DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on October 26, 2007, 11:21:21 AM
-
(http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/cartoons/stantiscameras.jpg)
-
I hope that there s a 24-7 camera on the constitution.
Do you need a arrant for surveilance?
-
I hope that there s a 24-7 camera on the constitution.
Yeah. 'Cause someone might run off with it while no one is looking.
Do you need a arrant for surveilance?
Sometimes. Though as I understand it, our country's best legal experts are even now working on ways to get around that. Not for you or me, of course. Just for the government.
I keep hearing how people who are not doing anything wrong should have nothing to hide. And also hear that the government is really the people. So how come the government gets to hide things from the people? Does that mean the government is doing something wrong?
-
I keep hearing how people who are not doing anything wrong should have nothing to hide. And also hear that the government is really the people. So how come the government gets to hide things from the people? Does that mean the government is doing something wrong?
=====================================
Bingo!
-
I keep hearing how people who are not doing anything wrong should have nothing to hide. And also hear that the government is really the people. So how come the government gets to hide things from the people? Does that mean the government is doing something wrong?
=====================================
Bingo!
Not bingo.
The issue that UP is complaining about was discussed previously in the thread about filming cops in Pennsylvania.
Turns out the law that the cops used to arrest the kid concerned audio surveillance and in particular unannounced recordings of private conversations.
For example it would be unlawful for a husband to record his wifes conversations without her knowing it.
So what the real problem was in that case was policeman were allowed the same civil protections as a husband and wife in the midst of marital discord.
-
In a public place or where the owners have given permission is a warrant required to set up a camera?
Why is a vocal recording diffrent?
-
Not sure of alll the nuances of the law. Apparently is is perfectly OK for a convenience store to have cameras installed to protect against robberies and shoplifting, but i am unaware of any that record sound at the same time
-
The issue that UP is complaining about was discussed previously in the thread about filming cops in Pennsylvania.
Turns out the law that the cops used to arrest the kid concerned audio surveillance and in particular unannounced recordings of private conversations.
For example it would be unlawful for a husband to record his wifes conversations without her knowing it.
So what the real problem was in that case was policeman were allowed the same civil protections as a husband and wife in the midst of marital discord.
Gee, that sounds all folksy when you put it that way. That isn't quite what I was complaining about. I'm not real sure how warrantless surveillance became about protecting the rights of police. That is a funny kind of a twist. But I guess we all much safer in a world where we cannot record the police without permission. I coulda sworn that warrantless surveillance had something to do with the government recording individuals... there was something in there about an amendment... yeah, an amendment to something called, uh... started with a 'C'... but oh well. Must be about protecting the rights of the police, because BT said so. I must have been confused.
-
The issue that UP is complaining about was discussed previously in the thread about filming cops in Pennsylvania.
Turns out the law that the cops used to arrest the kid concerned audio surveillance and in particular unannounced recordings of private conversations.
For example it would be unlawful for a husband to record his wifes conversations without her knowing it.
So what the real problem was in that case was policeman were allowed the same civil protections as a husband and wife in the midst of marital discord.
Gee, that sounds all folksy when you put it that way. That isn't quite what I was complaining about. I'm not real sure how warrantless surveillance became about protecting the rights of police. That is a funny kind of a twist. But I guess we all much safer in a world where we cannot record the police without permission. I coulda sworn that warrantless surveillance had something to do with the government recording individuals... there was something in there about an amendment... yeah, an amendment to something called, uh... started with a 'C'... but oh well. Must be about protecting the rights of the police, because BT said so. I must have been confused.
You seem hazy on what constitutes a search and seizure as defined in the constitution.
Could you point to the passage that you are concerned about?
http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html
-
You seem hazy on what constitutes a search and seizure as defined in the constitution.
Do I? What makes you think so?
Could you point to the passage that you are concerned about?
Well, since this is about protecting the police from being, ahem, unreasonably recorded, as BT so clearly indicated, I have to confess I don't know what part of the Constitution covers that. I don't see anything in the Constitution protecting agents of the government acting on behalf of the government from such an obvious violation of rights by a citizen. But I'm sure it must be there somewhere. Oh wait, is that why you think I'm "hazy on what constitutes a search and seizure as defined in the constitution"? Hm. You could be right. But then again...
-
There are recording cameras that also record sound. There was rather a controversy a few years back about such a system in what I believe was a Dunkin' Donuts (though I may be wrong about the place).
The basic rule as I understand it is that when you are in a public place you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not illegal to record you in a public place without your permission. It IS illegal to do so in a situation wherein you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, you have the right to have a private conversation in your home, on your telephone or on your private property. But I can be walking down the street recording a note to myself and you might blunder by discussing your latest murder victim. In that case, unless I misunderstand it, that recording is both legal and admissable as evidence.