Hacker News Reader

Comment by searealist | Hacker News Reader

> The law would have made it illegal to knowingly film police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer if the officer tells the person to stop.

This seems entirely reasonable. I'm not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away.

View on HN

The next sentence:

> And on private property, an officer who decides that someone is interfering or that the area is unsafe could have ordered the person to stop filming even if the recording was being made with the owner’s permission.

Which seems to imply that if a police officer breaks into your house, they can order you to stop filming them at their sole discretion.

They just don’t want to be in another rap video. I think you should be able to post a sign on the exterior of the house that says “Video recording in progress. By entering the premises, you grant the use of your likeness” just like when TV shows shoot in public places.

Why should I have to put up a sign to exercise my rights in my own home?

In some countries it's legally required to have that sign.

Which countries require that to film INSIDE your property?

In the EU surveillance systems must be compliant with the GDPR. So there must be a way to notify people that they are being recorded and whom to contact to get their data removed.

GDPR generally applies to companies and organisations, or individuals processing data as part of their business or professional activities, not typically to individuals acting in a purely personal or household capacity.

This is outlined in Article 2, which defines the scope of the GDPR. Specifically, Article 2(2)(c) states:

  "This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity"

I'd suggest that recording within my own home comes under the "household activity" clause.

It is extremely common to have, eg, a couple cops beating the shit out of someone, and a couple more instructing a crowd to stand back. You are within 8 feet of the latter, because they are approaching you.

You will also be within 8 feet of a cop as a passenger during any traffic stop.

> You will also be within 8 feet of a cop as a passenger during any traffic stop.

IIRC, the law (bad as it was) did have an exception for people in the vehicle during traffic stops.

Only in a world where an officer can’t get closer than 8 feet from you without a warrant. We don’t live in that world and while I’m not anti-police, American PDs have proven they are both willing and able to game little loopholes like this if they find it to be in their personal interest to do so.

Whether you believe it reasonable or not, a federal judge has reasoned it is unconstitutional.

It could be appealed, but from the article it sounds like there isn't much popular support for the law, and the governor had a hard time finding someone to litigate in support

IANAL, but from a common sense perspective:

- most police have body cams now, so presumably, their voices and actions are already being recorded

- citizens interacting with police don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so they cannot opt out of being recorded

So it seems fine that citizens can create their own copy of the incident that's already being recorded.

To flip it on it's head, I can't think of a reasonable, let alone constitutional, argument for "I can record you but you cannot record me"

Of course, this leaves out the case where they don't have body cams/aren't recording. In that instance, though, we already have a pretty strong precedent that people cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. That's why we can take selfies, vlog, talk on the phone, etc regardless if people are in the background. Not to mention straight up record whatever is around - dashcams, security cameras, etc.

> most police have body cams now, so presumably, their voices and actions are already being recorded

These notoriously malfunction during abuse.

It makes it illegal to film an officer physically assaulting you, for example.

What if you are filming and standing still and then the police officer walks toward you?

Why's that? If the journalist is getting in the way, no doubt they can find a charge for interfering with the police's job. There's even built in evidence when they get the camera. If they're not interfering, what's the problem?

>'m not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away

Are you under the impression that long shots show as much as close in shots?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com