Interesting discussion on this topic

Some interesting discussion there.

There was clearly (taking the report as correct) abuse in the DC case - the officers were clearly attempting to control evidence about their misconduct.

But in the NY case, I do think the police wanting video of the shooting and death of a person is reasonable. All relevant evidence should be available for fair internal investigations and for likely court cases when a death occurs. It would be irresponsible of them not to collect and secure evidence like that.

But this needs to be codified in the law, IMO. If the police want video or pictures from a phone or camera, they should ask permission for files from the owner for some relevant period of time (say up to an hour before the request). If they get it, fine, copy the files and give the camera/phone back - there's no issue. If not, then they should ask the person to wait while they request some warrant for up to 1 hour old files. (Like asking someone to wait to give a statement.) If they're automatically copied to the cloud, the same warrant with the same restriction should apply. People shouldn't be detained under some bogus "material witness" rule and their files shouldn't be confiscated or "lost".

I'm sure there are corner cases that would need something more elaborate (e.g. someone who takes pictures of the same scene every day for years or something). But the police shouldn't be able to seize important property with important personal information without some codified procedures and without some reasonable restrictions.

I don't think that a "just compensation" argument holds here - it's a 4th Amendment issue - http://caselaw.lp.fi...tion/amendment04/ .

I fear, though, that asking for clear, sensible rules about access to digital files is tilting at windmills given the police's long-standing ability to seize property and pretty much do what they want with it in drug cases. Like pretend to be you by texting on your phone - http://arstechnica.c...mpersonate-owner/

http://www.legal-aid...tmystuffback.aspx

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who just backed up his smart phone a couple of days ago.)

Post #362,317 by dmcarls 9/7/12 11:47:36 PM Reply	Interesting discussion on this topic ...especially the comments http://blog.simpleju...eir-evidence.aspx There probably already exists an app for phones which automatically sends any pictures or videos to a facebook page, et al. (Not having a smart phone, I don't really know)
Post #362,318 by static 9/8/12 1:01:38 AM Reply	Numerous apps. Facebook, Picasa, Instagram, Tumblr, etc etc etc. If the native camera app doesn't do it, you can get an app that will hook onto the auto-share feature. Or a new camera app. Or even just an auto-backup program. Some sharing apps default to setting this feature on, BTW. Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #362,322 by Another Scott 9/8/12 7:08:54 AM Reply	Thanks for the pointer. Some interesting discussion there. There was clearly (taking the report as correct) abuse in the DC case - the officers were clearly attempting to control evidence about their misconduct. But in the NY case, I do think the police wanting video of the shooting and death of a person is reasonable. All relevant evidence should be available for fair internal investigations and for likely court cases when a death occurs. It would be irresponsible of them not to collect and secure evidence like that. But this needs to be codified in the law, IMO. If the police want video or pictures from a phone or camera, they should ask permission for files from the owner for some relevant period of time (say up to an hour before the request). If they get it, fine, copy the files and give the camera/phone back - there's no issue. If not, then they should ask the person to wait while they request some warrant for up to 1 hour old files. (Like asking someone to wait to give a statement.) If they're automatically copied to the cloud, the same warrant with the same restriction should apply. People shouldn't be detained under some bogus "material witness" rule and their files shouldn't be confiscated or "lost". I'm sure there are corner cases that would need something more elaborate (e.g. someone who takes pictures of the same scene every day for years or something). But the police shouldn't be able to seize important property with important personal information without some codified procedures and without some reasonable restrictions. I don't think that a "just compensation" argument holds here - it's a 4th Amendment issue - http://caselaw.lp.fi...tion/amendment04/ . I fear, though, that asking for clear, sensible rules about access to digital files is tilting at windmills given the police's long-standing ability to seize property and pretty much do what they want with it in drug cases. Like pretend to be you by texting on your phone - http://arstechnica.c...mpersonate-owner/ http://www.legal-aid...tmystuffback.aspx Cheers, Scott. (Who just backed up his smart phone a couple of days ago.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!