That's not what I said.

Post #3,330 by addison 7/31/01 10:10:42 PM Reply	That's not what I said. So - prior to surveillance cameras, in order to solve crimes, police had to be stationed every streetcorner, taking notes, and asking for ID (facial recog. software) in order to solve crimes? That was not what I said. Go back and read it again. I was using Bill O's stated case. The way he described it, police could not witness anything without a warrent. And that's what I was replying to. And that's what it is - convenience. To insist that law enforcement requires constant monitoring of the populace is ridiculous - or do you insist that law enforcement has been impossible until now? Nope. But if we did it according to Bill's rules, we'd either have inconsistant, impossible-to-follow laws, or none. Under what he said, it would be near impossible, yes. Not what I said, his hypothesis. I was just expanding on the extention of that. Addison
Post #3,338 by imric 7/31/01 10:29:27 PM Reply	What he said: quote: Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited. He seems to include probable cause and the assignation of a warrant very clearly.... Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #3,341 by addison 7/31/01 11:04:47 PM Reply	Yep. Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited. (emphasis mine). And I was pointing out that that expectation of privacy - that the police can't observe you without a warrent - means that there would be almost an impossibility of getting said probable cause. "we saw....." "I object" "Objection sustained". In order to change that, you have to differentiate between the police watching with their eyes, and a camera. (Hasn't been done so far). Given that - when the police can only watch AFTER a warrent has been answered, then how do they get the warrent? Addison
Post #3,444 by imric 8/1/01 1:05:50 PM Reply	Hasn't been done so far? Sure it has. Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant. This does not seem to stop them from fighting crime, or testifying in court. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #3,454 by addison 8/1/01 1:47:25 PM Reply	No. I started to say... "That's the way it is now. (the police can observe)" Not under the Boxley situation, however. There, he's saying the police can only observe ONCE a warrant has been issued. Since they can't observe to get a warrant...... Then how can they get one? (Bill's not explained the difference between a cop, undercover cop, and a camera. So if you restrict the actions of one, you restrict them all. (per current law)). This is Bill's hypothesis - that a warrent is needed for police attention. Of course that's silly - but its what he said. Talk to him about the silliness, I"m just pointing it out. But then it hit me - Wait. No its not. Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant. That's not true. Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them. So, no, that's not right at all. Because what they're taping and recording is public. Not private. So no, they don't need a warrent for taping public events. Addison
Post #3,455 by drewk 8/1/01 1:55:06 PM Reply	Question about recording As I mentioned elsewhere, laws vary state-to-stae on who has to be aware of recording for it to be legal. I've never considered how that applies to dashboard cameras. I suspect that what law exists specifies audio recording, with no mention of video. If that's the case, it's bad law, IMO. So does anyone know: In the states where it's illegal to record your own phone conversations without informing the other party, are the police allowed to record audio or video of you without your consent? This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #3,469 by DonRichards 8/1/01 3:20:25 PM Reply	Not sure about other places. But in georgia, they have something called "implied consent". If you get a drivers license, one of the caveats is that by accepting the license, you give implied consent for a breathalizer test in case of a dui stop and you also give implied consent to be video recorded in any traffic stop. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #3,490 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:36:41 PM Reply	Heh.. Kinda like the Windoze EULA, no ? You wanna drive? OK - sign away a few rights right ____ here. Want medical care for that punctured lung? OK - sign away that house ___ here. Wanna report illegal actions of your Corp employer? OK Mr. Unemployed with no insurance, sign ___ here. Murica. Love it or Leave It\ufffd (Still and all - the cops' dash cameras are a two-edged sword - and it isn't clear what all the implications are. Bad cop behavior may be as easily shown as bad driver behavior.) Nothing is really 'simple'. We just so want it to be.. A.
Post #3,530 by imric 8/1/01 7:41:36 PM Reply	Interesting point. Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them. Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway). Police powers now encompass so many things now, some directly in conflict with the constitution (if a cop mentions "drugs", for instance, property can be siezed, and sold at auction without restitution to the owner, even if the charges never go to court. DUI checkpoints allow basic searches without probable cause... etc., etc) and precedent. An officer can 'run' a license plate (public) without any overt reason; asking for identification, license, insurance, registration, etc. requires probable cause. So - is a face a 'license plate', or 'ID'? Can the police legally use face-recognition software to trawl for 'perps'? Since, as many love to quote, driving is a privelege, not a right, license plates might be spot-checkable - I suspect that since "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a holy canon here in the 'States, 'face checks' don't fall into the same category. And if they are tested legally, and are considered legal, watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #3,536 by addison 8/1/01 8:19:24 PM Reply	Re: Interesting point. Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway) As far as I know, yes. I did a quick web search, and didn't find any news to it being every challenged. (found a couple Canadian articles decrying it). Again, since this is a public issue, I don't think they can be. Maybe we can ask LAM,E for an opinion. :) watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property. And the West thinks the Arabs are old-fashioned and archaic. :) As to the police powers - the seizure law is so obscene as to be worthy of question how it ever was passed. Addison
Post #3,541 by wharris2 8/1/01 8:49:39 PM Reply	Cruiser cams Presumably the cruiser cameras are used to back up the testimony of the officer - at least that's what I've seen. They aren't used in a vacuum, like the street cams. Officer testifies "I did this and thus, and the perp did this." Produces cruiser video in support. Problem is that without other evidence, people can claim they were roughed up or evidence planted; with that camera, it's harder to do the claim. Also, remember, the street intersection cams have been associated with deliberate shortening of the yellow light period. Of course when the yellow light interval is shortened, there will be more people caught in the intersection. Pure dollars at stake here. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #3,615 by mhuber 8/2/01 12:05:07 PM Reply	And as such, I have no problem with them The cruiser cam is limited in a very practical sense - there are only as many out there as there are cruisers. You can't blanket the city with them without blanketing the city with cruisers. You can't use them to track everybody everywhere without spending too much money and scaring the straights. A cruiser cam is equivalent to a cop seeing things that happen in public. Not only that, they encourage professionalism and acceptable behavior on the part of the police. Sure, they can be turned off, but the officer's testimony is so much more compelling when there is video. I suppose the software could be used, and the database built, on the images anyway. But considering the limited resources, it is likely that the cameras will be focused on problems, not fishing for crimes. White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy

Welcome to IWETHEY!