~~
ScottBurson
Agreed. While it's clear why it's illegal to record other people's
conversations, I don't get why it has ever been illegal to secretly record a
conversation in which one is a known participant. How is that "wiretapping"???

I think if I say something to you, you should be able to hold me accountable
for it. I don't have a problem with that. Does anyone here understand why
these laws prohibit recording of one's own conversations???

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

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?)

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.

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?

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.

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
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
My brief scan of the law in NYS suggests that recording public officials
without their knowledge or consent is legal here.

[http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm...](http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art250)

------
Groxx
Non-print single page: [http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-
cameras/sin...](http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-
cameras/singlepage)

------
alanh
Carlos Miller's excellent blog "Photography is Not a Crime" is highly
relevant.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I assume you mean this:

<http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248>

------
z0r
The police must be held to a higher standard than the citizens they regulate.
They should be subject to panopticon.

------
zmitri
The thing that seems so absurd to me is that shows like "COPS" are so
ridiculously successful.

~~~
lhnn
"Those cops knew they were going to be recorded." is the response you'd get.

What they're trying to do is still wrong. Were I a legislator, I would
immediately do one or more of the following:

-change the wiretapping laws to set explicit "No Record" areas or situations, allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases. (Best)

-Allow public servants to be recorded, and citizens must inform servants they are being legally recorded. (Better than current, but not so great)

-require cops to inform citizens that recording is prohibited (bad for soooo many reasons)

~~~
rflrob
> allowing recording of public officials and servants in almost all cases.

I'm tempted to go so far as to say that a public official (especially in law
enforcement) _acting in her official capacity_ should have no expectation of
privacy from recording, though I'm willing to admit that there might be some
case I'm not thinking of.

~~~
celoyd
Three related cases come to mind:

1\. Secrecy in matters like, well, diplomacy.

2\. Protection from reprisal.

3\. Confidentiality of people other than the public servants. A lot of
government work deals with heavily stigmatized things other than crime –
poverty, disease, etc. It’s hard to record a social worker without bringing
unjustly harmful attention to the people they work with.

I strongly agree with your general principle. I just don’t think it would work
without some compromises.

~~~
rflrob
Can you elaborate on 2 a bit?

As to the other points, I should clarify my statement above: I only meant that
they should have no expectation of privacy from the person they're dealing
with. Planting a bug in the police station or eavesdropping on a conversation
to which you aren't a party seem reasonable to leave as illegal. I'm tempted
to agree with other commenters that recording _any_ conversation to which you
are a party should be okay, but I haven't given it enough thought.

For diplomacy, it seems like the people who would be doing the recording would
most likely be other diplomats, and therefore immune from US law anyways.

Case 3, it's easy enough to just say that while the social worker has no
expectation of privacy, their clients do. If someone is having an interaction
with the social worker where someone else's confidential information is
disclosed, the social worker is the one who has messed up here, with the
person recording it being, at most, auxiliary.

~~~
celoyd
You seem to be trying to disagree with a comment that basically agrees with
yours. The points you raise are covered by common-sense interpretations of
what I said.

On point 2 specifically: as hard as it might be to imagine in the US at the
moment, in many times and places people doing legitimate law enforcement are
intimidated by gangs. This ends up being bad for everyone. While it’s rarely a
problem here and now, it ought to be protected against.

------
milkmandan
The public must Miranda the cops now. "Everything you say..." etc.

------
VladRussian
instead of recording on your device, just call a voicemail set up in a state
with no wiretapping law.

~~~
eru
Or to make it legally even more interesting: Always run a (video) phone call
with a group of volunteers, who will act as witnesses. Is this even
wiretapping?

~~~
ams6110
One day soon it will be routine for people's cell phones (or some similar
device) to record every moment of the person's life in audio and video. Almost
everyone will have a permanent record of everything they do, of every
conversation they have had, with every person they meet. I can't recall where
I read about this, it may have been something Negroponte wrote about.

As a society we are going to have to figure out how to deal with this end of
privacy. It's bigger than just law enforcement.

~~~
nitrogen
The movie The Final Cut has some interesting commentary on a similar concept.
In it, a neural implant installed before birth records every moment of a
person's life: waking, sleeping, dreaming, etc.

------
Mizza
Working on an app to fix this. 95% finished. Launching soon.

------
uriel
See also Cato's insightful "Cops on Camera":
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8Xom38Rd8>

