Recording police officers in public now illegal

[SpankMe]

In at least three US states it is now illegal to record Police officers doing their job without their consent. and it's gaining popularity around the US.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

I think many police have forgotten they are public servants.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding.
He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

[rustic101]

I think that some States are sick of having to pay out so much in compensation!!!

[bogan]

wtf, don't cops over there have cameras in their own cars anyways?

I can understand in cases where it may obstruct justice, but a blanket ban on recording cops is a little ridiculous.

[SpankMe]

What worries me is that there is bound to be officials here looking at this for NZ and we got just the government that is likely to pass it into law.

[Ixion]

there have been a number of articles on El-reg about cops in the UK harassing photogrpahers. Even though the government and judges have said that photographing police (including on duty) is lawful, unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

[SpankMe]

...Unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

sinsiter by whose definition? I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Swoop]

What worries me is that there is bound to be officials here looking at this for NZ and we got just the government that is likely to pass it into law.

I'd be more concerned if it was the state of Victoria that was dreaming this up...

The Constitution will provide lawyers with ample scope to challenge this... and make a fortune in the process.

[Ixion]

sinsiter by whose definition? I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

Sinister would be a matter for a court. Maybe stuff like videoing police routine when planning a terrorist attack, or a armouring car heist or something. Like, at present it is legal to record a conversation. Unless you are recording it with the intention of using the recording for blackmail purposes. or to faciliate a crime in some way. But cops have no special status in that respect.

[red mermaid]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

there have been a number of articles on El-reg about cops in the UK harassing photogrpahers. Even though the government and judges have said that photographing police (including on duty) is lawful, unless there is evidence of a sinsiter purpose.

[Gremlin]

There has already been cases of cops being found guilty of various things, and there was no chance it would have happened if it wasn't for the video proof. Mind you... this from the country that holds person A responsible for person B's actions.

[rustic101]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

In addition you need an individuals consent if you wish to release (publish) their intellectual property or face, of course our criminal community are excluded this clause.

[Ixion]

You've only told half the story here (What a surprise).

The problem was with people photographing sensitive buildings and sites, and the possible use of those photos by terrorist organisations, and the power to stop the photographs been taken was under an anti-terrorist enactment.

In NZ, anyone can photograph anyone or anything in a public place, as long as it doesn't breach any indecency laws.

Bullshit. Backed up by public apologies by Chief Constables to photograhers unlawfully harrassed. And specific announcements of the legality of photography by the Ministry , and magistrates and the High Court. I suppose next you'll claim the photographers were speeding. You should be careful you know, accusing people of terrorist acts, that's defamation.

As yet another senior copper reads the riot act to his fellow officers over the policing of photographers, concerns are growing amongst senior ranks that this is all too little too late – and that serious damage has now been done to relations with the public over this issue.

John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, put out a message yesterday reminding all Met Police officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason

The government’s own anti-terror advisor, Lord Carlile of Berriew, believes that the police are over-using and misusing anti-terror laws to crack down on photographers.

The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.

There has been increasing concern in recent months that police have been over-using terrorism laws and public order legislation to harass professional and amateur photographers. The issue was raised in Parliament and the Home Office agreed to look at the rules.
The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers

Just a sample. A search on El reg returned pages on them.

With cops like those, and you, we'd be better off with the terrorists.

Perhaps you should stick to matters you actually know something about, instead of inventing it on the spot, under the good old "The law is what I say it is, because I'm a cop and cop's are God" rule. of course, you'd then have nothing to say at all.

[red mermaid]

Mmm, the quotes you have included seem to back up my story about possible use to terrorist activities.

[bogan]

bit of a difference between banning all videoing of cops and prosecuting likely ter'ists. Like the vid above, cop pulls over some guy who has his helmet cam on at time, cop doesn't follow procedure and harras's biker with a gun ffs. what is wrong with recording that? quickest way to get such cops to clean up their act I reckon.

[rustyrobot]

This rider (Anthony Graber) just had his wiretapping charges dropped by a judge, who stated that the state's prosecution would render illegal "almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device". (The charges alleged Graber was in possession of a "device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications")

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...tt-cell-phones