[HN Gopher] NYPD barred from telling people they can't film in p...
___________________________________________________________________
NYPD barred from telling people they can't film in precinct
stations
Author : danso
Score : 218 points
Date : 2023-11-08 15:43 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hellgatenyc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hellgatenyc.com)
| NickC25 wrote:
| Good.
|
| Barring any attempts to hinder a police investigation or crime
| scene, the right to record law passed in NY should be absolute.
|
| I see no reason why it's a bad thing to keep law enforcement
| honest and make sure their actions are legal and above
| board....because otherwise, their mistakes and ignorance of the
| law can cost the public money.
|
| It also allows the good folks within police departments to have a
| straightforward way to root out the bad folks and the corruption
| that a police union might traditionally try to cover up. If I
| were a cop and I knew one of my coworkers was a bad apple, and
| might screw things up for me, knowing that they are getting
| recorded on the job would give me peace of mind.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The only reason I see is if it captured citizens that don't
| want the fact that they were in a NYPD Precinct livestreamed.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It's a public place. If a separate law gave them a right to
| privacy then the police have to make accommodations to bring
| them into the station privately, like through a back door.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| My position is that it is _good_ that everyone going into
| the precinct should be publicly noticed. Nobody goes in
| through "a back door". Nobody goes into police custody
| without the public knowing. Yes, this gets embarrassing.
| But it keeps people from silently "disappearing". If
| they're in police custody, everybody knows (or can find
| out).
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Which is fine if you're being arrested, not great if
| you're trying to report domestic violence.
|
| I get it, it's better like this, but it could have
| secondary side effects for some people.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Trying to report _any_ crime where the victim fears
| repercussions. Organized crime, crime by an employer,
| etc.
| Kye wrote:
| Every law is a balance with some compromises toward or
| against personal and public good. Some of that balance
| should include alternate channels for reporting things
| with hazards like this.
| fishtacos wrote:
| To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to
| defend absolving of documentation of their presence when
| all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's
| an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random
| drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they
| are in the public record. That public record includes
| public documentation of where they were taken, why, and
| sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be
| informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.
|
| Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is
| a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not
| unexpected.
| tzs wrote:
| People often go to police stations for reasons other than
| being charged with something.
| koolba wrote:
| > That public record includes public documentation of
| where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation
| to allow both the public to be informed and for
| intervention in case of abuse of power.
|
| The problem for the specific case of being charged with
| something, or even a step before when someone is brought
| in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's
| reputation for life.
|
| If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of
| spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not
| going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors
| later admit to being completely wrong.
| fishtacos wrote:
| That's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to
| what the law requires because it's the just thing to do.
|
| Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought
| so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even
| works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and
| police corruption isn't the answer.
|
| I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power
| between the common citizen and state. Wanting
| transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse
| of power is precisely why this should be the norm.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > if they are being charged with something, they are in
| the public record. That public record includes public
| documentation of where they were taken, why, and
| sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be
| informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.
|
| > Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy.
|
| I agree with all of that but I wonder if this has
| anything to do with living in a democracy.
| seadan83 wrote:
| Without those protections people can be disappeared or
| put in jail for no reason (perhaps to prevent their
| attendance somewhere else). It gets to the heart of
| habeais corpus
| fishtacos wrote:
| Exactly - we need transparency so the public does not
| feel threatened by unknowns, has trust in general
| governance, has trust in the economic system, political
| system, criminal system...
|
| Democratic secular republics haven't been around for very
| long. Lest we forget, given how short our lifetime spans,
| nothing is written for us. We create history as we live
| it. Trying our best doesn't seem to cut it so far, but
| I'll take it over any alternative.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| You can get arrested without being charged with something
| though.
| fishtacos wrote:
| Yet what? It's still public record, like anything should
| be when charged by the state. Transparency is key.
| Otherwise, we live in an Orwellian quasi-something.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Being arrested, even if it you were innocent and it
| doesn't lead to a trial or conviction, has very real and
| harmful consequences to you in the US.
|
| So, it seems that things are Orwellian either way.
| angus-prune wrote:
| Most western democracies dont publicise arrests and
| mugshots like the US. Most of these countries are more
| free and have better functioning democracies than the
| USA. In fact, many coutries would consider publicising
| every minor arrest as an imposition on personal freedom
| and a massive overstep by the government.
|
| I do agree that police should be filmable in almost all
| circumstances.
| kbelder wrote:
| Ah, Europe loves its secret courts.
| kreeben wrote:
| It's so lovely when HN discussions derail into USA vs
| Europe. Divisiveness, internet's favorite thing.
| barrkel wrote:
| What if a private organization set up cameras observing
| everyone walking every street and avenue, and stored facial
| eigenvectors of all the people walking there.
|
| It could then set up shop as a service, and given a picture
| of someone's face, tell you when and where they went
| anywhere on foot in NYC.
|
| It's all public, right?
| wongarsu wrote:
| That's what companies do with license plate scanners. I
| don't think faces would be substantially different in the
| eyes of the law.
|
| I agree that it's an issue. In Europe there is some
| expectation of privacy even in public and what you
| describe would be illegal.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in
| public
|
| which is reason #1367 why the UK had to leave the EU.
|
| Thanks, I'll be here all week, until I die.
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| In thr US that is probably legal currently
| roywiggins wrote:
| It's being done for police, but I don't think there's any
| legal bar to selling this data to the public instead.
|
| https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-
| amer...
| usea wrote:
| The scenario you're describing is already the status quo.
| mypgovroom wrote:
| What if? What do you mean what if? You are obviously to
| reality bud
| ddingus wrote:
| You can find that in London right now.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| Are you asking if that's legal? Because yes it absolutely
| is.
| omginternets wrote:
| I think there's room for protecting people's public image
| so long as they have not been _convicted_.
| heliodor wrote:
| Are you saying that every crime punishment should
| automatically include loss of privacy? Cause that's what
| your statement sounds like.
| omginternets wrote:
| That's a very bizarre reading of this thread of
| conversation.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Every crime _conviction_ is a public record, so that ship
| has sailed.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I would say that we want to know what crimes our
| government is convicting people of. Otherwise, you can
| have the government arrest and convict some one of
| "secret" charges, perhaps in "secret" courts with
| "secret" evidence. The convicted just disappeared.
|
| I think we had something like that happen before, it
| caused a bit of upset.
| ddingus wrote:
| That is all a matter of public record. Anyone who doesn't
| want that can file a motion to have it concealed.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| I mean pretty much that's a cornerstone of our legal
| system. There's a strong bias against hidden courts where
| someone may be convicted in secret and punished in
| secret.
| oneplane wrote:
| The public place doctrine is uniquely weird (and American)
| in that regard. Being seen or heard by others in a public
| place should not mean that you, as a private person, also
| gets recorded.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree. I think that US law is actively harmful in this
| regard. It should be possible to be in public spaces
| without having to worry about being recorded, either by
| authorities or other people.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| This reverses the subject, though: even if we grant that
| private civilians should have a (possibly limited)
| expectation of privacy in public, civilians acting in a
| public capacity, like the police, should not. Given the
| enormous power they have to act outside the law with
| impunity, removing the only check on that power--
| transparency into their conduct-- would be a mistake. One
| only need to consider any of the many times police have
| been caught outright lying by video surfacing afterward
| to understand why.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I agree entirely. We give police extraordinary power over
| us, and it seems completely reasonable that they have
| little expectation of privacy when using those powers.
| JackFr wrote:
| What about crime victims?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| What if the mob is paying people to film inside the Precinct?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I get the argument. This is a tough problem, though, because
| someone recording in a police building can easily prevent
| citizens from conducting their business in there. I know that
| if I saw some random person recording in the building (or in
| other sensitive places), I wouldn't set foot in there. I doubt
| I'm the only one. Particularly if someone is going in there to
| deal with an issue where they don't want others to know they're
| going to the police.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| I'm still in favor of absolute recording rights despite all
| that. You're quite right to point out chilling effects of
| active recording, but you have to also consider that bad
| police behavior is chilling in and of itself. People don't
| want to make reports when the police might make things worse
| or neglect things they're supposed to help with. Recording
| can help with that and will become less common as bad police
| are held to better account. Another thing that can balance
| that would be for police stations to have a reception desk
| with a transparent, soundproof box for citizens to make
| reports with some privacy and safety regardless of recording.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Another thing that can balance that would be for police
| stations to have a reception desk with a transparent,
| soundproof box for citizens to make reports
|
| That doesn't really address the issue, though. The issue is
| that people can be shown to have been at the police station
| at all.
| chrsig wrote:
| Surely if it's that big of an issue they could call the
| police station and arrange a more discrete venue?
|
| Maybe in the best of times this would seem a bigger
| concern, but in the present day it definitely seems like
| there needs to be more pressure on police to meet minimum
| standards.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Surely if it's that big of an issue they could call the
| police station and arrange a more discrete venue?
|
| I think that's a bit more than can be reasonably expected
| of someone who is in active danger and afraid.
|
| There does need to be some way that people can go to the
| police without being at risk of exposure by "first
| amendment auditors", but it's hard to see how that could
| happen. The people doing the recording would probably
| demand the right to record in any other place that is set
| aside for such purposes as well.
|
| That's why this is a really difficult issue. The ruling
| may be technically correct, but it seems to me that this
| practice does more harm than good.
| JackFr wrote:
| Should other people in a police station have any expectation of
| privacy? Victims of crimes? People who've been arrested?
| Kab1r wrote:
| People who have been arrested don't usually just hang out in
| the lobby. There is no expectation of privacy in any public
| space
| kube-system wrote:
| That is not universally true, there are some expectations
| of privacy in some public places. For example, public
| restrooms, phone booths, dressing rooms, people's person,
| car, belongings, etc.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > There is no expectation of privacy in any public space
|
| But there should be protection against being recorded
| against your will.
| Lord-Jobo wrote:
| You are legally allowed to, but doing so may result in excessive
| bodily harm and weeks of incarceration, with low or zero
| repercussions for the police that do it to you. Until Qualified
| Immunity is uprooted, these lawsuits really wont do much to move
| a needle. Still a good outcome from the courts.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > may result in excessive bodily harm and weeks of
| incarceration
|
| It won't, because that's exactly what this law prevents.
| woodruffw wrote:
| The law has historically not been a significant concern for
| the NYPD.
|
| Put another way: this is a "win" in the sense that there's
| judicial recognition of the problem, but attempting to _test_
| this law is still going to get you harassed and potentially
| arrested. The question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail
| is worth ultimately being vindicated in court.
|
| Compare recent attempts to get the NYPD to stop parking
| illegally[1][2].
|
| [1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/23/tipster-sues-
| nypd-for...
|
| [2]: https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-try-to-illegally-park-then-
| tick...
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Also in many jurisdictions, arrest records are public and
| cannot be expunged... even if charges are never filed!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| And many people have employers who would not tolerate a
| zero-notice day of absence, can't afford the fees for a
| criminal defense attorney (and public defenders are so
| backed up they're nearly useless), and so on.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _question then becomes whether 24+ hours in jail is worth
| ultimately being vindicated in court_
|
| With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages
| emerges. (With an arrest, there is particularised harm in a
| way parking violations do not tend to create.)
| woodruffw wrote:
| > With a pattern of violations, a civil case for damages
| emerges.
|
| Agreed, although this is predicated on being willing to
| put up with arrest. In effect, the cost is asymmetric: to
| have my civil rights enshrined here, I'd have to be
| willing to go to jail a handful of times, miss work,
| suffer physical and verbal abuse at the hands of an
| agency that rapes detainees[1], etc. All for a judge to
| _potentially_ grant me damages.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima
| Centigonal wrote:
| But... who enforces that law?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Contempt of court against a federal district court order? A
| hacked off (in the case of any actual violation) federal
| judge with pretty broad direct power, U.S. Marshals,.and,
| potentially, the applicable US Attorney's office, FBI, and
| the rest of thr federal criminal law enforcement apparatus
| for any criminal contempt or other federal crime involved.
| contravariant wrote:
| You mean like the constitution and two other laws prevented
| it?
| mangosteenjuice wrote:
| https://signalscv.com/2023/11/lasd-statement-forthcoming-
| on-...
|
| Do you think anyone is going to be held responsible for this?
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| Just curious, how does the law distinguish "public" part of a
| public place, and "private" part of it like staff's rooms,
| evidence rooms etc?
| LegitShady wrote:
| signs, locked doors, public ability to go into an area.
| Generally publicly accessible foyers, hallways, are ok.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| I imagine NYPD's response to this will be to set up every
| precinct so there is a guard station at the front and you
| have to give a reason to be let in "for security."
| DoesntMatter22 wrote:
| That is already common and they go in and film anyway. If
| the public can legally get there they can legally film
| LegitShady wrote:
| i imagine that policy too would be subject to legal
| challenge, and if placed immediately after this judgement
| would probably not draw a lot of sympathy from a judge.
| The issue is that filming in the public foyer/area of a
| public building IS legitimate business, even protected
| activity, so the more they do to make that difficult the
| worse it becomes for them.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| From the article they have this angle covered too, though
| I don't know whether the judge specifically ruled on it
| as well:
|
| > and the NYPD instituted its policy without following
| the Citywide Administrative Procedure Act, which
| specifies the steps a City agency must take before it can
| put a new rule in place.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Statutory law rarely spells that out, leaving it to judges
| and case law. My guess is that judges would be pragmatic in
| such matters, and in those parts of the building where there
| is no public interest in allowing video recording, they would
| disallow it.
|
| Likely, those rooms are off limits to the public anyway. And,
| if I'm not mistaken, as dumb as the public can be, no one's
| actually attempted to film in those places (though, with the
| rise of influencers and Youtube and whatnot, maybe we should
| just be anticipating the coming flood?).
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| From what I've gathered watching Youtube legal videos,
| Qualified Immunity doesn't apply when the government officials
| have been explicitly told by a court that their specific
| behavior is a violation of a right. With this temporary
| injunction they have so been told.
| wefarrell wrote:
| Qualified immunity doesn't apply when the officer clearly
| violates a constitutional right. Unfortunately the article
| says:
|
| _Judge Jessica Clarke, who ordered the injunction last week,
| ruled that while the First Amendment claim might be a little
| more complicated, it seems pretty clear that the NYPD
| violated the state and municipal Right to Record Acts with
| its policy._
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Civil rights aren't just Constitutional rights, else the US
| wouldn't have a variety of federal and state level "civil
| rights" acts. State police are subordinate to the State,
| not just the Federal government.
| mc32 wrote:
| In the UK apparently you can't record past precinct property
| --which can be just beyond the sidewalk, or if there's a gate to
| the parking lot... of if there's police activity on a public
| street.
|
| There's a guy who goes around challenging them:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5G2mL_7BMg
| resters wrote:
| One of the best things about Youtube (and now TikTok) is the
| growing popularity of videos that reveal the shocking extent of
| police misconduct.
|
| Thanks to camera phones we have all become outraged at the way
| may police treat black people, and I credit camera phones as the
| driving force behind the social movement now known as BLM.
|
| But the creators on TikTok and YouTube who focus on police
| misconduct are going beyond BLM and focusing on the routine,
| institutionalized bullying of citizens of all ages, races, etc.
|
| We should all be very outraged by this, and we should all rally
| to support these creators, BLM, etc.
|
| This is what the internet was supposed to give us. Better
| transparency into government misconduct, and defense against
| oppression committed against citizens by government.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| The only problem is there's no step in social media to activate
| people to put pressure on the government to reduce police
| abuse. I want stuff like cops who beat their significant others
| taken off the force. Cops sent to jail if they rape or sexually
| assault their detainees. I want a reversion to the legal
| precedent that cops have no duty to defend civilians from
| crime. But there's no way to do this without large popular
| action,.
|
| Hell even with BLM mass protests, no city actually defunded the
| police!
| nxm wrote:
| Cops do not get sent to jail if they rape or sexually assault
| their detainees?
| jacoblambda wrote:
| In some cases no.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/this-
| teena...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Hah. There was a case a few years ago where a cop "had sex
| with" a female teen (minor but above age of consent) who
| was handcuffed and in custody. He argued it was consensual,
| and the court agreed.
|
| The sister reply has this stunning statement:
|
| > She had no idea she lived in one of 35 states where
| officers can claim a detainee consented.
|
| Why is any state allowing LEOs to have sex with detainees,
| "consensually" or otherwise?
| jlokier wrote:
| I find it even more stunning that there were _two_ cops
| in the police van, and they both had sex with the
| handcuffed girl while on duty, confirmed by sperm DNA
| samples in the girl afterwards.
|
| Neither cop got any serious punishment, and this was due
| to their word against hers in court.
|
| If there had been in-van cameras or even just audio, it
| would almost certainly have corroborated her word as rape
| victim saying "no" repeatedly, or the cops' word that it
| was a fully consensual offer to have (presumably
| unprotected) sex with both cops in exchange for her
| freedom. (The cops' claim sounds like such a bizarre
| defence to me, because it obviously should be illegal to
| accept such an offer. But apparently it was allowed.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Cops do not get sent to jail if they rape or sexually
| assault their detainees?
|
| Frequently, no, because of pro-cop bias among (in what is
| simultaneously approximately the order of both strength of
| pro-cop bias and temporal order in which the biases apply
| to a case) cops (who are the first line investigators of
| crime), prosecutors (who's involvement is necessary for
| criminal charges), judges, and the public (i.e., the jury
| pool.)
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _Frequently, no, because of pro-cop bias among cops,
| prosecutors, judges, and the public_
|
| So...everyone?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The public in aggregate, yes, but not everyone
| individually, no.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| So do direct action. Go join an org and demonstrate. That's
| the only way change happens.
| resters wrote:
| I strongly agree, what you are describing is what is needed.
|
| I'm also concerned by the chilling effects we've seen lately
| on speech, starting with attacks on press freedom by
| government, but also aided by social media firms cooperating
| in censorship, and more recently the canceling of people who
| do things like protest in favor of the Palestinians, etc.
|
| We can observe the extent of status quo social media
| censorship when we see how much "subversive" but legal and
| helpful/benign content that is popular on TikTok never got
| legs on other platforms.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| There were cities that _literally_ defunded the police. More
| accurately, they deliberately engineered a crime crisis to
| discredit police reform activism under the common
| misunderstanding that "defund the police" means "I want the
| Purge" and not "stop sending cops out to shoot at homeless
| people in a Wendy's drive-thru".
|
| The thing about cops getting taken off the force is that it
| actually happens fairly commonly. The term of art in law
| enforcement for them is "gypsy[0] cops", because they jump
| from force to force whenever they do something that attracts
| media attention. Ironically, they are enabled by _literally_
| defunded police departments who are looking for someone they
| can pay peanuts to go issue traffic tickets all day. The
| really abusive bullies are their perfect employee, at least
| until they cause a media stir and have to be fired to save
| face.
|
| In all these cases, there actually _is_ active pressure from
| people to reform and it does go to the people that matter.
| The problem is that those people have a vested interest in
| keeping policing brutal, and they are also rhetorically
| _slippery_. They will actively misinterpret your
| sloganeering, they will ignore your political writings and
| pamphlets, and generally seek to embarrass you until you go
| away.
|
| Less depressingly, I do recall a few cities[1] run by people
| with their heads on straight that did what the "defund the
| police" people _meant_ , not what they literally said. And it
| turns out that, given not-crooked people in power
| implementing these things faithfully, it _does_ work. The
| problem is entirely the people at the top making the
| decisions. What we need is not merely bottom-up pressure, but
| an explicit democratic mandate - i.e. infiltrating local
| government with competent politicians favorable to the cause.
|
| Also, maybe we should change the slogan. I vote for "Refund
| the Police", because it has a double-meaning: send back the
| violent interventions and fund non-violent programs instead.
|
| [0] Their words, not mine.
|
| For those unaware, in Europe this word is basically the
| N-word.
|
| [1] Whose names I frustratingly DO NOT REMEMBER
| logicalmonster wrote:
| I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to
| protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police
| reprisal for some reason.
|
| However, I can see some truly asshole-ish behavior resulting from
| this if the influencers get wind of this decision and they decide
| to use it to make content. Imagine some Instagrammer gawking at a
| crime victim on the worst day of their life as they go to the
| police for help and they sit there smugly saying "It's legal, fr
| fr bruh, no cap. on god".
|
| EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I'm glad it's legal to film, particularly when you want to
| protect yourself when reporting a crime and you fear police
| reprisal for some reason.
|
| I am not glad it's legal to film, because of the risk of
| reprisal from criminals you may be going in to the police
| department to talk about.
| pixxel wrote:
| > EDIT: IDGAF, just curious, why the downvotes?
| gqcwwjtg wrote:
| The downvotes, I guess, are because this is kind of a silly
| concern. Steamers do rude things all the time, but that's not a
| good reason to change the law to prevent everyone from doing
| the thing that seems rude in that case.
| iandanforth wrote:
| The line between 'annoying ego-trip' and 'act essential for the
| preservation of freedom and democracy' is surprisingly thin. In
| many cases it boils down the manners and this guy seems to at
| least try to be polite in his videos.
| intrasight wrote:
| Is thin or non-existent. But still VERY glad that these
| individuals do what they do. It's just one example of what can
| be done, besides voting, to uphold civil rights.
| bdcravens wrote:
| they needn't be mutually exclusive
| austin-cheney wrote:
| In most US jurisdictions it is still illegal to film within the
| confines of a courthouse, unless prior authorized, due to
| potential privacy violations, but anybody can film on the
| courthouse steps. These privacy violations may compromise persons
| charged with crimes, witnesses, jury members, court staff, or
| plaintiffs. Since the conduct and presence of many people at a
| courthouse is often involuntarily and yet not part of the public
| record their privacy concerns, and even potential safety
| concerns, exceed third-party expression concerns.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| > due to potential privacy violations
|
| This may be a thing people say, but it doesn't make any sense
| to me. The whole premise of the legal system is that it's
| public. Closed door procedures are the exception. You can
| generally walk in to nearly any courtroom, observe the whole
| thing, write down what everybody said, and publish it, and
| that's 100% legal. So the "no cameras because it might violate
| privacy" argument always felt weird to me.
| thfuran wrote:
| But you can't walk in and demand to see the jurors' IDs.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| But if it was somehow important to privacy, for example
| because maybe you could ID jurors, than they would never
| allow cameras in there, but many judges do allow cameras.
| Why is it up to the judges if there's an important reason
| for it?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I see a really huge difference between being able to observe
| something and being able to record the thing. The latter is
| so much more intrusive than the former that different
| standards should apply.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Okay, but why can you transcribe everything that's said and
| literally paint portraits of the proceedings, but you can't
| use a tape recorder? Surely the gains in public access and
| accurate record keeping from an audio recording outweigh
| whatever extra intrusiveness audio has over text?
| JohnFen wrote:
| Ah, you're talking about during an actual court
| proceeding? I was thinking just in the courthouse/police
| station/etc. generally.
|
| In an actual court proceeding, things might be a bit
| different. In my state, anyway, the court itself makes
| audio and video recording of the proceeding and prohibits
| others from doing so. I'm OK with that, but I wouldn't
| have a huge issue if they allowed others to do it too.
| Outside of a court proceeding, though, I have a larger
| issue.
| LegitShady wrote:
| from what I understand this isn't true. Basically restrictions
| on filming in courts are judicial orders (and they're basically
| gods in courthouses) but restrictions on filming in public
| areas of a courthouse building in general are more complicated.
| You don't have any expectation of privacy there, and if you did
| they would need to accommodate it.
| notacoward wrote:
| Cue the copyrighted music playing 24/7 in NYPD stations in 3, 2,
| 1, ...
|
| No, I'm not joking. This is a real thing that has happened
| elsewhere, using copyright law to take down evidence of police
| misbehavior.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/15/california-p...
| chimeracoder wrote:
| It's a good ruling, but the NYPD will almost certainly ignore it.
| The worst part is that any restitution will come in the form of
| fines, which are paid not by police officers, but by taxpayers.
|
| NYPD officers can break the law with complete impunity, because a
| third party (the taxpayers) is paying for both their legal fees
| _and_ any punitive fines.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The activist that fought this in court and won will come back
| and do it again.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| the public needs something on par with Administrative Law Judges
| (ALJs)
|
| (for the uninitiated, many state corporations and agencies have
| judges on staff and inhouse that can hear an agency's case the
| same day, getting emergency injunctions done at a moment's
| notice.)
|
| it would be cool if this was like a perk with unions or something
| that wouldnt get too bogged down by the general public
| immediately, but for the general public.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| NYPD will take you down violently if you show them any lip. No
| silly regulations will get in their way of running your ID if you
| catch their gaze.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-08 23:02 UTC)