
Schneier on Security: Recording the Police - m3mb3r
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/recording_the_p.html
======
Anechoic
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?

~~~
hugh3
OK, please send me your address so I can set up a camera in your office.

~~~
jdp
In the cases of some public servants, like police officers, that is not a
direct parallel as they are not spending a lot of time in the office. Public
servants performing their duty in public should be subject to the scrutiny of
the public. Even if you are a government employee working at a desk in a
public building you should be subject to the same. I admit it is just not
feasible to allow any and all private citizens access to buildings, or to
mount cameras as they desire, but there is a perhaps a better solution?
Surveillance tapes available upon request?

~~~
Anechoic
_Public servants performing their duty in public should be subject to the
scrutiny of the public._

That's usually the caveat I put when I make that statement, but I forgot to
that time (and again, most of my govt work is in public and I would fall under
that).

There are times when privacy is essential for govt workers but those times
rarely during public interaction, and when they are, it's usually because the
tasks are sensitive (an interview with a rape victim for example).

~~~
m_eiman
In the interview case it's the victim's privacy that prevents monitoring, not
the interviewer's.

------
steveklabnik
If this is something of interest to you, join your local CopWatch
organization. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copwatch>

Bruce is absolutely right: if nobody watches the watchmen, you can only expect
trouble... filming police prevents things like this:
[http://www.gifbin.com/bin/112009/1258398254_police-
brutality...](http://www.gifbin.com/bin/112009/1258398254_police-
brutality.gif) and this: <http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1238065175_cop-pushes-
biker.gif>

~~~
ronnier
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?

~~~
viraptor
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?

~~~
matwood
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 incorrectly. I parked incorrectly for
13 months before one night on the last day of the month we all received $30
parking fines at 3am.

I talked to a few of my neighbors and this was the first time they had seen
fines given. I along with others parked the wrong direction for at least 13
months without a fine. So, either police never patrolled our neighborhood
during that time or they decided to apply the law only when they feel like it,
i.e. to meet their quota. Revenue generation at its finest!

~~~
viraptor
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?

~~~
matwood
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.

------
brown9-2
Can anyone explain the argument _against_ the legality/morality of videotaping
a police officer performing their official duties?

~~~
thedaveoflife
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.

~~~
mindcrime
_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."

~~~
thedaveoflife
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.

------
dannyb
Hey Mr. Policeman, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing
to worry about.

------
bootload
_"... 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...](http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brouwer-says-too-much-force-not-
the-ticket-20101221-194ij.html)

[0] The Age, Nick McKenzie 2010DEC22

~~~
hugh3
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 receiving end of force will usually wind up
complaining that it was unreasonable.

Don't wanna get tackled by a ticket inspector? Buy a ticket. Or if you don't
buy a ticket, fess up and accept your fine.

~~~
Anechoic
_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.

~~~
hugh3
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.)

~~~
Anechoic
and it would seem that "reasonable force" is where the conflict arises - after
all, I suspect that you would agree that simply shooting the suspect would be
unreasonable?

~~~
hugh3
Of course, and I'm sure that they have used unreasonable force on occasion.

I only got into this whole argument because the OP sounded surprised that
ticket inspectors, of all people, were getting into unreasonable-force
situations, as if it were crazy for ticket inspectors to be using force at
all. I only wished to point out that it's reasonable for ticket inspectors to
use reasonable force, and hence it's inevitable that eventually one of 'em is
going to wind up using excessive force. But I'm starting to regret ever
getting into this discussion since there's a much nicer one going on in
another thread about the heat death of the universe.

------
bootload
_"... 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-...](http://www.theage.com.au/national/expolice-officers-accused-of-
torture-20101223-196l6.html)

------
zaphar
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.

------
nodata
Bruce! Please get a new portrait photo!

