Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

I read title and comments and was ready to be enraged. Heck, I WAS enraged.

And then I clicked the link and... 8ft? That's what, just over 2 meters? Who wants and desires to be within a NBA player's distance of a police interaction anyway? At that point you're not observer or recorder you're a participant. I find the title very very very misleading.

I believe police interactions should be recorded. I believe we should be free to record them. I believe they should be held to higher standard as the powers they get and their propensity to abuse them are huge. But if you're inside 8ft it feels you're just interfering.

Maybe there are angles I have not considered...

View on HN

So who pays for the expert witness when you're 9 feet away and get arrested? The cops will say "in my professional judgement, they were within 8 feet". You then have to counter with analysis of the video, which is not something your court-appointed attorney can do.

This law will be used to harrass people documenting police misconduct, and absolutely nothing else.

And what happens if a cop, who is not in physical contact with the arrestee but is arguably part of the arrest, approaches you about your filming? Anything legally ambiguous is risk for the cameraman.

> This law will be used to harrass people documenting police misconduct, and absolutely nothing else.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. You need only see 1 YouTube video in the category of "am I being detained?" or "cop gets oWNeD by former lawyer" to know this is not true

Well the footage will show they were further away

In addition to good points posted by others, consider that if the problem is people obstructing or interfering with police, they could just prosecute them for that. Calling out videotaping specifically has a nefarious purpose.

Bystanders could simply find themselves that close without wanting to be.

For example: a crowded bus, train, or plane. Or a packed nightclub. Or any place with auditorium seating, like a movie theater, city council meeting, school, or church. Or in many rooms in houses or office buildings.

(I do agree that the title is way too broad, though.)

Both the article and actual law explicitly deal with that in fairly open and agreeable way.

I won't disagree with slippery slope arguments but again I feel a lot of discussion is based on title and not the law.

and, as has been demonstrated countless times, LEO will simply lie about the circumstances.

If the interaction occurs within a place where it's not possible to be more than 8 feet away and still need able to witness the interaction. Alleys, anywhere indoors, vehicles of any type

From the revised bill summary:

> Directs that for an activity occurring inside a closed structure on private property, a person authorized to be on the private property may make a video recording of the activity from an adjacent room that is less than eight feet away from the activity. (Sec. 1)

Additionally from a separate amendment:

NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS, INCLUDING SEARCHING, HANDCUFFING OR ADMINISTERING A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST. THE OCCUPANT OF A VEHICLE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A POLICE STOP MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE OCCUPANT IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS."

> But if you're inside 8ft it feels you're just interfering.

No, that's not what the law says. It says within 8 feet with a camera.

Also, what is that 8' from? Every single officer? What if you are filming from a dozen feet away and the officer's partner approaches from the side unbeknownst to you? Now are you within 8 feet?

It's clear the goal of the law isn't safety. The law does nothing to discourage me from getting closer than 8 feet. And if there is, then this law is useless. The only reason this law exists is to discourage people from recording police.

You have to explain to me why someone holding a camera 8 feet away is dangerous, but someone closer than 8 feet and not holding a camera isn't dangerous.

This is important. If you are in a car that was pulled over you will not be able to film. Some of those videos are for self protection.

That's just it though - I feel you too, like myself, and possibly most of us here, are enraged / commenting before actually reading article,let alone the law. Second paragraph addresses the car scenario explicitly. Other portions address you being subject of police attention, as well as close quarters etc.

I'm not saying I'm hugely FOR the law. I'd rather it weren't. But I've cooled down significantly between reading title and comments, vs then actually reading article and skimming the law.

Yes. Within the article it's clear that you are allowed to film yourself as well. Just not bystanders

> The revised bill [...] allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those that are possibly dangerous

You're standing there, recording from 10 feet away. A cop approaches you. Now you're less than 8 feet away. What now?

Also who has the tape and is measuring 8ft. This law criminalizes regular behavior. The actual implementation will inevitably mean a police officer that doesn't want to be recorded can't be recorded. And he will get away with it

Original headline is “Arizona House approves ban on close-up videotaping of police officers”. Not sure why OP changed it

What about the person being accosted by the police?

As they lower their voices, place unknown substances, and actively destroy evidence, you might be too far from them to capture it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com