Well-placed targeted enforcement and surveillance are good things; without them, as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime, you start to get more demands for everpresent surveillance and UK-style CCTV. Using targeted surveillance on a case-by-case basis seems like an excellent way to head that off.
Also, I think it's good that having cameras pointed at your house still carries a strongly negative connotation. When people stop caring that they're being watched all the time, that's when you know you're heading down the road to a surveillance society.
Suppose if rather than a truck it were a giant scarecrow with cameras, placed facing the house of people suspected of having committed a crime.
Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like?
It seems like blatant harassment.
Yes.
Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?
Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens.
Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime.
Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record.
Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through.
So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash.
In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.
In the UK it is approximately the same, with the addition that the subject may not be harassed (defined as behavior that causes alarm or distress over multiple incidents) (ref http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v... )
I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000.
Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits.
I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.
I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns.
I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.
Also, to the extent focused surveillance reveals anything of interest -- times of comings and goings; activity behind windows; children's play activities -- I suspect most US jurisdictions would have a problem with 24-hour video surveillance of property you don't own.
Pick a location, then hit "street view".
Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.
First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime?
So I ask you, is there anything explicitly wrong about their limited use of cameras and a police van, without going into what it could lead to?
I'm a typical HN reader who does not engage in any criminal behavior... yet on a few occasions I've been the victim of cops who are on a power trip. These experiences taught me that the less power police have the better.
If the cops can't do real police work and solve a crime and arrest someone, they have no business messing with anyone...
"You think people like you smashed that cop car up?"
Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?
Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you".
Of course it's nothing to you - you'll never have one of those parked in front of your house. One of those won't ever go in your neighborhood, because people would lawyer up. It's all very selective, as you put it.
No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
How many people's home was this parked in front of? Do you think cops went around parking cars in front of people's homes to intimidate random people?
> Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with?
Did I say that? Did I even imply that? You think I am one of those "sacrifice liberty for a little security people"? Don't assume that's what I'm arguing for. As far as the cases in the article mentioned, yes. It's a controversial topic and I understand a lot of people have strong emotions over it. And the action these cops took might seem like it's leaning towards the wiretapping camp but it's not. I do think they were all guilty. There was a complaint and someone called the cops to help. They did. As for their specific usage as described in the article (mostly) I think it's perfectly fine.
> No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.
Is that what happened? No. So I don't even know why you brought that up.
I know what you're talking about though. If cops decided to target minority neighborhoods simply because minorities have a higher chance of criminal activity it would be a point of contention for me too. But that's not what the cops did in the article. They answered a cry for help. They knew there was problem in the area. And yes the last thing the cop did where she parked that car in front of that house was a little iffy, assuming she wasn't sure if a drug dealer actually lived there.
That is the last typing I'll waste on you.
The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.
Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!
You should really stop seeing things as black and white. It's not one or the other. We're not all with the terrorists or with Bush. You're falling prey to a common logical fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. You base all your arguments on hypothetical what ifs.
When a police officer points a gun at someone that is harassment right? So we have to allow the police some degree of ability to harass people and to do it with a reasonable amount of suspicion right? And there's a line determining what acceptable harassment is. Well I believe that line wasn't crossed because that lady called the police in and they acted.
And I won't advocate it across the board, because there is a point where it crosses the line and while the last example of the cop with the van in the article would probably cross the line, I think the other reasons for its use didn't.
My point is that nothing is all-or-nothing. There is a gray area and you can't make a snap decision that they were wrong simply by reading that article. You'd really have to understand their situation. But given the details in the article most of the reasoning behind its use was okay.
You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?
There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as the case you describe above.
But not all harassment is wrong. I'm just saying many of them do seem to cross the line now that I reread that, some of them may have been warranted though. I also think in those cases the cops all had good intentions. Though I've always acknowledged the potential for it to be misused (you'll see an earlier comment about that somewhere above).
If we let cops become bullies whose own discretion is OK when it comes to harassment, etc., we are throwing away quite a few rights.
I'm assuming all you did was read the article. Well if the world was really black and white, you could easily determine the righteousness of their actions, but the world isn't black and white. You can't assume their actions were unjustified simply because it leans a little towards that side. Just as sacrificing our right to yell fire in a crowded theater, while it means a restriction on our liberty, doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong. And like I said, i agree some of their use cases actually do seem like harassment.
Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.
Actually, I find it strange that the initial commenter only suspects that "civil libertarians" might have a problem with the surveillance that s/he thinks is fine. The sentence seems to me a gratuitous pot shot at people who might think of themselves as "civil libertarians". Why?
HN deserves better rhetoric. Otherwise, there's always Slashdot.
It's not about DRM, the GPL, when stuff goes out of copyright, or whether whitehouse.gov uses tracking cookies - the "big stuff". It's just some people, somewhere, seeing a big-ass police vehicle parked in front of their home with cameras pointed directly at them. To a lot of HN folks, that doesn't seem terribly important; after all, they're probably drug dealers - at least, the police say so!
People who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists.
Whatever they are, you say you're not one.
Correct. I am also not a feminist.
People who value life are pro-life in the same sense that people who value choice are pro-choice in the same sense that people who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists.