Are Cameras the New Guns?

I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but this section seems as good as any. Although this article is about what's going on in The States now, I fear it's only a matter of time till the trend carries on to Canada and The U.K.

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any 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 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."
The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

[article continues]

Rest of the article here: http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

It's a fuzzy line for me. On one hand, i agree. On the other, i don't. Where i'm coming from is where people record someone undressing in a health club... or those that record movies up a girl's skirt (which i enjoy ). But also, what would be going on in this country if people weren't able to film cops doing something illegal (beating a suspect).

I don't like this sh!t one bit on it's head. But also, it's individual states that are doing it (3 states). If the feds came in with this law, i'd be having fits.

The law has been usually quite clear about what one could photograph or video. If someone was in a public place then you could photograph or tape them with impunity. Private places like changinging rooms, or whatever, were strictly off limits. This law restricts photographing or taping cops on the street, your house, car, etc. It's not about invasion of privacy or photographing/videographing someome without their knowledge or concent. It's about taking images of cops (specificially) anywhere. That, to me, seems like an infringement on civil liberties, and an excuse to not protect ourselves from the police, or whoever, from infringinging on our rights.

I can't see that ever being illegal here. The Police are servants of the state, not the government (a big difference when you understand our political system) and when they step out of line (as they did at the G8 protests last year) they get a lot of flak from the government. They probably get a lot more flak than they deserve sometimes but most of it is justified.

Of course there are things we cannot photograph, but they tend to be buildings and sensitive areas rather than people. I remember a university project I did in my first year, we were walking around the castle at the centre of the city. It is off limits to the public as it is was bought up by the courts. The main building inside at the time was the central court. We got talking to one of the guards who let us into the castle to take photos on condition that we didn't photograph the court. That was fine as we wanted pictures and notes of the medieval installations, not the boring 19th century court in the middle :p

The police here are set up as follows, from the bottom up......

City police are paid by whatever city they works for.

Then you have county sheriff deputies (with one actual sheriff per county who is an elected official). Each state has several counties. They work for the county.

Then there's the state troopers (state police). They work for the individual states. They have jurisdiction over all counties as far as where they can go.

Then the FBI. That's the federal branch of police. They work for the US gov't.

The reason i'm laying all that out is that our country is mor vast and that's how the police are set up. So, this law would be wide-ranging and very bad.

Minnesota State Patrol car


And troopers...


The head of the Minn State Patrol, Mark Dunaski







And here's the Alabama state troopers.

I'd feel better if the law in charge weren't elected. In Canada the mountines and down on aren't, and that gives me peace of mind that they aren't beholding to the voters.

County sheriffs are elected but not police chiefs. FBI are gov't appointed (the big shots are).