Careful what you shoot...

I find this very scary. - TF

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

That is scary. The movement to restrict the use of cameras keeps growing. As a photographer it's particularly scary. But it's also another erosion of our civil liberties. If it becomes illegal to record what the authorities are doing, they'll be able to get away with almost anything.

Congratulations OldClicker, you have succeeded in making me have to double up on my blood pressure medicine, Jeff

Wonderful, just wonderful :(.

Where is the bathroom at so I can throw up.

Only if the common person would challenge an officers dash cam in court.
also when are we going to stand up, and fight for our rights.

Hopefully someone fights this all the way to the US Supreme Court quickly. I would think teh current make up of the court would set things right.

All,

I know nothing about this gizmodo site. It does seem funny that, living in Illinois, I know nothing about this. Does anyone have any confirming data?

TF

Don't know about the site but will try to do some investigation later.

Just a couple of weeks ago, police were recorded stomping and kicking and cursing a man who was already restrained on the ground, not struggling or putting up any kind of resistance.
Seems there was a local robbery by two Latino men and this guy was Latino. Slurs were hurled at him along with the physical abuse.
The guy just happened to be in the area and just happened to be Latino, though he had lived in this county all his life, if I remember right.

Here is the video on a local news station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B45QP...eature=related

I do think it is rare for police to act in such a fashion but we must be able to bring abuse to the public eye so that this stuff won't happen even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

All,

I know nothing about this gizmodo site. It does seem funny that, living in Illinois, I know nothing about this. Does anyone have any confirming data?

TF

---

I haven't heard anything about the Illinois case but I did see the case about the motorcycle in Maryland on the news the other day. When will it end?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNcDGqzAB30&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QNcDGqzAB30&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I welcome our new fascist overlords.

It is not the video that is being prosecuted, it is the audio.

Quote:

---

Illinois Eavesdropping Statute

General Provisions

Illinois law prohibits the use of an “eavesdropping device,” which is defined as “any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication[2] is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means.” The Act also prohibits disclosure of any information which an individual “knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device.”

Exemptions

Business Use

There are numerous exemptions to the eavesdropping prohibition. Most relevant for employers is the exemption that allows a corporation or other business entity “engaged in marketing or opinion research” or “telephone solicitation”[3] to record or listen to telephone solicitation conversations or marketing or opinion research conversations by an employee when the monitoring is used for the purpose of “service quality control, education or training of employees,” or “internal research related to marketing or opinion research or telephone solicitation;” and the monitoring is used with the consent of at least one person who is an active party to the marketing, opinion research or telephone solicitation conversation being monitored. This exemption also provides that, “[N]o communication or conversation so recorded may be furnished to any law enforcement agency or used in any administrative, judicial or other proceedings, or divulged to any other person.” Additionally, if any recording or listening authorized by this exemption results in recording or listening to a conversation that does not relate to the specific business purposes allowed, the listening or recording must terminate immediately and be destroyed as soon as practicable.

Finally, businesses that use a telephone monitoring/recording system under the exemption must provide current and prospective employees with notice that the monitoring or recording may occur during the course of their employment. This notice must be in writing and posted in a location prominent within the workplace. Business entities using this exemption must also provide their employees with access to telephone lines designated for personal use only. Pay telephones that are not subject to monitoring or recording will fulfill this requirement.

Consent

The language of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act requires consent from all parties to the conversation. The Illinois courts initially recognized a “one party consent” exception, and the Illinois Supreme Court and Illinois Appellate Courts have ruled that the Act allows the recording of a conversation as long as one party to the conversation consents to the recording.

The Seventh Circuit also discussed the “one-party consent” exception to the Illinois Act. Noting that the Illinois courts' interpretation of the statute was “odd,” the Seventh Circuit nonetheless found that the one-party consent exception is a recognized exception to the statute. Thomas v. Pearl, 998 F.2d 447 (7th Cir. 1993).

Following these decisions, however, the Illinois legislature revised the statute to reconfirm the all party consent requirement.

---

Now, while this is a mangling of a law meant to curb wiretapping and such, had the guy posted the video without sound, the police likely would not have gained probable cause for a search, and would probably have been forced to give him the benefit of the doubt.

- Joe U.

Maybe a nice feature of the dslrs with video...not likely to lead someone to believe there's recording going on. Either way, it all seems clear cut that now that the public is able to hold the authorities accountable, they're scrambling to save their asses.

For someone who does not live in the US, I now have another reason to photograph only landscapes and nature when I visit, as long as there isn't a cop standing by the flowers or on the hill side, of course. :blush2:

I just sit here after reading all this and just shake my head :eek: - it is hard to believe that in a democratic country where the right to free speech is a given, that stuff like this goes on.:confused:

WesternGuy

Wow. These kinds of things drive me nuts. I'm so mad I can't even think straight. And they wonder why so many people don't like police officers and are affraid of them. We should just give them to right to kill anyone that does anything wrong, their lives are pretty well over anyway.

Quote:

---

...a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

---

ARE THEY INSANE!!!!!! I'd really like to get into my politics speech, but I'll refrain. All I can say is, what is this nation coming to? :mad5: :mad2: :mad:

I actually don't think the cop in this case acted that unreasonably. Aggressive, yes, but abusive is questionable.
The question of recording the incident, though, should be within the rights of all citizens when encountering law enforcement, whether being stopped or not. If the police are on duty in public, recording their actions should be not only legal but encouraged.
After all, we are the ones who pay them.

I am 57 and as far back as I can remember I have never felt that the police were there to "protect and serve me". In my mind they are there to enforce the laws by what ever means they can get away with and to create a steady stream of revenue for the goverment they work for. That is why the normal law abiding hard working citizen driving five or six miles over the speed limit, or driving without a seat belt (Police write tickets to save lives. Yea right) has a better chance of being caught than the drug dealers selling on street corners in broad daylight. The speeder provides easy money, the dealer cost money. In yesterdays newspaper the headline was "Cops can cite speeders without radar" (Friday June 4,2010 Cincinnati Enquirer / Cincinnati.Com). The 5-1 Ohio Supreme Court decision means a trained police officer's visual estimate of a vehicle's speed is enough to uphold the conviction. I supose the fact that the state of Ohio and most cities are currently running huge deficits has nothing to do with this.

With all that being said I am not anti police. I know several police officers including two of my neighbors who are out there because they want to protect us and get the bad guys off the street. In fact I have no doubts that the vast majority of officers are doing this job for those same reasons. Like any other job or career there are those who should not being doing the job they are doing, it just become a lot more dangerous if they are armed and trained like police officers. Blame it on the system or the times we live in but, it's not right
and it is a little scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I find this very scary. - TF

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

---

This is beyond scary! Since 9-11-01 photographers have been the targets of police scruntiny, which is totally rediculous. Why would a terrorist expose himself to capture, when he can get everything he wants off the internet?

Now we are seeing our civil rights eroded in a manner that has far reaching implications for our society. The words "police state" come to mind...

I would like to have a bit more back-up for the article. This seems to be making the rounds but seems to be the same article appearing in several places. The references are to assertions by police of existing law, not new law nor to significant court decisions upholding this interpretation of existing law. I can easily imagine police asserting this and I don't mean to minimize it. However the only reference in the article that I could find to an actual court decision was a single judge in Illinois rejecting a motion to dismiss.

In other words, if you read the story carefully, I think you will find almost nothing to support the definitive statement in the lead that "In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer."

I would hate to be a policeman. Arresting the same ones over and over and nothing ever done with them. I don't see that the cop did much wrong with his foot. It did look as though he was only trying to stop the guy from waving his arm. The lick on the head seemed mild. His comments were more shocking than the blow to the head.
As far as the video i don't really think that the government will ever stop photographers. When you have smart phones with 8 mpix cameras they don't stand a chance.