Comments on: Debate on recording on-duty police

By: Nameless Citizen

Nameless Citizen — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:53:23 +0000

I agree that, as public servants, law enforcement at any
level have NO expectation of privacy while engaged in the
performance (or occasional mis-performance) of their duties.
However that does not extend to the general public. Specifically
with regard to the taping of shows like Cops, or worse yet, the
pure entrapment shows like To Catch A Predator, in which the police
are not responding to a crime generated by the subject, but have
cooporated with a “for profit” company to generate the situatoin
that entices a person into committing a crime in the first place in
order to gain a profit for the media company thru advertising
revenue. Briefly, our entire jurisprudence system is SUPPOSED to be
based on the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. However
from the advent of so-called “perp walks” (and possibly before),
the media has been enlisted in an attempt by law enforcement to
“front load” and begin the conviction and punishment phase far
BEFORE the jury of peers declares a person guilty. That this has
EVER been allowed to occur is outrageous, that it has been extended
to TV shows that focus exclusively on humiliating those who are
still innocent–since they haven’t been proven guilty yet, such as
with COPS. Let alone to those companies that actively profit from
causing crime (and victimless crime at that)to occur, as takes
place in To Catch A Predator, is absolutely outrageous and is
anathema to our Constitutional rights. The law enforcement system,
in incestuous cahoots with Big Media have managed to make a
complete mockery and an ineffective hash out of our right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. That, according to your
implications, the victims in all this, the Innocent (at the time
filmed, since they hadn’t been proven guilty yet)can not win a
judgement against the media companies involved in humiliating them
for profit, let alone against the law enforcement agencies and
personel who aided and abetted their unconstitutional and
therefore(should be)illegal actions–is absolutely outrageous. Mind
you, I support “sting operations”, especially where harm is
intended to a person, or to society. But I do not support the “for
profit” filming of these stings, let alone privaate funding of
them. We are THAT close to the Roman Coliseum and throwing “the
guilty” to the lions for the pleasure of the crowd. We already
throw “the presumed guilty before proven innocent” to the networks.
This (including “perp walks”) is COMPLETELY unacceptable, in and of
itself. But, if we don’t stop this here and now–what will be done
next??

By: Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:52:07 +0000

I agree concerning the “right to be let alone” has morphed into unique tilt: if we have no expectation of privacy in public, then why not allow surveillance cameras roam in public, but then do we allow society to be under surveillance as does London. Most instances where I see CCTV in public on mass scale is in crime ridden areas. Thus, from Baltimore to Las Vegas, police not only say, “well what’s in public is public” but rely on the theme, “people don’t commit crime on CCTV and it’s a high crime area” and CCTV is needed in high crime areas, thus creating a two prong approach–the right and the need.

Considering people still robb banks despite being on 10 different cameras and facing the FBI’s 97% apprehension rate, I believe CCTV is a decent deterrent. CCTV also allows police to monitor multiple blocks in different directions with one 360 degree pan/tilt camera. CCTV also allows the best witness into court–video tape aka a DVR.

Considering police budgets are strained, adding CCTV to police arsenal makes sense as long as there’s a right and need.

Darren Chaker, http://www.darrenchaker.com/

By: Progone

Progone — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:48:16 +0000

I agree with your conclusion – there is no legitimate need for personal privacy of public servants in the course of performing their duties. This is one of those cases where, “I pay your salary” is a completely valid argument.

I also want to comment that the idea of there being no right “to be let alone” in public needs to be revisited. The context of those decisions has been greatly altered by changes in technology. We are on the cusp of “total surveillance” – from ubiquitous cameras (ala the UK) and ANPR (automated license plate scanners) toll-way transponders to cell-tower/gps tracking of phones to nearly-here capabilities like facial recognition and even gait recognition.

When those rulings were made the idea that it would be possible to *automatically* record and correlate our actions in public with tera-scale databases that are a permanent must wasn’t even conceivable. But times have changed and so too should the laws regarding the privacy of private citizens out in public.

This free for all that has as its foundation that people have no expectation of privacy while out in public needs to be reigned in because the end result is looking more and more like a sad choice of either never leaving one’s home or having practically no privacy at all.

By: Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:34:58 +0000

The famous phrase, the right “to be let alone” (Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 634 (1834)) doesn’t apply when you’re in public. In fact, there have been several reported cases in which the victim later sued the television program for invasion of privacy when TV crews video tape arrests, as seen on COPS. See, Shulman v. Group W Productions, 59 Cal. Rptr.2d 434 (1997); Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668 (1986); Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting, 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).

Thus, if a person who gets arrested, can’t sue due to the fact there’s no invasion of privacy, then police do not have an expectation of privacy either when in public.

Darren Chaker