×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NH Man Arrested For Videotaping Police.. Again

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the at-least-he's-consistent dept.

Crime 666

OhPlz writes "Back in 2006, a resident of New Hampshire's second largest city was arrested while at the police station attempting to file a complaint against officers. His crime? He had video tape evidence of the officers' wrongdoings. According to the police, that's wiretapping. After world wide attention, the police dropped the charges. His complaint was found to be valid, but the evidence never saw the light of day. Well, guess what? Round two. There are differing reports, but again the police arrested Mr. Gannon and again, they seized his video camera. This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera, most likely to protect its contents. If there's the potential of police wrongdoing, how is it that the law permits the police to seize the evidence?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

666 comments

What are these words? (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817708)

What do you mean police wrongdoing? Can you use those two words in a sentence?

Re:What are these words? (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817732)

I think the writer got arrested for using them!

Re:What are these words? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817938)

Jackbooted Rethuglicans at work. Most "police officers", if they hadn't slipped through the academy, would be working as leg-breakers for the local Mafia. Half of them are anyways as a sideline while off duty.

It's about "power", not honor and law enforcement.

Small wonder they don't want to be videotaped. At an intersection by my house, we had a particularly egregious asshole who found a way to fill his quota: he parked his car 45 degrees down an alley to make sure his dashboard camera wasn't covering the neighborhood entrance's stop sign, then would jump out and stop people claiming they "ran the stop sign" and fill out a ticket. He filled out over 120 tickets in a 1-week period that way. Finally, we had a neighbor set up a small hidden camera clipped to the top of a nearby fence and recording to a laptop on the other side of the fence, and recorded 3 hours of him pulling this shit at an angle proving that everyone he had written up that morning HAD stopped at the sign.

He's never shown up again, but the DA "declined to press charges" against Officer Corrupt Dickwad, and the local Dishonorable Judge Briberyfuck ruled that the day's footage was "inadmissible evidence" in the prior cases because it "wasn't footage of the relevant arrest." Go figure.

Re:What are these words? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818022)

Given the way you unfairly linked these state thugs with Republicans, it's a pretty safe assumption that you are a liberal. Does this incident not shake your faith in the beneficence of the state just a smidgen?

Re:What are these words? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818178)

Given the way you unfairly linked these state thugs with Republicans, it's a pretty safe assumption that you are a liberal. Does this incident not shake your faith in the beneficence of the state just a smidgen?

And, the moron clearly ignores the fact that the police are union members, and they typically support and vote DemocRat.

Re:What are these words? (1, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818208)

Actually, not. Police and firefighters are solid Republcan voters.

That's why these two unions were not touched by infamous Wisconsin governor.

Re:What are these words? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818212)

Oh go fuck yourself. In my county, the police are Rethuglican through and through.

DA and Judge Briberyfuck? Both got elected on the strength of "straight ticket" voting. Nobody really knew who the hell they were, but it didn't matter, there were a set of hot-button "referendum issues" on the ballot along with the right-wing fucktard noise machine screaming about how "everyone needs to vote straight ticket Republican or that evil socialist nigger will take all your money and force your kids to get gay married."

Police? Yeah. The Rethuglicans love to trot out the "new recruits" and sets of officers to prove how "tough on crime" they are come each election cycle. Our local Sheriff actually had that racist dipshit Joe Arpaio running out to campaign for him in the primaries recently.

Re:What are these words? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818240)

Ad hominem attacks: good as logic since 2001!

Re:What are these words? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817886)

its like saying funny clown.

If Live Free Or Die are your choices (5, Insightful)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817768)

... I reckon "die" is all that's left.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices (5, Funny)

dopaz (148229) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817810)

I believe that is meant to say "or die (trying to live free)".

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices (4, Insightful)

mrops (927562) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818114)

what man, that is terrorist talk.

I have notified homeland security

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices (1, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817910)

No, "kill" is left.

Americans are MUCH too comfortable to exercise that option at the moment. Nothing to see here for a long time.

Falsifying evidence? (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817776)

Evidence of what? Evidence of him having videotaped officers? This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?

Re:Falsifying evidence? (5, Insightful)

haulbag (1160391) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817982)

"Gannon was charged with resisting arrest, simple assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct."

The original charge seems to be disorderly conduct. Whatever he shouted at the police while they were driving by, plus whatever he said prior to being tackled is probably what the disorderly conduct was about.

If you ask me, they probably would have arrested him for saying "Booo!"

Re:Falsifying evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818034)

Yes a suprisingly large amount of the populations belives that if a police officer says you are guilty then you must be.

Re:Falsifying evidence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818172)

Most places that have a statute for "resisting arrest" rely on the generally accepted legal definition of 'arrest'. If a cop says "hey you, stand still. I have to ask you some questions.", you've been 'arrested' by legal definition. To 'arrest' is to stop, detain, etc. Get loud, rude, protest, say you can't because you're late for a meeting, then the cuffs can come out. You're under arrest for resisting arrest, and it makes perfect sense.

Re:Falsifying evidence? (0)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818248)

This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?

People who aren't ignorant of the law "buy" it, sure. A police officer doesn't generally have to tell you why you're under arrest - they only have to tell you that you are under arrest. If you resist, that, in and of itself, is an arrestable offense.

Idiots get confused about this all the time. For instance, when I - many moons ago - was working as a rent-a-cop, a typical conversation might go like this:

me: "Sorry sir, you're going to have to leave the property"
idiot: "Why, I didn't do anything wrong"
me: "Sir, it doesn't matter why. The owners of this property have asked that you be removed. Please leave now or I will have to arrest you."
idiot: "You can't arrest me, I didn't do anything wrong!"

this would get repeated a few times, until I finally break out the cuffs. Then he'd either run or fight, there'd be much merriment all around, with lots of cursing and the ol' left-right. It would inevitably end with:

idiot: "YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME! I HAVE RIGHTS! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME!"
me: "well, resisting arrest, for one".

Hope that clears things up for you. Remember, kids, nobody likes a tap-room lawyer!

A Fair Word of Warning (2)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817782)

We are moving at an avalanche pace towards a police state!

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817806)

No, we're moving toward awareness of the police state we are already living in.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817826)

Good morning, Mr. Van Winkle! You already live in one.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817864)

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams. That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Smash my camera. Take it away.

The goods are already distributed.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817906)

Who's gonna pay for that? You?

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (4, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818174)

Who's gonna pay for that? You?

Good call. It is inconceivable that anybody would pay for a mobile, net connected technology.

On another matter, can anyone tell me how this Amish Anonymous Coward managed to make this post on Slashdot?

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (1)

starkat2k (2353628) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818054)

Except, in a system of distributed cameras, it'll (sooner rather than later) be put under 'government' control, and a variety of different excuses given for such a move. This would inevitably mean police control of said system, and even requesting data off it would probably end you up on some list somewhere. I assume that's why the Brits are 100% A-OK with their nanny state surveillance systems. Better to live "free" and not make waves than always wonder when they're coming for you.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818056)

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams. That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Smash my camera. Take it away.

The goods are already distributed.

I use "DailyRoads" on my Nexus S. It's a dash cam for cars that can stream to a host. I haven't actually caught anything worthwhile yet... but who knows. It's a great application and I'm not saying that just because it's free.

http://www.dailyroads.com/voyager.php [dailyroads.com]

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818106)

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams.
That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Qik [qik.com] is one.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818202)

the Google+ mobile app does that: it automatically uploads your photos to our google account, if you have a net connection.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818094)

We pay for police at the city, county, state, and federal level. Not to mention, we have several police at the federal level. Add in a sprinkling of police at weird levels, like constables.

Then people are being payed to make new laws at the HOA, city, county, state, and federal levels.

Not much room for liberty in that mix.

lulz (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817784)

It's quite obvious. Cops are here to serve and protect, themselves, above all else. You don't take videotaped evidence of police wrongdoing to the police, that's the last thing you do. You think there would have been riots in LA had there not been a helicopter overhead filming police beating the shit out of Rodney King? Dashcam footage of that beating would have never seen the light of day. First thing you do when you have video evidence of police wrongdoing, you upload it to the internet. Plain and simple.

Re:lulz (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817854)

You think there would have been riots in LA had there not been a helicopter overhead filming police beating the shit out of Rodney King?

There was no helicopter. It was a guy in his apartment nearby.

Re:lulz (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818254)

All the more reason to get a google plus account... G+ seems to have an option to upload all your phone pics and videos automatically. So even if they take your phone, if they're not clever enough to turn it off, then you still have your video online :-)

color of law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817786)

Hmm... sounds like an open and shut case of civil rights violation under color of law. Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't care about civil rights for white people.

Here's Why (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817800)

It's the GOLDEN RULE.

The one with the gold makes the rules.

And people wonder why they want guns protected? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817822)

If they can try to take your cameras, imagine what they'll do to guns?

Re:And people wonder why they want guns protected? (3, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817902)

I imagine if this guy was waving a gun around, instead of a video camera, he'd be dead right now.

Re:And people wonder why they want guns protected? (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818096)

Well Duh! its a gun!

Videocameras dont kill people at the push of a button, or press of a trigger.

How is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817844)

Because they're smart, we're dumb; they're big, we're small; they're right, we're wrong, and there's nothing we can do about it.

I've learned not to yell anything at cops (5, Interesting)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817856)

Once when I was 16 and a huge smartass, I yelled, "I smell bacon!" out the window of a car I was a passenger in. There was a cop on the side of the road that had someone pulled over. I see him drop everything, run back to his car and get back into it. I thought there was no way he would ever catch us, and anyway I thought yelling out the window was not illegal. He didn't try to catch us - instead he radioed ahead to someone else who pulled us over within a few minutes. The cop comes up to the car, says, "Which one of you yelled, 'I'm going to kill you fucking cops'"? We played it off like it was the radio and said nobody yelled that out the window. Anyway, they took all our names, made us get out of the car, the whole nine yards. For yelling, "I smell bacon" at a cop. I guess we were luck we didn't get beat up, tazed, maced and put in jail like this guy.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818078)

I've learned not to yell anything at cops.
I guess we were lucky we didn't get beat up, tazed, maced and put in jail like this guy.

That's the wrong lesson. What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818218)

What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.

Yes, hence my long-standing tradition of passive-aggressive revenge tactics against authority figures.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818234)

If everything was right int he world the officer would be arrested for filing a false report and loose there job. Those wither greater power need to accept greater responsibility for there actions.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops (0, Flamebait)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818282)

That's the wrong lesson. What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.

Yeah, it's funny, when I was in school, every time I stood up in class and yelled "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST IMPERIALIST BRAINWASHING OF YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS MRS. B!!!", I'd get sent to the principals office and otherwise punished.

Fuckers. Abusing their authority to punish me for such a trivial thing.

youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817862)

did he post the video online for us all to see? at least it can't be destroyed by the dirty cops. If what they did was bad enough then people should see it.

Google+ (4, Interesting)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817922)

The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part. Suddenly, having control of the device isn't enough to guarantee that you have control of the data.

Re:Google+ (3, Insightful)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818070)

The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part.

I can see that biting you in the ass sooner or later....maybe not you personally but people in general.

Re:Google+ (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818102)

Yeah, I realize that the feature isn't for everyone. It's tempered by the fact that I had to enable this functionality specifically, in addition to installing the Google+ app, and the fact that the uploads default to "private to me" when they're uploaded - I have to mark each one with whatever circles I want to share it with. Absolutely, there are risks and concerns, but, in my case, and for the time being, they're outweighed by the benefits.

Re:Google+ (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818126)

It needs a way to specify at session start what you want to do with the recordings, and do it via easy-to-pick "profiles" so you could have your "taking naked pictures of the girlfriend" profile which won't auto-upload anything and the "oh shit" profile that uploads everything immediately and makes it 100% public too.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818146)

I wonder if it is possible to delete the footage/photos from the phone afterwards.

Disgusting incidents like this one demonstrate a clear need for such tools, but if they can seize the phone and delete it themselves, it's rather pointless. Of course, that assumes the meatheads don't just smash the phone like they usually do when they want to delete evidence of wrongdoing.

Police state (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817868)

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it. I most places around the US, the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle. The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions. If not, then you're already living in a police state.

Re:Police state (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818092)

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.

That's the way it is right now. Cameras, especially internet connected cameras, threaten the status quo.

Re:Police state (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818180)

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it

The police report says he was yelling a lot just before he fell down a bunch of stairs filled with tasers, mace, boots and car hoods and that when officers helped him up, he tried to pass his camcorder off to someone standing nearby, who also fell down the stairs. I find it really hard to understand why you're blaming the police for defective stairs...

Re:Police state (3, Insightful)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818258)

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.

We've had C-SPAN for decades and it hasn't done anything to restrain congress from abusing its authority.

But of course I agree, we do have the right to monitor our employees.

Worst serial killer in NZ is Head of Vice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817896)

If this seems bad, the worst serial killer in New Zealand is the Head of Vice for Manukau Counties NZ Police District. This man has totalled (in publicly available information) over 18 counts of murder and attempted murder. He is known as a terrorist in Malaysia for attacking 3 schools with 4000 students of all ages. His favored means of killing is by stomping his victims although he gets off by other methods of murder as well. Being the Head of Vice for Manukau Counties (the poor end of Auckland - South Auckland, he gets away with his murder by hiding them in the gang fight statistics. http://systemoflife.blogspot.com

So much for moving there... (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817912)

So, what happened to this bastion on libertarianism I heard so much about? Oh, well, at least I won't need to look for work up there anymore.

Re:So much for moving there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817952)

The Free State Project has about 11000 people signed up to think about moving to NH.

If they ever actually get there, I'm sure they'll get better cops. Maybe.

Re:So much for moving there... (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818250)

Oh god, given the chance, the free state project would transform new hampshire into an anarchy. Police would only be better in the sense that my privatized police are better than yours, if you could afford them. Don't forget the FSP is libertarian. Their ideals look good on the outside, until you really think it through- most libertarian ideals are just that- ideals.

National Record The Police in Public Day (5, Interesting)

physicsdot (530505) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817918)

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818080)

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

There are a lot of the days that are meaningless. But this I could really get behind. +1

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818230)

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

Watch as a few of the more corrupt departments announce a "Put the picture and name of anyone filming us into NCIC tagged as a troublemaker Day."

Stranger than Fiction (4, Insightful)

skywire (469351) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817920)

This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera

Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.

Re:Stranger than Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818198)

This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera

Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.

+1 billion

Douchebags (3, Interesting)

Mullen (14656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817930)

NASHUA – Maybe Michael Gannon shouldn’t have given lip to two police detectives that afternoon.

But Gannon claims he wouldn’t have said a word on July 1 if a detective – unprovoked, Gannon said – hadn’t shouted something at him as their unmarked police car passed by on Canal Street.

Sounds like a couple of douche bags yelling at each other. The police should not be yelling anything at anyone unless it is part of their job and Mr. Gannon should just learn to ignore stupid comments. If either of these two people had the slightest bit of decorum, it would be a non-issue.

However, Mr. Gannon will win. The police don't seem to have much of a case to stop him in the first place. And while being a douche is dumb, it is not against the law.

Falsifying Evidence? (1)

haulbag (1160391) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817932)

Isn't falsifying evidence when you give false evidence? How is trying to preserve your own evidence by keeping it away from the police classified as falsifying evidence?

These police officers were way out of line. Sounds like they can dish out their own insults, but they can't take it. They should both receive mandatory anger management and be kicked off the police force for using excessive force. I mean, what do you do when the police act like criminals -- just play along and let them bully you? Actions like these make people afraid of the police, and that has terrible consequences for community policing.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gannon is right: he does have a right to video tape anyone in public, including the police. AFAIK, the rule there is that if there is an expectation of privacy, you can't record people and use it as evidence. But on a public street, there is no expectation of privacy.

But I wonder if there is another reason for why he ditched the camera. Maybe it was because it would condemn him instead of the police. The article doesn't really tell both sides of the story, so that is possible. I guess we'll see after the contents of the video are made public.

Re:Falsifying Evidence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818038)

Kicked off the force? Well...I guess, but that's just standard employer responsibility.

They should sue for deprivation of rights under color of law and take the detectives homes, and advance payments against any pensions they have earned, and follow it up with a measure against the police department if training was improper. Sadly, that comes right out of the taxpayers though...

And that's after the DA tosses them in for 20 to life for assault, battery, perjury, assault with a deadly (pepper spray, meet asthma), destruction of evidence, intimidation of a witness, reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, and possession of a firearm while in commission of felony. Plus aggravated charges on all of the above, plus conspiracy to commit the above. And given they have a history of it, let's throw RICO in for good measure.

Police like throwing the book at people... How about people show them what it feels like to get hit by it?

Illegal to film? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817934)

At the of the article the writer pens...
It is illegal to videotape a conversation without the person’s permission.

There isn't an ounce of truth in this. I work in post production for a reality TV company out in LaLa Land, and we film people without their consent all the time. We even air their conversations on national television! The only thing we can't do is show their face--if they opted not to sign one of our releases on the spot. But there is nothing illegal about possessing footage that was shot in public without someone's consent.

What's even more confusing to me is how can police enforce this law if they break it every day. Most police cruisers have video cameras mounted in their car, and these cameras capture audio (ever watch Cops?). So...if you can't videotape a conversation without first having permission from each party, shouldn't the officer be required to notify anyone he pulls over, even if its for a simple moving violation, that the traffic stop is being recorded? (Would help to know especially if you are likely to have a Miranda Warning read to you later on.)

But alas, I bet the good ol 5-0 have drawn up some sort of loop hole that states if you get pulled over, you wave your rights to not be filmed. But that still seems very farfetched.

Re:Illegal to film? (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818278)

Even better- if you're not-for-profit, and you've done it from a public place, you don't even need to cover their faces! The only reason to cover their face isn't an inherent illegal bit- only that it leaves you more liable for defamation if that person chooses to sue because you've misrepresented them. It's not guaranteed they'd win.

New app (2)

sustik (90111) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817942)

I wonder how long before there will be iphone and android emergency apps which record a video
and instantly upload (stream) it to the internet. I suggest the names: Evidence, Police Check Mate, Truthful
Police, Little Brother.

If you develop this app please *do not* credit me with the idea...

Re:New app (3, Informative)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818006)

How about if they call it "www.qik.com [qik.com] " and the corresponding free apps that go with it. Oh wait, they've already done that...

Re:New app (1)

sustik (90111) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818164)

Gandhicam is for android only and not yet available through the marketplace. But thanks I will give it a try!
"Currently Gandhicam for Android is a beta version, meaning it is still under active development, and not yet considered ready for widespread use. However, it is installed and working on several project-members' handsets, and has yet to cause a single issue. It also does nothing which could potentially cause data-loss or corruption, so it should be perfectly safe to install and play with, regardless of its beta-development state."

qik appears to be some skype like video chat app. That is not exactly what we need. I meant something preconfigurable that backs up the video off the phone but only available to the owner if so desired.

And my names are way cooler!

Re:New app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818048)

Multiple such apps were recommended the last time this topic came up on /..

Re:New app (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818060)

The Google+ app for android has such a feature....instant uploads of photos and videos.

Re:New app (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818088)

Probably only for android. It is unlikely that Apple would ever approve such an app if that purpose was even implied.

Re:New app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818268)

Yeah it's called OpenWatch (http://openwatch.net/) and the best part about recording conversations in my state is that only one party needs to be aware that the conversation is being recorded: me! =D

Simple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817972)

Everything that he videotapes should be wirelessly streamed to his computer as it happens, so confiscating the camera would be entirely moot.

Or, he could have a lot of fun and get an implant that records everything he sees and hears.

Let's see them confiscate that!

Fuck The Police (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36817994)

Fuck The Police

Re:Fuck The Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818074)

Only if she's hot.

*facepalms* (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#36817998)

I guess I can cross New Hampshire off the states to consider moving to as a semi-pro photojournalist. Not that I was seriously considering them.

Let's see who else is on that list so far. Kansas, Alabama, Arizona... any other suggestions?

Time to imprison the criminals uhrm cops. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818026)

Time to arrest those detectives and put them behind bars permanently.
They are time bombs waiting to go off, they will eventually kill to keep someone from exposing their crimes.

Wow. so police has become judges now. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818062)

'according to police, thats wiretapping'.

i dont remember any police force in any country having been given the authority to interpret laws. attorneys, lawyers, judges exist for a reason.

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now. (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818272)

Depending on the officer, they've also become executioner as well. But they have the handy excuse of mistaking their gun for a taser when they do that.

Things have to change (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818100)

Among these are abuse of "wire tapping" laws which must be reformed in states that require two party consent. Recording public events is not and should never be considered wire tapping. Where is the wire? Where was it being tapped?

This case needs to go to trial and speedily. Police dropping charges only means that they are free to continue their harassment and terrorizing.

People need to make copies of their videos before presenting them as evidence anywhere. One should go to the FBI, others to news organizations and still more somewhere online. (There must be a service somewhere that allows hosting of large encrypted files which can then be made available to all with a key file kinda like the wikileaks thing.)

All of this wrong really gets under my skin sometimes. When you have to defend yourself against police, things have gone way too far.

Ahh, New Hampshire (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818112)

I like New Hampshire. "Live Free or Die". New Hampshire used to stamp it into the license plates on every car. I liked that. I also liked The Old Man of the Mountain [wikipedia.org] .

Now, i like this guy. Balls made of granite.

Re:Ahh, New Hampshire (1)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818194)

The real question is, "is it time to die for your beliefs yet" or do we continue to post complaints on slashdot? Nothing will change until we've had enough. Very few have the fortitude to stand against oppression. I'm not sure I'm there yet. I still hold out some hope of the vote. But I'm more cynical each day.

He's asking for it (2)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818134)

Sorry but this dude is asking for it. He has a similar last name to the bad guy from the Zelda games. The cops are doing us a favor. Think of the children!

Wiretapping? How? (2)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#36818140)

Wiretapping? Why not call it tax evasion, or driving while under the influence of drugs? They all have absolutely nothing to do with videotaping police.

What "wire" was "tapped"?

Listen to the song "I fought the law." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818154)

I fought the law, by the Dead Kennedies sums up this situation.

They can do whatever they want. Don't think otherwise. Who's going to stop them? They can plant some dope and you'll be in the joint for as long as it takes to break you. They can (and will) break your face, shoulders and wrists.

Even if you don't like the music, listen to the song once... and listen to the lyrics.

Internet Camera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36818262)

Is there a camera out there that doesn't store anything locally but uploads to the cloud as you record?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...