Photography Is Not A Crime

[TomCat84]

Three o'clock in the morning at an intersection in a seedy downtown area...I'll come to a stop, and if there's no other traffic on the road I'm not sitting there waiting for the stupid-ass light to change.

WTF are you doing in a seedy area of downtown anyway? Nothing good happens after 12.... :tongue:

 

[slurper_la]

My friend Shawn runs the National Photographers' Rights Organization.

Lots of interesting reads on his blog and stream:

http://discarted.wordpress.com/

Flickr: NPRO - National Photographers' Rights Organization

 

[FemmeBoy]

No, don't tell me Orwell's book came true after all! It took me twenty years to crawl out from the underbrush already after '86...

Big Brother has been in charge since 1984, they just erased all the evidence and no-one can talk about it... oohh shiitt, argh!!

 

[Industrialsize]

From what I just heard on the news it wasn't the visual recording that seems to have gotten him in trouble. It's the audio component. 21 states have laws that make it illegal to "audio record" someone without prior permission which seems to be the case here. Remember Linda Tripp? She was prosecuted under the same law for recording conversations with Monica Lewinsky under the same law.

 

[TopDudeFtl]

From what I just heard on the news it wasn't the visual recording that seems to have gotten him in trouble. It's the audio component. 21 states have laws that make it illegal to "audio record" someone without prior permission which seems to be the case here. Remember Linda Tripp? She was prosecuted under the same law for recording conversations with Monica Lewinsky under the same law.

Interesting; the video I saw had no audio.

 

[slurper_la]

and the audio thing is tricky. in most cases you can audio record anyone at anytime if the purpose is to accurately track a private conversation and to defend yourself.

it's when a third party is involved that the waters get muddy.

 

[TomCat84]

and the audio thing is tricky. in most cases you can audio record anyone at anytime if the purpose is to accurately track a private conversation and to defend yourself.

it's when a third party is involved that the waters get muddy.

In California, you have to get permission

 

[midlifebear]

Probably the most heavily "photo policed" city in the USA is Pasadena. Every intersection has a minimum of four cameras that not only take snap shots of folks making a "California roll" through a stop sign, but also live video. Same goes for the main drag of downtown Pasadena. It's a bit unnerving to know that as you weave your way to the Huntington Museum and Gardens that a room full of Pasadena's finest are watching you as they pick their noses and drink bad coffee.

 

[faceking]

Um, this is beyond basic. It's about the law on counterparty knowledge... whether it's a cop or an ex-hubby. Try again.

Sorry to make you look foolish, but it is what it is...

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Um, this is beyond basic. It's about the law on counterparty knowledge... whether it's a cop or an ex-hubby. Try again.

Sorry to make you look foolish, but it is what it is...

Well, I know what a counterparty is in a financial transaction.
But can you expand on how the 'law on counterparty knowledge' applies here ... and also on what it is?

 

[slurper_la]

update. maybe not so illegal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_685990&v=izegE5fF7pA&feature=iv

 

[Bbucko]

In all fairness, I don't think he raised the issue here... :wink:
.

I know, I know :redface:

I was referring to your post here, as DC contributed nothing here (for understandable reasons). Yet another reason to vary my internet diet I guess

Three o'clock in the morning at an intersection in a seedy downtown area...I'll come to a stop, and if there's no other traffic on the road I'm not sitting there waiting for the stupid-ass light to change.

That's an excellent example of my old saw: just because something's legal doesn't make it right, and just because something's illegal doesn't make it wrong. That's been one the chief points in my code of ethics for the last 35 years.

WTF are you doing in a seedy area of downtown anyway? Nothing good happens after 12.... :tongue:

At least here in FtL, the "good" neighborhoods and the "seedy" ones go past one another like layers of sediment (or a multi-level cake if you prefer that analogy). It is practically impossible to get from one neighborhood to the next without passing through some iffy real estate. It also should go without saying that many middle class and entirely respectable people live in areas that are undergoing gentrification, for instance, or who simply don't wish to be land-poor (tackled with a huge mortgage) and who choose to live in less-than-pristine parts of town.

As for your time cut-off regarding decency, as a nocturnal person I might agree with you in theory, but many of my best times happen in the wee hours

 

[Bbucko]

Um, this is beyond basic. It's about the law on counterparty knowledge... whether it's a cop or an ex-hubby. Try again.

Sorry to make you look foolish, but it is what it is...

Well, I know what a counterparty is in a financial transaction.
But can you expand on how the 'law on counterparty knowledge' applies here ... and also on what it is?

I have to agree with my pal Hhuck on this. I was unfamiliar with the term "counterparty knowledge", so I Googled it. This is what I got: there's nothing about recording, photography or the police, all of which are subjects in this thread. If you have a point that can be backed up with a hyperlink in this matter, I'd gladly look at it with an open mind.

As to making me look foolish, though such a thing is entirely possible in theory, it's just not within your own rather limited skill set.

 

[Calboner]

Um, this is beyond basic. It's about the law on counterparty knowledge... whether it's a cop or an ex-hubby. Try again.

Sorry to make you look foolish, but it is what it is...

You leave out the crucial consideration that the law concerns the recording of PRIVATE conversations. Adam Cohen writes in the Time article:

The legal argument prosecutors rely on in police video cases is thin. They say the audio aspect of the videos violates wiretap laws because, in some states, both parties to a conversation must consent to having a private conversation recorded. The hole in their argument is the word "private." A police officer arresting or questioning someone on a highway or street is not having a private conversation. He is engaging in a public act.

According to the television news report cited by Slurper_LA, the Maryland Attorney General agrees.

 

[helgaleena]

My big brother can beat up your big brother???

Our solution is becoming the problem. Yikes.