Recording The Police

Schneier on Security: Recording the Police http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/recording_the_...
Bruce Schneier
Schneier on Security
A blog covering security and security technology.
« Book Review: Cyber War | Main | Adam Shostack on TSA Threat Modeling »
December 21, 2010
Recording the Police

I've written a lot on the "War on Photography," where normal people are harassed as potential terrorists
for taking pictures of things in public. This article is different; it's about recording the police:
Allison’s predicament is an extreme example of a growing and disturbing trend. As citizens

increase their scrutiny of law enforcement officials through technologies such as cell
phones, miniature cameras, and devices that wirelessly connect to video-sharing sites such
as YouTube and LiveLeak, the cops are increasingly fighting back with force and even jail
timeand not just in Illinois. Police across the country are using decades-old wiretapping
statutes that did not anticipate iPhones or Droids, combined with broadly written laws
against obstructing or interfering with law enforcement, to arrest people who point
microphones or video cameras at them. Even in the wake of gross injustices, state
legislatures have largely neglected the issue. Meanwhile, technology is enabling the kind of
widely distributed citizen documentation that until recently only spy novelists dreamed of.
The result is a legal mess of outdated, loosely interpreted statutes and piecemeal court
opinions that leave both cops and citizens unsure of when recording becomes a crime.
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. Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For
example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government
increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it
decreases liberty. Forced openness in government -- open government laws, Freedom of Information
Act filings, the recording of police officers and other government officials, WikiLeaks -- reduces the
power imbalance between government and the people, and increases liberty.
Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power
imbalance between government and the people. Forced openness in the people -- NSA monitoring of
everyone's phone calls and e-mails, the DOJ monitoring everyone's credit card transactions, surveillance
cameras -- decreases liberty.
I think we need a law that explicitly makes it legal for people to record government officials when they
are interacting with them in their official capacity. And this is doubly true for police officers and other
law enforcement officials.
Posted on December 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM • 121 Comments
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.
Comments
Any law should provide penalties for law enforcement who exceed their authority. Dismissal, jail time,
etc... or else it's worthless because police, etc... won't care about an administraive knuckle rap!
1 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Posted by: hsweeney at December 21, 2010 2:05 PM
Although I agree in theory, any law would have to be carefully worded. Most law enforcement officers
I've spoken to are just fine with being recorded so long as the recorder isn't getting in the way of the
police action. I've heard a number of reports of groups like CopWatch using videotaping the police as an
excuse to interfere with the police activity that they claim to be "just recording".
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2010 2:10 PM
opleaseopleaseoplease let the definition of "interacting with them in their official capacity" include when
they are paying for sex, soliciting sex in an airport mens room and gambling.
Posted by: BF Skinner at December 21, 2010 2:13 PM
Excellent point!
I think the same should apply to teachers. I always let people record me--I am a public figure. And I
don't even carry a gun!
Posted by: Sam Bowne at December 21, 2010 2:18 PM
Where you part company with most of your countrymen is that you believe an increase of liberty is a
good thing. Most on both sides of the aisle nowadays want a paternalistic - and hence anti-liberty -
government to protect them.
Posted by: Another Kevin at December 21, 2010 2:21 PM
Can someone please define "liberty" for me?

Posted by: Carl at December 21, 2010 2:24 PM
FTA: Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which
makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the
judge said.
So does that mean I can get the police cruiser dash cam footage thrown out since I didn't consent to be
recorded either?
Posted by: carey at December 21, 2010 2:24 PM
I completely agree with being able to record the activities of policemen that are supposed to be "public
servants" that are acting on behalf of the tax payers and community. Transparency is almost always
beneficial to society.
Posted by: Santa Claus at December 21, 2010 2:31 PM
Alex: Got a cite for that assertion? Confirmation bias aside, I've never heard of such a thing. If
anything, police officers have been known to define interference as their merely noticing the
photographer/recordist. The police should both be recorded and be capable of controlling a scene
without freaking out about a camera across the street (Mike Anzaldi), let alone destroying evidence
2 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
bald-facedly.
Posted by: EH at December 21, 2010 2:41 PM
Actually I think that should probably be 'selection bias.'

Posted by: EH at December 21, 2010 2:47 PM
Can someone please define "liberty" for me?

Modern PC definition of "freedom/liberty" includes:
You are free to be sniped by a nut 'with no previous criminal or psychiatric record' from a church or
school tower.
You are free to to have a constitutional amendment restrict who you may marry.
In some states you will be free to be inundated with 'in god we trust', various 'commandments' and
other theocratically engineered aphorisms, when visiting government property/facilities.
Other commentators may recall other examples of politically correct liberties.
Posted by: Atlas Tossed at December 21, 2010 2:47 PM
The synopses of some of these videos appear "pro cop".

Even in court cases involving an officer's genuine error, copious video should help jurors determine the
error was genuine.
Posted by: CopWatch at December 21, 2010 2:57 PM
@Sam Bowne
Shouldn't do, as it wouldn't be easy to do without recording students.
At least here in France, there are some thing that must never get out of the class (or in some case, out
of the school). Mostly to protect the children.
Posted by: mleduque at December 21, 2010 3:08 PM
i 100% agree with this. But no politician would ever pass this kind of common sense law sadly.
Posted by: o.s. at December 21, 2010 3:12 PM
What really doesn't make sense to me is that police routinely record (video, and in some places audio
as well) routine traffic stops. These recordings are then used as evidence against those arrested. Why is
this any different then the person being arrested (or anyone else nearby) recording the incident so they
can use it as evidence in their own defense?
There are a couple of arguments against them doing this. The obvious one, that this is ultimately an
illegal attempt by the police to prevent the defense from collecting entirely reasonable and proper
evidence. There is another argument I'm not sure they have thought through... If you make it illegal on
one side, it won't take a very skilled defense attorney to realize that it should be illegal for the police as
well. Those police recordings have been very valuable in some cases, but if they aren't careful and push
to have all recording of arrests restricted, they could end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater
and make their own recordings illegal.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by: DrEnter at December 21, 2010 3:12 PM
3 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Carl,
Thomas Jefferson said:
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is
tyranny."
if the government is afraid that's how I define liberty.

Posted by: Chris at December 21, 2010 3:15 PM
From the entry: "I think we need a law that explicitly makes it legal for people to record government
officials when they are interacting with them in their official capacity. And this is doubly true for police
officers and other law enforcement officials. "
This should be TRIPLY true for government officials who are not law enforcement, whose duties involve
enforcing administrative regulations. Namely, TSA screeners.
Posted by: Flapping arms at December 21, 2010 3:31 PM
"I think we need a law that explicitly makes it legal for people to record government officials when they
are interacting with them in their official capacity. "
You might as well go one step further. Rather than limiting the protections of the law to those who are
being interacted with, the law should allow ANYONE to record police officers when those officers are
engaged with the public.
Posted by: David at December 21, 2010 3:32 PM
EH: No, selection bias is where the biased person actively chooses the samples/pieces of evidence.
Confirmation bias is closer to right.
Posted by: pdf23ds at December 21, 2010 3:33 PM
I find it rather humorous that any police agency would hide under wiretapping laws to not have their
police recorded. HMM we cannot demand the dash cam be turned off, we cannot demand that the traffic
cams or red light cams, or speed cams, or atm cams, and the list goes on, be turned off. So why should
the police be allowed to do so? Simple, they should not, and any that do, are trying to hide something.
Generally the response from them is always, something to the effect of....well if you have nothing to
hide why should you care about the camera, its for your protection......hmm, Pot Kettle Black......
Posted by: rich at December 21, 2010 3:34 PM
Can't think of a better example than this dashboard cam video (albeit an example of police recording
themselves):
In 23 seconds the cop has exited a vehicle and shot 5 times killing a pedestrian who seemed to be
minding their own business.
W/o this video, it's likely this cop would go back to active duty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE
Posted by: Jeff at December 21, 2010 3:36 PM
4 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Alex: "I've heard a number of reports of groups like CopWatch using videotaping the police as an excuse
to interfere with the police activity that they claim to be "just recording"."
I've heard this too. However, it should be obvious from the recordings whether this is taking place, so it
would be easy to punish this behavior without punishing people who keep a reasonable distance.
But the cases that made the news recently are anything but like this. One was a motorcyclist who was
recording with his helmet-cam when pulled over. The cop wasn't even aware he was recording. It
doesn't get any less obstructive than that.
Perhaps "war on photography" should be generalized to "war on accountability."

Posted by: Seattle at December 21, 2010 3:39 PM
The widespread tendency of police to break the law and abuse their power is, as it always has been,
sad, and one of the real triumphs of Satan in our nation. No Christian cop would fear to have his/her
acts recorded -- but most cops are not at all Christian, and instead are evil bullies. We can only hope
technology can help improve this a bit.
Posted by: Don Howard at December 21, 2010 3:40 PM
An increasing number of police dept's are putting cameras on thier officers in order to clarify any
incidents that happen - either way
Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2010 3:41 PM
If you are secretly recording an encounter with a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) and
doing so without their knowledge and acceptance of it, you're committing a crime in many states. Don't
like the law? Then get it changed.
Posted by: Dave C. at December 21, 2010 3:42 PM
This reminds me of some recent articles/editorials in the Kansas City Star (local newspaper).
The Kansas City metro-area police forces have been criticized for their complaint-handling procedures.
Very few complaints receive review and even fewer have anything that would resemble a resolution.
In many complaints, the person filing the complaint feels that the officer's "dashcam" would corroborate
their complaint, but in MOST of those complaints that received review, the dashcam was found to have
been inoperative at the time.
Perhaps those cameras are unreliable, but it "feels" like a thin blue line and doesn't engender the
public's trust.
Being able to have your own recording filed with the complaint might result in more of these complaints
being resolved.
Posted by: Brian Dozier at December 21, 2010 3:44 PM
Some police departments are very open to being recorded, and even invite camera crews to ride along
with officers on patrol. Take, for example, the "reality" show "Cops". Other departments are less open.
Still others are downright hostile to openness. Attitudes vary. Let's be careful not to overgeneralize the
5 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
failings of some police departments to apply to them all.

Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2010 3:44 PM
Another argument against allowing citizens to record police is that they can selectively edit the video to
make the cops' actions look criminal when they were in fact acting properly. (This is a genuine concern:
ask ACORN or Shirley Sherrod.) There's no way to absolutely keep this from happening, but a good first
step would be for the recording hardware to somehow be able to certify that a certain recording was
originally captured as is. (As with DRM, this can always be circumvented with enough effort, but then so
can police's dash cams.)
Even with that precaution, sometimes police can look really bad if the video only captures their actions
after a suspect has already greatly escalated the situation, and given that people often won't start
recording until then (when they notice the scene) this would probably happen frequently.
I'm very much in favor of letting, or even encouraging, people to record cops on duty, but I do wonder
how these issues will be addressed.
The paradigm is wrong...we can't ask a government that breaks laws to pass more laws to protect us;
the path is unstainable, and as Police actively break laws and the government is itself criminal, the only
solution is for citizens to IGNORE laws and suvertively/actively film, record and keep corrupt cops and
politicians active through the threat of public exposure.
There are plenty of small, hidden camera manufacturers out there...just buy a couple, keep them in
your car and always be ready to start recording. Stop asking government's permission to live your life.
Posted by: VV at December 21, 2010 3:51 PM
@Don Howard
This has nothing to do with Christians or Satan. Bringing crap like that into it is removing the blame
from the people who deserve it.
This happens because the people that seek power are the same people that would assert that power
over others.
Also, there is no god.

Posted by: AAS at December 21, 2010 3:57 PM
I don't know if this is applicable to Illinois, but it is one possible solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Posted by: Ron Gage at December 21, 2010 3:58 PM
I would even be so generous as to consider an exception in the context of physically-in-an-official's-

office or similar situation (needing consent from both parties).
But in a public place -- anywhere I'm expected to be on camera, say (in NYC: streets, buses, trains,
shops, bars) -- then that's monumentally clear-cut. That has to be legal.
Posted by: delta at December 21, 2010 3:59 PM
6 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
The problem with putting video on police is that it can tend to malfunction or be misfiled when the video
would harm the police officer's case. Such video needs to be tamper-resistant and administered by a
separate entity. Preferably it should be live streaming to a place that the police cannot access to destroy
or misplace the evidence. And lol at Don Howard for thinking that Christian police officer's are somehow
a counterpoint to evil (Atheist?) bullies.
Posted by: Bob at December 21, 2010 4:02 PM
Agreed, the video footage can be edited, subtracted from, or added to; but, if a cop is beating the crap
out of a minor on film, he still beat the crap out of a minor. That is what the justice system is for.
Unfortunately, many police officers commit horrible, unspeakable crimes in accordance of the law.
Murder is legal if the suspect appears to have something weapon-shaped in their hand, and sometimes
a black wallet is weapon-shaped enough. Many forget, WE, the tax payers, pay them, and WE are their
bosses. They answer to US and their job is to serve US.
Posted by: agent47 at December 21, 2010 4:03 PM
Hear Hear!
Posted by: Danny H at December 21, 2010 4:04 PM
amazing comments i read here:
"Most on both sides of the aisle nowadays want a paternalistic - and hence anti-liberty - government to
protect them."
So the US is becoming a communistic state, hence it makes logic; its already a police state, the
government is against its own people, and tries to hide what it do from public (wikileaks) .. where di i
heard that before, Putin... ??
Maybe the US should also focus more on the social part instead of the bigbrother part of communism.
And yeah i know you think communism is bad, because it takes away your freedom, then i would ask
you what freedom is there anything you cant find in moskou? To be honestly you will find more freedom
in moskou then in NY.
Although they have a buggy social system, oh well so does the US have.
You cannt be all like Cuba.
Well maybe if the whole world follows such system it wouldnt be bad anymore; as for governments
loans are not that important.. its a control freaky thing they like most.
Posted by: Peter at December 21, 2010 4:07 PM
Liberty does not mean that you are able to move freely through society without being offended. Thomas
Jefferson said something like "If it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket it is of no matter to me." You
should be able to marry anyone you want as long as the other party agrees.
It is certainly not liberty when you have a government taking your money under threat of violence only
to give that money to others.
Posted by: theaton at December 21, 2010 4:08 PM
7 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
do what they do to us: "if you havent done anything wrong then you shouldnt care if you're being
recorded, you've got nothing to hide."
Posted by: DrunkMunki at December 21, 2010 4:11 PM
If you think we need a law, then run for public office and enact one.
Posted by: Rogerborg at December 21, 2010 4:11 PM
What about reporters recording an accident scene? Police are there doing their job on camera... how is
that any different?
You might say, reporter versus average citizen... but the only distinction is getting paid to report on it.
So, if I put out a blanket reward for people 'reporting' the news involving cops, they are getting paid
and are now reporters right?
Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2010 4:12 PM
Our local police dept tends to lose their video evidence. It would be nice to be able to (legally) produce
a second copy for the judge/jury
Posted by: Geoshi at December 21, 2010 4:15 PM
All this talk of increasing and decreasing liberties reminds me of Go.
If you can't increase your liberties while decreasing your opponent's liberties, you will soon encounter a
shortage of liberties situation. Then your opponent has more liberties than you do, and uses this to
remove the remainder of your liberties in the ensuing fight.
Then your group is captured, and your opponent gets fresh territory and plenty of prisoners. If leaving
the group alone won't allow them to escape capture, your opponent will just ignore it until it is again a
threat or until the endgame is reached and they're counting territory, at which point all dead groups are
automatically captured (without playing out the fight; they are just taken prisoner, with the justification
that it is impossible to win the fight and playing out the fight will not alter the point balance).
Weaker players usually experience more shortages of liberties than stronger players, and thus have a
harder time making territorial control. We have a handicap system where we put stones down on the
board based on rank difference to adjust the balance of power, evening it out so that players have a
base to work from and are more successful at increasing their liberties in those fights.
Posted by: John at December 21, 2010 4:15 PM
A few have mentioned that video can be edited or tampered with. In a general context how are police
any different to the rest of us? If video is to be used in court or as an official complaint then obviously it
shouldn't just be glanced at and fully trusted. For all our sakes I hope that an expertly edited video isn't
enough on its own to put any of us away or destroy our careers.
Arguing that police could be misrepresented, if being applied fairly, should lead one to argue that all
forms of audio and visual recording should be totally banned.
Posted by: Concernedresident at December 21, 2010 4:16 PM
8 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
It turns out that Anthony Graber, the motorcycle recordist in Maryland, had all the wiretapping charges
cleared. So that's a good sign.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-09-27/news/...
@Dave C.
Don't like the law? Then get it changed.
---
@Rogerborg
If you think we need a law, then run for public office and enact one.
---
Simply beautiful. I never knew it was that simple.
Unfortunately the statements are similar to the spirit in these:

"If there is a will there is a way"
"You can get rich in America if you only want to"
From this sort of statements we can gather that:

A. This worlds problems (such as US deficit, persistent wars, terror threats, EU countries economical
problems, etc) stem from that no one wants anything else.
B. The amount of poverty in USA is a result of poor people not wanting anything different.
Posted by: xl at December 21, 2010 4:18 PM
Recording public officials is currently not illegal so why would you need a law to allow you to do it?? Law
enforcement officials perform many varied roles and should also expect their own privacy. Anyone who
has had a modest interaction with the justice system will realise that law enforcement officers record
most of their actions to protect themselves from baseless accuastions.
Posted by: Nigel at December 21, 2010 4:18 PM
Time to review David Brin's The Transparent Society, which also argues for recording public events from
as many perspectives as possible as one method of preventing abuses of power.
http://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm
Posted by: John Roberts at December 21, 2010 4:20 PM
It doesn't matter. The police are killing people and not being held accountable. When video evidence is
present they are taking the evidence and destroying it. The police state is here.
Posted by: James BOND at December 21, 2010 4:22 PM
In Missouri it is perfectly legal to record someone without their consent. Only 1 party has to know they
are being recorded. Luckily that is the law in Missouri. So if the police/public officials don't want to be
recorded too bad. The police have used cameras for years for stings and drug busts. Not to mention
police cars with dash mounted cameras and microphones that police never ask the public if they can
film them with it. The FBI has done the same thing.
9 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
It is only fair to turn the tables on them and hold them accountable for their actions. Anyone who
doesn't think police/public officials should be recorded supports them not being accountable to the
people who pay their salaries. Like they always tell the public, if they aren't doing anything wrong then
they shouldn't mind being recorded. I personally think the public should be able to record public officials
any time they are on duty, no matter where that is. We pay their salary and they are accountable to the
public. Don't forget most states also have sunshine laws so that the government can't do things in
secret. I know Missouri has them.
Posted by: Protektor at December 21, 2010 4:27 PM
Only 12 states require the consent of both parties to the recording. Presumably in the other states
people won't get prosecuted (formally) for recording police, only harassed. These states are CA, CT, DE,
FL, MD, MA, NV, NH, PA, VT, WA, and IL.
I was a cop back in the 1980's.
I would have welcomed the ability to record my interactions with the public. Back then we had a lot of
problems with people accusing the police of things that weren't true.
If I was doing something illegal, then I'd expect that I'd be treated the same as anyone else would be. I
understand that not all of my fellow officers felt the same way - there were special "percs" for being a
cop that no one wanted to admit to.
Posted by: ed at December 21, 2010 4:33 PM
Irregardless of whether police should or should not be recorded...

Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all
police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good
thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
A high-speed police chase?
A hostage scenario?
A drug bust that turns violent?
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they
will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
On another point, when these officers are being recorded, so are the suspected criminals, and possibly
even victims. What about their privacy rights? What about justice not being served when a criminal gets
his case thrown out for video evidence going viral on the internet before his trial, turning the jury pool
against him?
What about someone recording a simple traffic stop? Do you want your face all over the internet for
speeding?
I am all for law enforcement accountability, my suggestion is that they be recorded by devices on their
person, for review by a 3rd party created for that purpose for review of actions.
Posted by: Joshm at December 21, 2010 4:33 PM
I once used my (defendant) copy of a cruiser-cam video to successfully argue a improper traffic citation.
10 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
The court system seemed unprepared for this, as it would have required the courtoom to obtain access
to a DVD player, essentially turning a 5-minute appearance into an all-day affair.
I agree that the law should apply equally to government agents and to citizens.
Posted by: R H at December 21, 2010 4:41 PM
liberty is defined as living pre abe lincoln days.......

Posted by: jim at December 21, 2010 4:51 PM
@Bruce
are interacting with them in their official capacity."
Typically, laws only remove freedoms [in this case, it would remove freedoms from government officials,
not the public]. If there is no law that prohibits recording of government officials, then it is legal.
Comment about wiretapping laws: Wiretapping laws are meant to shut down 3rd party recordings
[historically, meant to stop people from listening in on others phone calls]. If you are recording an
officer who is interrogating you, then you are not 3rd party and should be able to record away.
However, in some states, you will need the other parties consent [google 'wiretapping laws' for a list]
but really you should be able to record, you just shouldn't make it publicly accessible [like posting it on
youtube] to anyone else.
Finally, some states have hidden camera/recording laws which is kinda BS. If you are in public or a
place where privacy is not expected, then, again, recording should be legal. As others have pointed out,
law enforcement now has video recording equipment always recording away which is fine if it is in public
areas.
Posted by: Dimitri Mariutto at December 21, 2010 4:52 PM
Yet another reason to stay out of Illinois.

Posted by: Jeff at December 21, 2010 4:58 PM
I dont think what you want will happen.
Has even 1 politician anywhere in the USA supported such a thing?

Posted by: name at December 21, 2010 5:05 PM
@Posted by: Joshm at December 21, 2010 4:33 PM
Wow.
The first portion of your post about people "getting in the way" wouldn't be any different than it already
is today.
I would hate to be a victim of a crime where the perp got off because witnesses didn't record and
gather evidence because they were afraid of recording the police.
11 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
If the conversation between a citizen and officer ought to be private those involved are free to go to a
"private" (non-public location) venue, like a meeting room at the police station, or in to one's private
home. And it doesn't matter if the citizen wants or thinks the conversation is private... it's not. Anything
a person says or does can and will be used against them in a court of law. There is no police-citizen
privilege similar to attorney-client or spousal privilege.
Do you want your face all over the internet for speeding? Don't speed then! On a public
roadway/avenue? Then there is no expectation of privacy! Duh! How come some people don't get this?
Posted by: J at December 21, 2010 5:08 PM
You need to visit Carlos Miller's "Photography is not a crime" blog. Many many many reports of this sort
of thing.
Posted by: Scott at December 21, 2010 5:08 PM
Police in general become police not because they wish to serve the public, but because they like the
idea of holding power over people.
Virtually every officer I have ever met had an attitude that they are above and better than the general
public, thus they can do as they please.
Without public recording of police activities there would have been no Rodney King incident and no
fallout of the Rodney King incident, which was the removal of known abusive police officers from
virtually all police departments in California.
All the police officers fired due to the fallout of Rodney King had myriad public complaints against them,
but police departments are good-ol-boy networks which can not be relied upon to police themselves;
thus public scrutiny is essential and our only method to help ensure they stay honest.
Power to the people!

Posted by: No Copper at December 21, 2010 5:11 PM
Recording the police, or other public servant, should be a basic right. Like other basic rights it will
probably have to be decided in the courts rather in the congress since there is no way congress will pass
a law that appears anti-cop. They are far too pansy to deal with this issue head on.
We often think of the three branches of government, but the silent partner in all of them in the citizens
who have to deal with the other three on a day-to-day basis.
Posted by: Eric W at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM
The problem with recording police interactions with the public is not the police officer - as many have
pointed out they should be fine with being recorded.
However, the suspect being questioned or arrested is probably not fine with that. How about someone
recording the police at a DUI checkpoint where you get stopped and asked to step out of the car. There
is no reason, if it was legal to do so, for someone not to record this and post it for all to see. Right?
Imagine the voiceover with "Oh boy, he so going down. Drunk on his ass he is." Of course the video
doesn't show you getting in the car and driving off - but all your co-workers get to see the video without
that little bit at the end. I guess any future employers get to see that before your interview as well.
12 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
And if you are a schoolteacher, well, you might as well just retire right now.
No, there is no right to record interactions between the police and some random person. This should be
illegal as it is a gross violation of privacy. This is the one thing that people just do not seem to
understand with all this about recording the police.
Posted by: Paul Crowley at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM
@Posted by: Paul Crowley at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM
"No, there is no right to record interactions between the police and some random person. This should be
illegal as it is a gross violation of privacy. This is the one thing that people just do not seem to
understand with all this about recording the police."
No! There is no expectation of privacy in public places! My the government has succeeded in dumbing
down the populace.
@Posted by: Paul Crowley at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM
"Imagine the voiceover with "Oh boy, he so going down. Drunk on his ass he is."
Then you sue for defamation of character.

Motorcyclist jailed for 26 hours for videotaping gun-wielding cop
http://www.pixiq.com/article/...
Posted by: Drew at December 21, 2010 5:33 PM
Nice topic but along with a few other previous comments and personal experience Video Tape evidence
only holds a very little grain of salt in court due to time stamping, water marking, proof of originality,
proof of time being accurate with global time clock and various other standards depending on state and
area and In my opinion it should be a two way street when it comes to privacy and video/ audio
recording.
Posted by: GeneSimmons at December 21, 2010 5:51 PM
are interacting with them in their official capacity. And this is doubly true for police officers and other
law enforcement officials."
Couldn't agree more.
A couple of months ago, outside my local pub, we witnessed a serious display of power by three police
cars with flashing lights and a total of nine armed officers wearing bullet-proof jackets. The ongoing
crime was two senior citizens, one of whom with a cane, that had a a bit too much to drink and were
about to board their car. Both nearly wet themselves out of fear when they were formally arrested and
driven to the nearest station. A friend of mine filming the scene with his cellphone nearly had himself
arrested too when pointed out (politely) by the brave officers "that he was violating the privacy of the
13 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
arrested parties". This is absolutely and totally absurd.

Posted by: Dirk Praet at December 21, 2010 5:56 PM
I'm sorry, but, anyone who photographes a police officer should be jailed. For a very long time. There
are terroists everywhere and some of them will be using our own freedoms (like photography) against
us, e.g. to prosecute law enforcement officers who are just trying to do their job!
Posted by: anton666 at December 21, 2010 6:21 PM
Not only are private citizens prevented from documenting the actions of the police, police officers have
assaulted badged members of the press, arrested them on trumped-up charges, and confiscated their
cameras. Last month two Russia Today reporters were taken into custody while covering a protest at
Fort Benning. At the Republican National Convention in September 2008, three members of Democracy
Now were assaulted and arrested by the Minneapolis police.
Unchallenged intimidation of the press by the police rolls out a red carpet for the implementation of a
totalitarian regime.
Posted by: Trichinosis USA at December 21, 2010 6:22 PM
Reminder. Let's not conflate the visual recording with the audio recording (which is what wire tapping
covers)
If a video is being shot of people in public they are, mostly, allowed because people in public don't have
an expectation of privacy. Probably the justification for the crusier dashboard camera's.
It's why the LEO asks..."is that recording audio?" You can even photograph and videotape w/audio TSA
checkpoints (subject to local two party consent laws) as long as you don't 'interfere'. (keep a copy of
the TSA public affairs emergency number in your phone)
But no one is allowed to say who the press is (so says SCOTUS) or what is news worthy (that's up to
the press says SCOTUS).
So We should all become members of the press. Freelancers all. Someone suggested carrying a press
card from the Onion. That'll work for a while.
Posted by: BF Skinner at December 21, 2010 6:42 PM
Carl wrote:
"Can someone please define "liberty" for me?"
Probably, Carl is trying to use some subtlety in making a point. However, if he is genuinely in the dark
on this matter, such ignorance would help to explain the broad and uncritical support of government
security policies shown in some of his posts.
Some time ago, in response to sharp criticism from other countries, the government of the People's
Republic of China created a commission that was assigned to solve a mystery: what do foreigners
mean, when they talk about "human rights?"
If Carl, or anyone else, would like to learn what Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson
(to offer some outstanding examples) had in mind when they used the word "liberty," I recommend a
study of their writings. They left us a valuable documentary record, that sheds light on the concept of
14 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
liberty in the foundation of the USA.
I believe that this matter is relevant here (this is a security blog, NOT a politics blog) because -- in my
understanding -- to the inventors and philosophers of the systems of government applied in the US,
security was not independent of liberty; rather, liberty was a cornerstone without which security could
not long stand.
Posted by: MarkH at December 21, 2010 6:51 PM
You lost me on "Wikileaks." They've lost all credibility. I wouldn't exactly hold a nutjob who decides to
go tit-for-tat with world governments for attention an example of shining the light on truth. They may
have started that way but something went way wrong at Wikileaks.
Posted by: JPo at December 21, 2010 6:57 PM
While I agree in principle that citizens should be free to record the behavior of public servants in the
course of their official duties I am at the same time leary of the maxim, "there outta be a law". For
those who wonder what "liberty" means, it means the right to be free from unnecessary laws. Let those
who want to curtail that "liberty" demonstrate the harm to be prevented.
Posted by: Richard at December 21, 2010 6:58 PM
I am currently using www.looxcie.com to record ALL my interactions with the public.. especially police...
if painted black and record light covered then NOT recognizable as anything but a bluetooth earpiece
Posted by: anonymous at December 21, 2010 7:01 PM
pdf said: Only 12 states require the consent of both parties ... states are CA, CT, DE, FL, MD, MA, NV,
NH, PA, VT, WA, and IL.
Not true, at least in CA. You only need knowledge by both, not consent. You could say "this call may be
recorded" or simply hold your camera up in plain view. You can't record if it would violate a "reasonable
expectation of privacy," which includes phone calls without notice to all involved.
You can record 1) cops in public (in CA) OR 2) with an obvious recording device even in non-public
areas. In the first there is no expectation of privacy for cops in a public; the second is done with
knowledge (even without consent). Hidden cams in non-public places are not legal, so no toilet cams or
nanny cams.
Posted by: ca atty at December 21, 2010 7:05 PM
AMEN! This is one of the best ways to hold those with authority accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Mike Grace at December 21, 2010 7:06 PM
On Dec. 21, 2010, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit said one Toronto police officer had been charged
with assault in connection with the violent arrest of G20 protester Adam Nobody on June 26, 2010.
15 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
The unnecessarily violent arrest was captured on cam. Initially the officer was not able to be identified
(lack of effort?) as the officer (and others) had illegally removed badges from uniforms. The police chief
was 'unable' to identify or order other officers present to identify him, and then publicly announced the
video was 'doctored'. Persistence by the press led to the identification and charges.
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/...
Posted by: J Horemans at December 21, 2010 7:17 PM
On the main point of the article - I agree that almost all public interaction with the police should be
allowed to be video and/or audio recorded, unless doing so actually, physically, interferes with the police
doing their job (e.g. standing between an officer and a witness he is trying to interview). I think there
needs to be better education starting at the law enforcement academy level and continuing afterward as
to the rights of the public to make video and/or audio recordings. Like all people, some police officers
are just jerks, but many are just honestly mistaken due to poor training or no training.
@R H
Just curious, did you tell the court ahead of time that you would need AV equipment? Some courts have
them available all the time, but many have to share them. The court I work for is fortunate enough to
have a fairly reliable laptop and a TV we found on clearance a couple of years ago. We have a very
modest budget. Most courts expect the parties to a civil lawsuit to bring whatever is necessary to
display their evidence to the finder of fact (jury or judge, depending on the type of case). Defendants in
criminal cases who cannot afford such things are entitled to have them provided without cost, but that's
pretty much the extent of the free assistance that is legally required.
Traffic tickets are generally civil suits, though some states (NV for example) do not have infractions and
simply make all traffic tickets misdemeanors. So, in most states, you should plan on bringing your own
equipment.
That being said, every court staff that I've worked with will bend over backward to provide what they
can. We generally provide dress clothes to indigent defendants out of our own closets.
Practical advice for anyone fighting a ticket: call about a week ahead of time and talk to the office
administrator or the bailiff. Politely tell them what you need and it will usually be there. It helps if you
offer to show up early to make sure everything works. It might just be somebody's laptop that the
judge watches while the prosecutor and defendant crowd in (this happens a lot - the TV is heavy), but
at least you'll get your evidence heard.
Posted by: Eric at December 21, 2010 7:52 PM
are interacting with them in their official capacity."
In this Country it is legal to do anything that isn't illegal. What we need, is court precedent stating that
the laws being thrown at these people are not applicable to these circumstances. If we do need a law, it
is one making it a crime for an officer to impede recording of him while operating in an official capacity.
Posted by: Aaron at December 21, 2010 8:14 PM
I think people are making great points here both for and against recording.
joshm, makes a great point against:

"What about justice not being served when a criminal gets his case thrown out for video evidence going
viral on the internet before his trial, turning the jury pool against him?"
16 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
I'd like to add to that, that I would hate to see some officer's credibility destroyed by acting
inappropriately in one high stress situation, when he/she may have had an otherwise good career.
On the other hand, it's unfair for the police to record everything and only use tapes at their discretion.
The tapes that the officer records should be made more readily available to any involved party, and
harder laws should be passed against obscuring the content of these tapes. I've seen cases where the
camera was turned away from the crime and that should incur a large penalty.
Posted by: vinnie at December 21, 2010 8:16 PM
In two Oregon communities the police have arrested citizens recording them on duty using the anti-wire
tap statutes. Both times prosecutors refused to prosecute the citizens and one issued a memo stating
that police while on-duty and interacting with the public have no reasonable expectation of privacy and
so recording them is within the law.
See this article that includes a link to the Beaverton City attorney's memo.
http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/...
Posted by: voline at December 21, 2010 8:53 PM
Constitutional rights guarantee you to a jury of your peers in cases exceeding $20? (I can't remember
even high school gov't, my apologies). However, it seems that in this case a trial by jury would be
granted if requested. Then proceed to ask the judge if the jury can be recorded during their
deliberations, if the court can be recorded during the proceedings or anyone else in the court being
recorded during the entire affair. When the response comes back no, inquire as to the equality of the
jury, judge, baliff, etc in comparison to the defendant. When the response comes back in the clear (all
members being unequal) demand that you have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, peers being
equal. Refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the court.
Posted by: LPT at December 21, 2010 9:58 PM
A great deal of crime could be prevented if all people were allowed to record everywhere with hidden
recorders.
One problem is who does the filming. Filming from a certain angle or at certain moments can alter the
truth of the situation. If a totally neutral third party does the recording and there is a clear chain of
evidence immediately established judges are much more like to admit recordings into evidence.
Probably the best evidence would be from a fixed position so that the photographer can not influence
the recording process.
Posted by: jim sadler at December 21, 2010 10:03 PM
@Carl: read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. 'Nuf said.
It would be nice to have explicit rights to record the police or public officials but there's very much the
chance that might not occur.
This is why massive surreptitious recording of all police and government officials by citizens is probably
necessary.
The technology already exists. Hidden cameras in clothing and personal affects. Cameras in most
personal motor vehicles to record every single traffic stop from the citizen view. Cameras on private
property recording all police actions on public and private property en-mass.
17 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Not unlike the ubiquity of public surveillance cameras installed by government and businesses, only
these controlled by individual citizens and largely stealth in their appearance.
And just like the government says about their cameras, the police and government officials have
nothing to worry about if they've done nothing wrong. Two can play at that game.
Oh, you're always guilty of something? Is that the worry? Well, sounds like justification to simplify the
complexity of US law like a Gordian Knot.
This is warfare against US citizens and these types of situations needs to be treated as war.
Posted by: JG at December 21, 2010 10:18 PM
So, there is no common understanding of what "liberty" is, beyond different shades of the "gov't is evil,
I am good".
Self determination is always weighed against it's impacts on others. Free speech does not extend to
shouting "FIRE" in crowded theater. You folks act as if we dont elect anyone (LOL, yeah, electoral
college, I know.. but we elect, that's the fact). Jefferson et al SET UP this form of govt that persists
today. (FORM I said, not SIZE, lest you forget, we still have 3 branches). They SET IT UP. They did not
create a autonomous collective did they?
"I believe that this matter is relevant here (this is a security blog, NOT a politics blog)"
this is most CERTAINLY a politics (libertarian) blog first and foremost. More than 1/2 the blogs from
Bruce are either direct or indirect slams on the govt/law enforcement, and well over 75% of the
comments are pure slams (and trying to portray "keeping the govt out is part of the security story" is
nonsense)
what does "recording the police" have to do with crypto?

Posted by: Carl at December 21, 2010 11:18 PM
Here in Perth, Australia we recently had a serious misuse of Tasers by police on an unarmed, already-
in-custody individual. Luckily (and stupidly for the police) they did it in a surveilled area of the jail.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/10/...
Posted by: Nick N at December 21, 2010 11:30 PM
By coincidence, I just re-watched a TV documentary about a young woman who was killed by a
government-authorized militiaman in Iran, following the most recent presidential election there.
Were it not for various mobile-phone video recordings documenting the oppressive behavior of these
militia forces, the world would probably have learned much less of this dreadful story.
It is a strong example of how video surveillance of governmental police power can chip away at the
enormous imbalance of power between governments and ordinary citizens.
BTW, the worst abuses were carried out by the government-directed militia, not Iran's civil police, who
in at least one case tried to oppose the militia.
Posted by: MarkH at December 22, 2010 1:02 AM
18 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://wearcam.org/wsd.htm
December 24th is World Sousveillance Day
Posted by: Liberty at December 22, 2010 1:16 AM
@Carl:
"what does 'recording the police' have to do with crypto?"
Gosh, I don't know. Attentive readers of this blog may have noticed that the pages are headlined, in
large type, "Schneier on Security," not "Schneier on Cryptography".
In my opinion, "recording the police" has plenty to do with security. A person who is wrongly deprived of
life, liberty, or property by a government agent has suffered (in my opinion) a serious rupture of
personal security.
Personally, I am pro-police. I value the functions they serve, estimate highly how tough their job often
gets, and I understand that they need and deserve public support. I also understand that police acting
unlawfully can pose extraordinary dangers. This thread offers some explanation of how video
surveillance of the exercise of police power protects both police officers, and the public.
I have heard -- and my reading of history supports this -- that in modern history at least, far more
people have been slaughtered by their own governments, than by the agents of foreign governments. If
a soldier, police officer, or other government agent kills you -- he will probably be from YOUR
government.
For me, it is abundantly clear that the oversight of governmental exercise of power, and systems to
ensure accountability, are important matters of real-world security.
Posted by: MarkH at December 22, 2010 1:22 AM
I fully support being able to record police actions. The only caveat is some undercover officers need to
have their identities remain hidden. Any recording would need to have all faces blurred when published
until law enforcement agencies have an opportunity to identify those agents whose faces need to be
hidden for their safety and on going investigations.
Posted by: Rabbit Ron at December 22, 2010 1:36 AM
I suppose it's not the citizens that should record the police, it's the police that should record
themselves.
They should be provided with a "no-tamper" shoulder-mounted and cloud-enabled camera and get
instructed about their accountability.
Posted by: Andrea Matesi at December 22, 2010 3:01 AM
One bit here really hits home:
"Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more
power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power
imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty."
19 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
I find it ironic that those I've met who are most apt to allow more invasive airport screenings, illegal
wiretaps, etc. as part of the War on Terror are also the ones most likely to say that they don't want Big
Government providing universal health coverage, collecting taxes, implementing gun purchase or carry
laws, or regulating investment institutions or "net neutrality". That's right, government protection is
bad, unless of course it involves eliminating personal privacy to shield us from unnamed, unknown, and
unlikely terrorist acts.
Gun owners in particular should recognize this type of curbing of privacy as an even larger threat than
gun laws because the consequences are much broader and far more insidious. Without personal privacy
there is no room to voice contrary personal opinions. Couple that with the "anything in the name of
protection against terrorism" mentality and the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave will eventually
only exist in fairy tales.
Posted by: PT at December 22, 2010 3:14 AM
As usual, I agree with Bruce Schneier on the underlying principle -- but in this case not on the
execution.
As others have pointed out, we do not need MORE laws, rather fewer. The legal system in most
countries -- not the least USA -- has become overburdened with laws to cover every little eventuality
and to ensure that every major lobbyist group have a say.
The recording of officials doing their duty in the public space should not be encumbered with restrictions
per se. Obviously there would be laws to protect people's rights and those would and should apply to
the officials as well as the "ordinary" people.
With regards to anton666's comment, Let us make this absolutely clear (I think mr. Schneier may
agree):
* The terrorists have won. The western world is changed beyond recognition and we have had major
parts of our freedom taken away to "protect" ourselves.
* We try to protect ourselves from something that may have a big impact, but is comparatively rare.
(Think about it, the number of deaths from terrorist actions around the world in recorded time is about
the same as the number of people dying from the flu in a couple of years! And much less than the
number of people killed in traffic every year. Now we fear flying, but are more likely to get killed driving
to the airport. Is that not a farce?)
Posted by: Torben at December 22, 2010 3:43 AM
Could not have said it any better myself.

Posted by: James Everington at December 22, 2010 4:25 AM
Capital punishment for all convicted officials I say!

Posted by: James at December 22, 2010 5:04 AM
I dislike the idea. What about victims of crime right to privacy? I was stopped and questioned by Police
once due to the fact I was a close match to the description of a wanted person for an armed hold-up
nearby. I was questioned a length, and I would have hated having anybody film it. Even though nothing
came of it, it still would have been a breach of my privacy if somebody did. You would have people
filming domestics that Police are involved in etc. It's not right.
20 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Posted by: AD at December 22, 2010 5:06 AM
I have to disagree with what I see as the general trend here. I believe any official, or officer "in public"
should be fair game for recording/photography "As long as the photographer does not interfere with the
duties being carried out."
HOWEVER bear in mind that if the private citizen is recognizable in the images it may require a release
"from that individual" in many cases. Being arrested? Probably not, but for the official and private
individual carrying on a LEGAL transaction the posting such a video or photo is already against privacy
laws and opens up the photographer and/or poster for a lawsuit. Photography of non public figures is
risky at best. Posting said images is asking for trouble.
Posted by: Roger Halstead at December 22, 2010 5:42 AM
@ Dave C.
The question is, is there an expectation of privacy when a public official is performing his job duties. In
my opinion, there should not be since he is working on behalf of the government which should be
transparent.
Posted by: Santa Claus at December 22, 2010 6:51 AM
Citizens should know about private prosecutions. It's realistically the only way to go after crooked cops.
http://areyoutargeted.com/2010/10/...
Posted by: Jeremy at December 22, 2010 7:00 AM
Alex: Re: tv show "Cops". Really? It's one, big promo for the departments. Any behavior less than
100% positive will be edited out of the aired show. Therefore, not an accurate profile of police action.
Posted by: shannon at December 22, 2010 7:10 AM
Smooth move slipping Wikileaks in there. There's a major difference between holding police acountable
when they pull you over for a traffic violation and leaking classified information that can endanger the
lives of American troops. There is a time and place for privacy in the government, but it has certainly
become rediculous.
Posted by: Oh please at December 22, 2010 7:21 AM
First - Previous comment about 'Christan Cops' is a hypothetical statement and should therefor be
discounted, I could easily say that Muslims who truly follow Allah or Jewish who truly follow The Lord or
even Jehovia Witnesses who truly follow YHWH would in no way do such things...same goes for other
groups but no religious group is perfect be they Shinto, Wicca, Hindu, Buddhist, or Oceanic are all
composed of human beings and thusly all follow the same rules of mortality.
Second - The police have become abusive in their power and most who join the police were bullies (this
is a statical fact which one can find from an older issue of TIME / LIFE Magazine.) prior to becoming
cops and this easily makes ME feel that the war on photography is absurd BS ...we should be allowed
with out fear to record those that record us, this is as bad as thieves, killers, and even rapist getting
away with SUEING their victims!
21 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Third - I agree with a few of the above statements also about not expecting privacy when public officials
are performing their job and should be transparent, this again goes back to lack of accountability.
Posted by: Danny H. at December 22, 2010 7:32 AM
Generally I agree. However in 90s in Poland somebody made a video displaying police brutality against
football (soccer) hooligans. After that police became more calm, because they were afraid of another
incident. Outcome, hooligans are terrorizing everybody during matches. Normal people are not going to
stadiums, because they're scared. Police should know its limits and it's good that somebody would
control them from time to time, but as with everything there should be a balance.
Posted by: Shadowchaser at December 22, 2010 7:47 AM
Forget laws, regulations, and court rulings. I propose ratifying the following amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, to join the other ten in the Bill of Rights.
"A well regulated record of public activity, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to make and keep photographs, audio and video recordings, shall not be infringed."
Posted by: Alan Kaminsky at December 22, 2010 8:14 AM
My view is this,If people video tape police officers in action then start from the beginning of the process.
don't just film the fight and then say that the police officer is wrong. film what led up to the fight.
Posted by: Johnny Wingate at December 22, 2010 8:25 AM
People here are worried about others making videos of citizens interacting with the police and then
publishing those videos, resulting in an violation of the citizen's privacy. If this happened it would be
bad, I agree. We shouldn't let people with cameras invade the privacy of normal citizens, whether or not
there are police around. In situations where a person is being questioned in a public place by the police,
perhaps we should grant that the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy w/r/t the contents of
the questioning. And, obviously, recording police when they (lawfully) enter a private home is not OK
unless the person recording has a right to be on that property in the first place.
Really, that doesn't sound like a difficult issue to take care of.
Posted by: pdf23ds at December 22, 2010 8:39 AM
"Photography of non public figures is risky at best. Posting said images is asking for trouble."
In most places, this is just wrong regarding the law.

Posted by: pdf23ds at December 22, 2010 8:44 AM
Here in the UK we have already won the first stage of fighting such draconian laws and legislation as
mentioned above.
Police authorities have been warned by a senior police officials that their careless disregard for the
rights of the individual to record public events, including the actions of the police, won't be tolerated
and strikes at the very heart of a free and democratic society.
Posted by: zerogov at December 22, 2010 8:48 AM
22 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
My, but there are a lot of horribly underinformed people... on Slashdot. :-) (This post was picked up
there, Bruce, in case you were wondering.)
One specific point I want to reply to, for those who missed it: photographic and video evidence is
*always* hearsay; it's probative value comes solely from testimony by an involved party that it correct
represents the events of an incident. (IANAL; if you need one, hire one.)
And if you ever get into something like this with a cop, you really need to know what a "1983" lawsuit
is, cause it's probably a suitable time to threaten said cop with one, and they're *kryptonite* to cops,
even though most civilians have never heard of them.
42USC1983, specifically; there's an entire section on them in the Metro-Dade Police Handbook that
many departments issue their officers.
Posted by: Baylink at December 22, 2010 8:49 AM
I would consider myself as being someone who keeps up with the occurrences of life; however, this
article told me nothing. There were no specifics. It goes to show that, "shallow brooks are noisy."
Posted by: DeathBreath at December 22, 2010 9:12 AM
> Can someone please define "liberty" for me?
An empty space adjacent to a stone or connected group of stones (stones of the same color on each
others' liberties are connected). Each liberty give the group more flexibility in terms of running, living,
and winning capture races against stronger groups.
A group that can permanently prevent all of its liberties from being taken away is "living," while a group
that cannot prevent all its liberties from being taken is "dead." Dead groups can be captured at will and,
in the endgame, are simply taken without explaining the capture by mutual agreement that all liberties
will be taken in a fight anyway; disagreements result in the player who is dead playing first to show how
to save the group, which usually leads simply to a fight and eventual capture by force.
Right now, we are experiencing a shortage of liberties. Soon anyone they don't like will be thrown in jail
at will.
Posted by: John at December 22, 2010 9:33 AM
I can but hope that the comment from Anton666:
"I'm sorry, but, anyone who photographes a police officer should be jailed. For a very long time."
is either a joke or a troll (I am leaning towards the phrase "an obvious troll is obvious" but a joke is
always possible.
Given the concept that there is no right to privacy in a public place there is no reason why the public
should not be able to record (audio or visual) interactions between the public and Government officials.
Yes there is the possibility for abuse here, but then that is the case with everything. We already have
systems in place to deal with miscreants.
As I see it, the fundamental question is why should the police, when interacting with the public, have a
greater right of privacy than the ordinary citizen?
23 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
(ps. Obviously, the situation is slightly different here in the UK with the crazy law making it illegal to
take photos of serving or retired police, military or intelligence personnel. To this end I fully intend to
take every city council to court....)
(pps. What has wikileaks got to do with this? When it was publishing the wrong doings of China we
loved it, now we hate it. Says more about us. Also Assange != wikileaks. Dont give the ass the
publicity)
Posted by: GreenSquirrel at December 22, 2010 9:41 AM
I am a police officer, and I can tell you that outside of an interview room, I cannot even pretend that I
have an expectation of privacy in the performance of my duties. The vast majority of a police officer's
job takes place in the public view. I am always surprised when I hear how some departments fight this
concept.
My concern has always arisen from the fragmentary nature of these public/law enforcement video
records. In particular, citizen recordings are often catching only a portion of any incidents and can lead
to broad, inaccurate assumptions. Case in point, a number of years ago there was a video circulating of
an officer who had a subject leaning forward against his squad car, with hands handcuffed behind his
back, to be searched or frisked. Apparently without warning, the officer grabs the subject by the back of
his head and slams it into the roof of the squad car. Since the video was shot from the far side of the
car, you could not see that the subject had reached back and grabbed the officer by his testicles and
was squeezing. I believe the officer ended up receiving medical attention, however, the video was
damning to the service and that officer's career. While the officer was defending himself from assault,
the video would not have supported this fact. Any such video surveillance should be a piece of a larger
inquiry or investigation, instead it is often all that the public wants or requires.
Accountability is important in that it should inspire, not just right action, but also due diligence and due
process prior to any public condemnation. The public should be free to record, to support this
accountability. I believe that, but I worry about the public's tendency to rail against the tyranny of any
available authority figure before they have all their information.
Having read all the comments, and not finding anything to address that concern, I felt I should present
that notion.
Posted by: Cal Mooney at December 22, 2010 9:46 AM
@Alan Kaminsky: It's bad enough the actual second amendment has a couple of extraneous commas
that make it next to impossible to parse, no sense putting them into your take-off as well. :-)
Posted by: Baylink at December 22, 2010 10:13 AM
So far, people are arguing over whether taping is a violation of the privacy of public officials. I believe
an individual, at minimum, should have rights to record whatever is happening to himself or herself, and
if an officer becomes part of that context, then I think it should be argued that it is fair game as an
immediate part of that context.
It is silly to put up walls between what can be shown *really happened* and what is merely in
someone's pretty little head. Any system that must defend itself with these walls is suspect in its ability
to ensure justice.
Yet, as we see here, there are those that argue for fear of retribution towards an officer, especially by
terrorists, yada yada. How ironic. It's an admission that reality-based thinking (or American democracy
24 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
in general) is powerless- POWERLESS, MIND YOU, in the face of the legions of terrorists that, judging
from Fox News, appear to outnumber us on every street corner.
The vast majority of these public recordings show an officer was doing a job, more or less properly, and
support an account of the facts.
Posted by: wither at December 22, 2010 11:23 AM
Cal brings up a good point here. Video will always be incomplete for various reasons.
I still think some is better than none, and that more is better.
Because, it will help with a baseline. Sure, that one cop got hosed unfairly. More cases of video will not
increase that one I think. Because more information generally helps toward truth. Suppose this one cop
had tons of videos about his interactions with the public, and this was the only bad-looking one -- he's
in general a model cop.
(They do exist, I just wish more were.)
Wouldn't that help his case in the particular instance where the video omitted something important? I
think it would.
If norms were better established, then the outliers would stand out more, no?
Posted by: Doug Coulter at December 22, 2010 1:48 PM
It's an embarrassment that some states haven't updated these antiquated and mis-used laws.
That said, protecting the right to record video or pictures ain't the same as giving the right to interfere
or disobey lawful orders. Don't want to over-correct here. So an officer arresting you shouldn't have to
worry about breaking other laws by taking your phone away while he's doing it, and officers shouldn't
be responsible for the quality of your recording device - if they want to set up a perimiter and your
camera is too crappy to get a good picture/sound at that distance, that's your problem.
Posted by: Charles at December 22, 2010 2:39 PM
What do we keep hearing about being NSA wiretapped despite the illegality of domestic spying? Oh
yeah:
If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Posted by: TJ at December 22, 2010 3:16 PM
Reading all of this stuff I'm just so glad that I don't live in the USA. What a mess.
Posted by: Bill S at December 22, 2010 3:55 PM
Good cops = would love being on tape the whole while on duty. Forget claiming police abuse, messing
up procedures, illegal search, he/she said.. Check the tape - done.
Bad cops = hates being on tape. You have to follow all those pesky laws, like *all* of them not just the
ones you like.
Posted by: Larry S Donald at December 22, 2010 4:03 PM
25 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM
Post a comment
Name:
Email Address:
E-mail is optional and will not be displayed on the site.
URL:
Remember Me? Yes No
Comments:
Preview Post
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Geoffrey Stone.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT.
26 of 26 12/22/10 2:18 PM

Recording The Police

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Recording The Police

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Schneier on Security: Recording the Police http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/recording_the_...

December 21, 2010

Recording the Police

Allison’s predicament is an extreme example of a growing and disturbing trend. As citizens

Posted by: hsweeney at December 21, 2010 2:05 PM

Can someone please define "liberty" for me?

Actually I think that should probably be 'selection bias.'

Can someone please define "liberty" for me?

The synopses of some of these videos appear "pro cop".

if the government is afraid that's how I define liberty.

Perhaps "war on photography" should be generalized to "war on accountability."

failings of some police departments to apply to them all.

Also, there is no god.

I would even be so generous as to consider an exception in the context of physically-in-an-official's-

amazing comments i read here:

All this talk of increasing and decreasing liberties reminds me of Go.

Simply beautiful. I never knew it was that simple.

Unfortunately the statements are similar to the spirit in these:

From this sort of statements we can gather that:

I was a cop back in the 1980's.

Irregardless of whether police should or should not be recorded...

liberty is defined as living pre abe lincoln days.......

Yet another reason to stay out of Illinois.

I dont think what you want will happen.

Has even 1 politician anywhere in the USA supported such a thing?

@Posted by: Joshm at December 21, 2010 4:33 PM

Power to the people!

@Posted by: Paul Crowley at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM

@Posted by: Paul Crowley at December 21, 2010 5:20 PM

Then you sue for defamation of character.

Motorcyclist jailed for 26 hours for videotaping gun-wielding cop

Couldn't agree more.

arrested parties". This is absolutely and totally absurd.

"Can someone please define "liberty" for me?"

liberty in the foundation of the USA.

Posted by: anonymous at December 21, 2010 7:01 PM

joshm, makes a great point against:

@Carl: read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. 'Nuf said.

what does "recording the police" have to do with crypto?

"what does 'recording the police' have to do with crypto?"

One bit here really hits home:

Could not have said it any better myself.

Capital punishment for all convicted officials I say!

Posted by: AD at December 22, 2010 5:06 AM

In most places, this is just wrong regarding the law.

> Can someone please define "liberty" for me?

I can but hope that the comment from Anton666:

Posted by: Cal Mooney at December 22, 2010 9:46 AM

E-mail is optional and will not be displayed on the site.

Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Geoffrey Stone.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen