What is Digg?253 Comments
- joshstone100, on 03/29/2009, -6/+379But it's OK that this law enforcement films us whenever they please for whatever reason. The cops can setup cameras to capture our activity then tell us it's for our protection (yeah right). Despite all of their watching and spying, crime is more rampant and out of control than ever. But how dare you want to take so much as a single picture of them! We will not tolerate photographers!
Have they forgotton they are supposed to serve us? - inactive, on 03/29/2009, -1/+196If the cops would just stop lying/breaking the law then they would have nothing to fear from photographers/videographers, but they seem to forget that they work to serve us, and not there to be on some power trip. We need these folks to watch the police to keep them honest. Checks and balances, checks and balances.
- wjappe, on 03/29/2009, -1/+146If video records are good for them we should also be able to record it also. If they are doing there job correctly they should also have nothing to hide.
- mbtria, on 03/29/2009, -3/+110"Its only a couple of police officers who are bad apples."
No, its not. The biggest problem are the police officers who cover up for the so called "few bad apples." The ones who pretend that having a badge gives a LEO the right to commit crimes without being either accused, tried or punished.
Police cover up crimes committed by other policemen. Not just taking meals and bribes, but murder, rape, sodomy and extortion. Police not only cover up those crimes, but they use and abuse political power to shove those crimes under the carpet. They skate by accusing the victim of crimes. Police will hold mass demonstrations, commit mob violence, conduct mass code enforcement, and use the "Blue Flu" to get the heat taken off corrupt officers. I watched the violent mob actions against NYC City Hall carried out by police defending the murderous cops who almost killed Abner Louima by sodomizing him with a nightstick. That and other cases.
Until the police are more aggressive against crime within their own ranks than they are against crime in the general population, they are guilty of being accomplices after the fact. They are felonious conspirators to cover up crimes against the population they are sworn to serve and protect. The "Blue Wall of Silence" makes criminals of all those who acquiesce to such crimes.
And if it is just a few cops that are bad, and the rest honest, why are they so unwilling to cleanse the ranks of the rotten ones? - inactive, on 03/29/2009, -3/+100I was detained and almost deported from the US... for trying out my Canon SLR on the pier ships.
And my memory card was confiscated by the FBI. - galore, on 03/29/2009, -0/+88That reminds me of Tony Blair going postal over Google for showing his house on street view. That Tony Blair who was prime minister in the UK during its massive deployment of surveillance cameras.
Why do people elect those freaking hypocrites?! - enantiodromia, on 03/29/2009, -1/+88it is the duty and the right of citizens to hold law enforcement accountable.
- draculthemad, on 03/29/2009, -0/+82"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I have no problem including anyone with a camera as "Press". The same principal applies in this age of information.
It would seem logical that taking pictures of cops would fall under both that clause, the one after it and the final one all at once.
Considering that the Bill of Rights was explicitly intended to prevent the abuse of the people by a government or its agents, it should follow without dispute that allowing the public to examine how they behave should be a right as well. - Luv5, on 03/29/2009, -0/+82I am an amateur photographer and love photography. Being an immigrant I really worry about going out and taking pictures after 9/11. My area of interests are portrait, people and building architectures. If it is a public place, sometimes there are people looking suspiciously at me and other photographers. It is really taking the joy out of photography. I am all for security but then giving up hobbies in the name of security, that is not nice.
- nunofgs, on 03/29/2009, -1/+70As far as I'm concerned, me filming a cop is for my own protection. The other way around is usually to screw me over.
- inactive, on 03/29/2009, -0/+69The criminalization of taking photographs of busy buildings, or places with huge amounts of human traffic (malls, hospitals, airports) is bull. Many security officers or police will tell you it is for security reasons, relating to things like terrorist attacks.
"…The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography." - http://www.photopermit.org/?p=252 - Myztry, on 03/29/2009, -1/+65Confiscation of recording devices. That's not going to be very effective once they are all streaming DVR style to an international site.
- NUMBER4940, on 03/29/2009, -0/+58If they can use it against us, we will damn well use it against them when available. cell phones are pretty much standard with decent cameras now. time to play by the same rules...
- jasdf, on 03/29/2009, -0/+52I have been stopped several times just for walking around with my SLR and a long lens. Apparently anybody with a 300mm lens is up to no good.
- enantiodromia, on 03/29/2009, -0/+42you are allowed to photograph and record anything and everything you could normally see and hear, in a public place.
end. of. story. - TheSkunkMonkey, on 03/29/2009, -0/+40As long as popo can point their dashcams, red light cameras and other surveillance cameras at me, you better damn well let me point my camera back at them. If I can't, they can't.
- cybershoplifter, on 03/29/2009, -1/+40I have been told not to take pictures on a public sidewalk by security. Most recently in Washington, DC in front of the Federal Reserve. 2nd time in front of a Computer Store in London. I told both security people to feel free to call the police, and to ***** off. I then walked away.
- Myztry, on 03/29/2009, -0/+38To serve and protect.
There is something missing from the end. Who/What is the phrase in reference too? - hydrodev, on 03/29/2009, -0/+38Yea, they also lose the tapes when they don't show what they want.
- inactive, on 03/29/2009, -2/+39Oh I am. I know right? How stupid of me to think I would enjoy the same basic freedoms, in the Land of the Free.
/s - bballhead, on 03/29/2009, -0/+36Honest cops have nothing to hide.
- hydrodev, on 03/29/2009, -0/+34yep use their own argument on them.
- inactive, on 03/29/2009, -1/+32Actually police brutality is not on the rise. These ***** have always been violating people's rights. Its just that we have cell phone cameras and the internet that it seems to be a "growing" problem.
The police have been murdering and brutalizing people for eons. This is not a "new" phenomena. In the 70's-80's they loved to brutally beat people with batons. I can't think of a decade where police protected and respected our rights.
Cops are taught to treat all unidentified prospects as threats. This is were the real danger lies. Police officers are a very real threat to the people; we give any random whack-job the right to carry a gun and impose his will on others. And what can we do? Nothing. If a police officer comes to kill you, and you kill him first, is it self defense? I doubt the courts will see it that way. It is a fact that your chances of being shot by a cop or your family being killed in a car crash caused by a cop are ten thousand times more likely than ever being "saved" or "protected" by one. As a matter of fact they quietly terminated the "Protect and Serve" endorsement. The mentality of the police and criminals are almost identical. One just has a badge.
I can protect myself from criminals. But I can't protect myself from the police. - effedup, on 03/29/2009, -0/+31Transformers had it right.. "To Punish and Enslave" is more like it.
- DefaultGen, on 03/29/2009, -0/+30You don't understand what "expression" is do you?
Obviously you have the ability to read, now learn to interpret and apply. - Cycline3, on 03/29/2009, -1/+31You shouldn't have let them take it. When I have been harassed by the cops for taking photos, I have 100% refused to let them have my pics. I haven't been arrested yet, and if I am, it's definitely a lawsuit in the making. You have to stand up for your rights. Don't be a dick, just explain they have no grounds for a search, your are not granting them permission and that if they attempt to forcefully take your property, you will consider it attempted theft and defend yourself accordingly.
- createcontent, on 03/29/2009, -3/+32***** the Police.
- smacksaw, on 03/29/2009, -0/+28Or skip the blogspam...
Original:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/nyregion/25perju ... - solidcube, on 03/29/2009, -2/+27When THEIR ox is gored, it's a ***** terrible situation all of a sudden.
Citizens should carry cameras 24/7 and know how to use them at the drop of a hat. - digg1520, on 03/29/2009, -1/+24Well, what was he thinking, being black and photographing industry? That just screams terrorism!
/s - mcquitty, on 03/29/2009, -0/+23Someone confuses captions and circuit. Closed Circuit cameras.
Otherwise, the captions might get in the way of the action... - jsffive, on 03/29/2009, -1/+23Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE." (EMPHASIS ADDED)
So yes, it IS mentioned in the Constitution, in the regard that prohibiting people from filming police officers isn't SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.
The Constitution is not a LIMITING DOCUMENT on PEOPLE. It DOES NOT "give" ANYONE their rights. It works on the preumption that people have unlimited rights, and that the government has to specify IT'S powers.
It places limits on the STATE, not the people. - Tarnum, on 03/29/2009, -0/+22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Streets_are_Wat ...
These Streets are Watching is a 50 minute video on police accountability in three communities; Denver, Cincinnati and Berkeley.[1] The video documents incidents of possible police brutality... - nyeus, on 03/29/2009, -0/+22So do they lip read and transcribe or do they describe what's going on?
- inactive, on 03/29/2009, -5/+26"Who will guard the guards?"
- Jamikest, on 03/29/2009, -6/+27Down at 80 diggs.
Mirror:
http://rorr.im/digg.com/political_opinion/photogra ... - skellener, on 03/29/2009, -0/+21"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
-Benjamin Franklin - DowntownDave, on 03/29/2009, -0/+19After this cold blooded murder was recorded by several people with video cell phones, the cops tried to confiscate the cameras <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK1DXQRQ5ZU&fea ... rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK1DXQRQ5ZU&fea ...</a>
The cops need to know we are keeping an eye on them. It's our only protection - wkenri, on 03/29/2009, -0/+19Soon all the cops will be wearing masks so we won't be able to tell who's giving us the beat down.
- kd1s, on 03/29/2009, -0/+18We need to get cameras in EVERYONE's hands. That way the police can't get away with the crap they do everyday.
The issue with NYPD in particular is you've got a police force that numbers in the thousands. There have been numerous studies that have shown that once you get past 175 people it is nearly impossible to know everyone you work with. More to the point, it's nearly impossible to control your staff. - DriverDan, on 03/29/2009, -0/+18Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/nyregion/25perju ...
- jasdf, on 03/29/2009, -0/+18No, because I know how to read.
- inactive, on 03/29/2009, -5/+23Seriously man, I go here on digg and I see idiots like you on a daily basis, and that really makes me lose faith in humanity.
I have to admit, everyone who thinks like you deserves to die with a meteor impact. You make stupidity seem like a plausible reason for complete extermination of mankind. A lot of good people would die too, but at least morons like you would not continue to use nature's resources to support your pitiful existence. It's very sad, really - diggydougie, on 03/29/2009, -0/+17The important thing to remember is that photography is a right for whatever purpose.
- R3dRabbit, on 03/29/2009, -2/+19Did Jack squeeze your nipples to get your memory card?
- Gareth321, on 03/29/2009, -1/+18I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.
- RC212V, on 03/29/2009, -0/+17I think that's going to be next big feature in digital cameras/camcorders, instant wireless upload or streaming. That way, if the cops are coming after you and demanding you give up your camera you can say, "Go right ahead, the video has already been uploaded." When devices like that start showing up I think you'll see a lot more officer convictions. Maybe enough so that it will drive a significant number of corrupt cops out of law enforcement.
- KeseChartier, on 03/29/2009, -0/+17Next time you see a cop, try filming him. Let me know how that works out for you.
- mikelieman, on 03/29/2009, -0/+16The 9th and 10th Amendments give meaning to everything not specifically enumerated.
The meaning is: It's not your ***** job to regulate it. - diptheria, on 03/29/2009, -1/+17I’ll quote the offending amendment here since doing so in your post would have only have been helpful in making your point (as moronic as it is)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I see what you're getting at! The First Amendment doesn't say anything about video cameras and digital SLRs so clearly they are not protected forms of "speech." How do you feel about cameras used by the press? How about using video evidence to redress grievances against the Government (i.e. law enforcement)?
Funny how you accuse anyone who disagrees with abuses of power as being a cry baby and ignorant. No one can be outraged by violations of their First Amendment rights because according to you such behavior makes them suddenly incapable of understanding the meaning of the Bill of Rights? Good argument!
It is legal to film anyone in a public place because the US Supreme Court has ruled there is "no expectation of privacy" in public places. This does get rather complicated depending on circumstance, but for the purpose of holding law enforcement accountable, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the public and their cameras. Here is a typical case on the subject - http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1105johnso.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 267 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is