Record police with phone camera in Boston, get arrested

When it comes to recording news events, as in this article, any audio or video recorded in a public venue (and that is not sold commercially, if I remember my media law class accurately) is perfectly legal, regardless of who records it. Someone shooting video through your living room window from the middle of the street is, theoretically, legal, as it is in view from a public space. If that person steps on to your lawn and shoots the same video, however, that is invasion of privacy and probably trespassing as well.

While these videos should be completely legal, the laws governing this type of activity are usually state and local. It sounds like the law on the books in Boston is too broad and needs to be challenged.

Of course, IANL; I have a journalism degree and worked in newspapers for 5 years.

As a side note, someone should build a site for theses 'watching the watchers' videos. I'd be a fan.

How so?

(And on a different note, is there a way to display text as "quoted" here on HN?)

(keep in mind, I'm mostly talking in the context of still photographs, not a/v)

I'm sure some parents feel the same about their children and celebrities feel the same about themselves. Unfortunately, once you step foot in a public place, you no longer have a * reasonable expectation of privacy*–regardless of who you are or what intimate act you may be participating in.

>> Yes, although the person being photographed doesn't know what the picture will be used for and so he may feel constrained nonetheless.

All the more reason for people to be educated and willing to educate others.

I've been accosted on more than one occasion simply for taking pictures in our downtown park–usually it's some hipster attempting to be impress his friends. If I'm in a good mood, I'll kindly explain my rights to him. If not, I'll just keep taking his picture while he talks to me.

I don't see why it seems wrong. They may not want you to record it, but if they are doing it in a public place they expect (or at least should expect) to be seen. Having it recorded is little different from having it seen except you now have a near-perfect copy to show others instead of having only the ability to discuss it.

It might to a degree be rude to record it, just as it would be rude to stare at them for prolonged periods as they did it, but that is very different than either morally or legally wrong.

Now if they are in somewhere that should be at least partially private (they're own home, a hotel room, etc), then recording is a very different story.

Please read my full comment. It does mention that an officer would have to be in public. In other words, recording him in the mens room would not be appropriate.

For example, you probably wouldn't mind if I walked past you in the street and saw you go into a shop. You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home, filmed every shop you went into, what you bought, what you paid with (including any visible numbers on your cards, any PINs you typed in, what your signature looked like, etc.) and then put this on the web along with your name and address.

The idea that privacy is some sort of black-and-white concept is part of the problem.

I grew up around law enforcement (best friend's father was FBI, and current friends in Secret Service etc.). Also, in Fed-land (e.g. Northern Virginia) where nearly everyone's family is in some form of government/legal service, I suspect the public/police interactions are atypical.

As a result, talking to cops in both personal and professional contexts isn't a novel experience. IMO, Virginia also has professional cop culture.

I always recommend folks view this lecture given by Virginia's Regent Law School ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik ).

By immediately asserting your rights, the officer in question knows that they are not dealing with a person of "legal ignorance". As with communication in all social interactions, an assertive (but not aggressive) carriage, posture, positive eye contact, and tone helps a great deal.

Keep in mind that, in most contexts, when I see the triplet of a badge, an open-carry gun (the gun is key), and a police uniform, my default assumption is that of a PERSON who's sworn an oath and, consciously or unconsciously, respects SOME sort of legal authority given their avocation (though it may not necessarily be true).

FWIW, if you have any doubt, it's worth asking CLEARLY if the presumed officer in question has "sworn arrest powers in <insert municipality>". Police are allowed to lie, but they're not legally allowed to "assert police powers" such as arrest and/or detainment unless they have truly have them. In most U.S. state codes, there's a clear delineation between what constitutes a "lawful" and an "unlawful order" by law enforcement. Asserting police powers without being a sworn law enforcement officer is also usually a felony.

At worst, you may be severely inconvenienced for an "officer's safety" by being handcuffed and/or temporarily detained on-site, but you've preserved all of your rights under the law. Fighting temporary detainment is a "sticky wicket" and generally ill-advised unless you genuinely feel that your life or the lives of your family are at immediate risk (e.g. driving your pregnant wife to the hospital, etc.).

Now you have a case of libel right? How does that work? Does it compensate for the damages that could be done to your reputation, the damages to the occupation itself? Does it sit in the courts for 2 years? My assumption is that suing after the fact would be an ineffective way, if it was the only way, to protect your privacy. I'll admit to not knowing much about these laws in the states though, and am open to being educated and corrected on the subject.

What also concerns me, is how would this affect police recruitment? Sure there's some bad eggs, but I have to believe that most people who become a police officer actually believe that what they're doing is a public and necessary service. Don't you think we'd lose a lot of great and ethical talent that would simply choose a less invasive career if they were made subject to constant surveillance?

There are other public offices too, which could just as easily support a case for surveillance. Like teaching. I can totally see someone arguing for teacher surveillance because it's the kids who are important after all... we'd lose a lot of quality teachers.

Anyways, I'm not sure I'm making my argument that solid. The fact is, I really don't like the idea of public surveillance though, regardless of who being recorded and who's doing the recording, and I don't think I'm alone. I don't like government employees recording us without consent, and I don't like us recording public employees without consent. It just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth either way.