Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The de-liberalization of photography

Reply
Thread Tools

The de-liberalization of photography

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Nov 29, 1:15*pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> More evidence:
> CNN:
>
> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
> exists."


And I thought the UK was bad, seems like some states are just as bad
if not worse.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>More evidence:
>CNN:
>
>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>exists."


The above is misleading. The states have not "made it illegal". They
have arrested people and charged them with breaking laws (about
wiretapping and eavesdropping) that have been in effect for quite some
time. The courts have dismissed many cases based on arrests of this
nature.

It may be unacceptable to the public for the police to interpret the
laws as they have, but that's no reason to provide misleading
information.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>More evidence:
>CNN:
>
>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>exists."

That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:29:34 -0800, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> More evidence:
>>> CNN:
>>>
>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>> exists."

>>
>> The above is misleading. The states have not "made it illegal". They
>> have arrested people and charged them with breaking laws (about
>> wiretapping and eavesdropping) that have been in effect for quite some
>> time. The courts have dismissed many cases based on arrests of this
>> nature.
>>
>> It may be unacceptable to the public for the police to interpret the
>> laws as they have, but that's no reason to provide misleading
>> information.

>
>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/head...guns/#?cnn=yes


That article states:
----
The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing
wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing
law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland
are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a
recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to
all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the
camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also
include an exception for recording in public places where “no
expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice
this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was
arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been
misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and
snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor
Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a
ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law —
requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the
area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”
----

As I said, no new laws have been made.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"GMAN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:2PQIo.427829$(E-Mail Removed)1.easynews.com...
>> In article
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>, RichA
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>More evidence:
>>>CNN:
>>>
>>>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>>exists."

>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

>
>Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
>

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:32 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"GMAN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:2PQIo.427829$(E-Mail Removed)1.easynews.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> RichA
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>More evidence:
>>>>>CNN:
>>>>>
>>>>>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>>>>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>>>>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>>>>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>>>>exists."
>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
>>>
>>>Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
>>>

>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
>> that foots the legal bill.

>
>I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
>violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
>other organization would already be putting an oar in.


I don't think you understand the system. The Supreme Court does not
rule on cases not brought before them. It doesn't make any difference
how egregious the violation is. The court doesn't hear an appeal if
the appeal is settled in a lower court or the case is dropped.

>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
>> there's a need to go higher.

>



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "tony cooper"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "GMAN"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$(E-Mail Removed)1.easynews.com...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> RichA
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> More evidence:
>>>>>> CNN:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>>>>> exists."
>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
>>>>
>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
>>> that foots the legal bill.

>>
>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

>
>It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
>to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
>before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
>heart or light of wallet.
>
>>>
>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
>>> there's a need to go higher.

>>
>> Even so . . .

>
>Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
>where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
>banning.


Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:25:56 -0800, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:32 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "tony cooper"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "GMAN"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$(E-Mail Removed)1.easynews.com...
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> More evidence:
>>>>>>> CNN:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>>>>>> exists."
>>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
>>>>>
>>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
>>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
>>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
>>>> that foots the legal bill.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
>>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
>>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

>>
>> I don't think you understand the system. The Supreme Court does not
>> rule on cases not brought before them. It doesn't make any difference
>> how egregious the violation is. The court doesn't hear an appeal if
>> the appeal is settled in a lower court or the case is dropped.

>
>from the link above:
>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/head...guns/#?cnn=yes
>"Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there
>are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction
>has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a
>settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,”
>the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written
>policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.


I'm not sure what your point is, Paul. In this case the issue was
resolved by settlement. Any appeal was dropped, so the case will not
continue to move up the ladder towards a Supreme Court hearing.

There are cases where it is hoped that an appeal will be denied
because that allows the case to move up the ladder. However, a
reversal by any higher court usually stops a practice.


>As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider
>passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law
>enforcement officials.”
>
>
>>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
>>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
>>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
>>>> there's a need to go higher.
>>>

>>
>>


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2010
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "tony cooper"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "GMAN"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$(E-Mail Removed)1.easynews.com...
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> More evidence:
>>>>>>> CNN:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
>>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
>>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
>>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
>>>>>>> exists."
>>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
>>>>>
>>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
>>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
>>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
>>>> that foots the legal bill.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
>>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
>>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

>>
>>It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
>>to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
>>before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
>>heart or light of wallet.
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
>>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
>>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
>>>> there's a need to go higher.
>>>
>>> Even so . . .

>>
>>Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
>>where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
>>banning.

>
>Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
>bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
>contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
>done would be enough.


I want to live in your state.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fine Tune Your Photography Skills with Photography Expert RobSheppard! xtrain4u@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 03-14-2008 02:11 PM
Panoramic photography on the cheap! - Photography Help Blog by Pixelpix PixelPix Digital Photography 19 06-10-2007 05:28 AM
The Photography Cafe is the Place to Share your Photography! Patzt Digital Photography 0 08-14-2005 06:20 AM



Advertisments