Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

04 May 2008, 5:48 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I ask you what would it be like if every one of our civil servants had to submit to being audio recorded at any time? By anyone with a tape recorder?


They already do when they're in public. Perhaps you'd like to change the law? That's your prerogative if you're malcontent on this matter. If you begin a movement to do so, I'll act to oppose it, as that's my prerogative as one who thinks this is a good aspect of the system.

slowmutant wrote:
Since no one's intentions can be known absolutely, I think this would undermine a lot of jobs. A great way for malcontents to stir up trouble (not to suggest Ballance is a malcontent).


Simply being a potential mode for malcontents to stir up trouble is not sufficient grounds for making something illegal. Many of the rights that are explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution are specifically for the purpose of allowing malcontents to stir up trouble should the need arise. Being a malcontent isn't an inherently bad thing in all cases. The suggestion that it is has a distinctly Soviet/totalitarian feel.

slowmutant wrote:
If police have no right to privacy, what about the person with the tape-recorder? Do their privacy rights get a boost?


There is a distinction between a right to privacy on the job and a right to privacy in private. I explained this earlier. The police have the same rights as everyone else, and this does not include the right not to be recorded when in public or on the job.

Legally Ballance was completely within his rights. Perhaps you could make the case that the law ought to be otherwise, but I have seen nothing convincing to this effect.



AV-geek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 614

04 May 2008, 11:24 pm

Generally, I regard the police fairly highly because they generally maintain order, but some of their actions are not particularly ethical, and the problem is that they ccasionally attempt to operate above the law. Police however are getting really nervous because technology is throwing the power is being thrown back into the hands of citizens when they try to bully people or act unethical. It used to be the officer's word against a citizen's word in the court, and they would always favor the officer, but when you get electronic media in the hands of the citizen, there's much more than just verbality involved.

When I am on my job, I am a representative of my company, and I am responsible for what comes out of my mouth as a representitive of my business I work for, and so is everyone else there. In the case of a police officer, the same thing holds true, That police officer is responsible for his words and actions as a representative of the law enforcement organization, along with the other officiers there, and he can be held accountable for it. I have had people try and spin my words in an attempt to short me or my company, or simply to stir up trouble. I wish I had a recorder like this man does, because verbal communication is worth only the breath you took in to make it in this day and age. We have had to go to written signatures on paper documents for everything we do because I have found verbal communications means NOTHING in the business world! I have had people say that want this and hire us to do that, but when the bill comes through they turn their story around and say "we didn't authorize that"...of course, they can't pull that crap anymore if I have a signed document! It would work just as nice if I was with someone, and they said "change those speakers" and I have it recorded so when they come back and say "I didn't authorize you to change those speakers!" I can roll the footage!

In front of my shop the police like to ticket people for running the red lights at the intersection. Well, I walked outside with a camcorder for a few minutes to test it after I repaired it, and rolled some footage of the intersection. It was the first time I was out there for any length of time to see what was actually going on, but I noticed the timing of the traffic light was unusually short, and the traffic signal was only letting 2-3 cars through in a line of about 12-15 or so, then the police officer would stop whatever driver would try to sneak through on the end of the cycle. After I taped the footage and went back inside, a police officer, whom I imagine was the same one busting drivers, stopped by the shop, and started questioning people. Apparently, he did not get a good look at me, because he looked right at me and I just played dumb. He said that he would like the media erased that the person used to record the intersection and the traffic stops made, and that he doesn't want to catch anyone out there again with recording equipment!

Apparently, the officer was a bit nervous over his deeds of short-cycling the traffic light so he could entrap people for running it! As for the video, this is a public location, so I have full right to videotape what is going on outside my shop on a taxpayer-purchased road! I have not broken any law here!

As far as this man with the tape recorder goes, it's a similar sitation, he has gone through all provisions to inform other citizens that he records conversations, so it's not like he is trying to hide anything. The police officer is probably worried that his actions can be accounted for!, which they should, as he is representing the law. He may have personal opinions about this man recording him, but they should be left at home when puts his uniform on, just as I leave my personal opinions at home when I got to my job! I don't see why his tape recorder is an issue, and this man should throw the book at the officier for harassing him, for he has broken no law!! ! There's no reason why an individual citizen cannot "hire an electronic lawyer" as I would call it!

...Yes, as an audiovisual technician, I am VERY familiar with the laws as far as when, where, and how someone can be recorded, and how it can be carried out!



i_Am_andaJoy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,268
Location: Ocala, FL

05 May 2008, 12:34 am

slowmutant wrote:
If police have no right to privacy, what about the person with the tape-recorder? Do their privacy rights get a boost?


no one is breaking into the policeman's house and secretly bugging his phone. if you are in a public place you can tape-record ANYONE. why should a police officer be treated DIFFERENTLY than anyone else?


_________________
www.asaspiepie.blogspot.com
Even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than the other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. --Herman Melville


Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 May 2008, 1:38 am

I agree with archetype 100%. Wait until you get a couple scars from a cop before you talk from your armchair.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

05 May 2008, 5:56 am

I shouldn't have to wait until I've gotten a couple of scars from a cop to talk from my armchair. I can speak my mind about anything. BTW do you mean "scars" in the literal sense?



ignisfatuus
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 261
Location: Canada

07 May 2008, 8:28 pm

Quote:
cops are not your friends


I think they would admit to as much themselves if you caught them in a moment of sincerity.

I love how people employ the 9/11 defense (i.e. you're a terrorist if you don't agree with the status quo or in this case some schmuck trotted out the argument that police officers are putting their lives in danger for us so somehow they are now beyond criticism). Grow the f**k up and think critically.


_________________
"The world is only as deep as we can see. This is why fools think themselves profound." - R. Scott Bakker, The Judging Eye


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

07 May 2008, 8:35 pm

I can't help but wonder if you hate cops for some very specific reason. Please share.

Although it's likely that you just don't like authority figures.



jamieg
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 165
Location: sioux falls south dakota

19 May 2008, 1:42 pm

if the cops dont want to be recorded doing their jobs then they need a different job since they are recorded anyway by order of their boss when they stop you for something



kleodimus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 636
Location: eternal darkness

20 May 2008, 12:43 am

kip wrote:
If he's informing people, it's not illegal. End of story.

For the cops, who usually SIGN UP for shows like COPS, to tell him they don't want to be recorded, or act like a recording device is a treat is bull. Everything a cop says SHOULD BE public record, as they only inform you of the law. Their opinion should not come into play, though it often does.


so true how they abuse their powers and forget the real reason why they are there