Photography may be illegal

[andyz]

Police fight cellphone recordings - The Boston Globe

If the camera also records sound, some states require that all parties being recorded consent. If they don't, it could be illegal electronic surveillance. I suppose a device without sound recording capabilities would be in order for some street photographers.

[CaptainTom]

Not currently an issue in Texas.

[KdLaneJr]

Interesting title Andy since the legal issue being abused here is voice recording and not image capture.

The correlation would definitely be dangerous to street photography if the courts ever mis-step on a ruling.

What's most concerning here is the idea that a public servant performing his/her job in public thinks they have a right to "privacy" along with the idea that making an audio recording (in public where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy) should violate a any states wiretap laws.

I suppose this means that in those 2-party states it's illegal for a store surveillance system to record audio also (weo Ca) and illegal to have motion activated security cameras that record video and audio (again, weo Ca).

[raevyncent]

To some extent you are right Ken, but after looking at the article again, there WAS someone convicted for secretly VIDEOtaping police. The issue seems to center more on secretiveness rather than medium, and most video surveillance is advertised as a deterrent (Smile! you are on Closed Circuit TV!). YMMV

[KdLaneJr]

I did notice that in the article, but to be fair, any video camera capable of being "hidden" in a coat usually records audio. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might "hide" a video cam in a coat, from weather conditions, unruly crowd to being "secretive".

The point is... whether or not you are behaving in a secretive or unusual fashion, if you are engaged in recording a public official in the public(no expectation of privacy), there really shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with video surveillance being advertised as a deterrent, but readily point out that in a two party permission state, the posted "deterrent" does not gain your permission to have your audio recorded.

I'm sure it will just get stickier in the court rooms while lawmakers continue to pass laws without thinking and law enforcement continues to be trained on how to abuse those laws.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

What is interesting is that more police departments are equipping their officers with video recording systems that they wear on their person as part of their uniform. The Taser people (and others) are selling a system where I believe the video is uploaded to a data base in close to real time and the units are about the size of a flip cam (cigarette pack) so if that it going on and you are approached by an officer will he have to tell you that you are being recorded?
TASER AXON

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Not currently an issue in Texas.

Very true. Texas only needs consent from one of the parties involved. I actually had an issue with a college professor a while back. I felt like she was a bit off her rocker and I had a fleeting thought of secretly recording my conversation with her on my cellphone (via calling myself and recording it on voicemail).

I decided against it, thinking all people are civilized. I was wrong. She told me in this private conversation - point blank and clear as day - that she was going to fail me specifically because I made a complaint to her boss about her. Then she added, "That's what you get. for talking to Director's Name."

I was shocked! And I should've recorded the conversation. I immediately went out to Best Buy and bought a pocket recorded to keep on for all my future contact with that professor. I wound up getting a 70 in the class after I raised a lot of fuss to her supervisors about her specifically trying to fail me. Just for reference, every other grade in history there was A+, A and A-... and two B+'s in a couple REALLY hard classes.

[wandrson]

I am curious about those jurisdictions who are prosecuting this as to how they justify the use of recording devices in police vehicles (assuming they do).

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by wandrson

I am curious about those jurisdictions who are prosecuting this as to how they justify the use of recording devices in police vehicles (assuming they do).

Some law makers feel like a double standard is fine, if it benefits them. Besides, the officer just needs to make you aware of the device, then it's legal. If you refuse to consent, they'd probably be required to turn it off.

[SJHester]

So if i move to a two party premission state, not only will my you are on video surveillance sign advertise that you are being taped, i guess i will have to add a large red bold message that by tresspassing on my property you are consenting to having your audio recorded and that if you do not consent, then you must not tresspass.

Some how I still see myself being sued by the would be theif.

Wille was right when he and Toby sang:
"We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
We've got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets
It's time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
Send 'em all to their maker and he'll settle 'em down"

Just saying.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

What I have read about this in the past is that it is the Audio portion of the video that is the kicker, if you are just doing visual (which most security systems do) you are just fine. Now in the case of Nanny Cams I guess if you tell the children then you would be fine except where the Nanny is alone in the room.

That is the reason when you see videos from banks/store robberies you get video only and no sound.


Now what would be interesting is if you have a DSLR single photo type system with a separate sound recording device distinctly not connected to the camera or the same tripping device.

[Steelsun]

There are all kinds of exemptions both ways on sound recording laws. Not something to play with.

Having installed and used hidden cameras (i.e. video) we routinely either bought them with sound disabled (which is how most micro ones are sold to the public due to Federal laws) or disabled them ourselves. Better safe than sorry.
For instance, even in a one party consent state, if someone is NOT involved in the conversation and they tape it: Bad. If the person being taped is a union member and the tape could effect their employment: Bad. etc.

[z-monster]

Here we have police officers extracting a plastic bag from a teenager's mouth.

Now why would a teen want a swallow a plastic bag upon being caught by police?

Drugs perhaps?

The very same drugs that American Citizens complain is ruining society, killing family members, and creating violence among each other.

Along comes a lawyer, a person you would think that would be more than happy to rid his neighborhood drug dealers. But no, not using common sense he believed the police to be rather excessive in their use of force.

That so called use of force serves two purposes. It was used to extract evidence to properly prosecute the teen for drug trafficking and it could have saved the teens life. Of course, swallowing weed isn't that bad but had it been a harsher substance, I'm sure the teen would have ended up in the hospital.

Ah, but that's right, I forgot!





I guess it's easier to blame the Police for excessive use of force.