You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 04:30:55 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  (Read 640 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DarklingAliceTopic starter

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« on: August 24, 2010, 03:57:45 PM »
I am sure that we have all heard the rumblings of this issue, which is finally building to a head as the ACLU takes the stage: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-aclu-privacy-lawsuit-20100819,0,2296176.story?page=1

Quote
On Wednesday, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago  challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which makes it criminal to record not only private but also public conversations made without consent of all parties.

With cell phones that record audio and video in almost every pocket, the ability to capture public conversations, including those involving the police, is only a click away. That raises the odds any police action could wind up being recorded for posterity.

Opponents of the act say that could be a good thing and certainly shouldn't lead to criminal charges.

The ACLU argues that the act violates the First Amendment and has been used to thwart people who simply want to monitor police activity.

The head of the Chicago police union counters that such recordings could inhibit officers from doing their jobs.
In my opinion this can be nothing but a step in the right direction (provided that, under any reforms, private conversations are still covered by the law). That law-enforcement be accountable to the citizenry it is in place to protect seems like common sense. Although some of you may disagree.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2010, 04:29:18 PM »
Well looking at the content of the law, there are a lot of cases that would have never come into view to show Police Misconduct. Rodney King's beating comes to mind immediately.  The man was an offender but the sheer amount of force used was way out of scope for the resistance he offered.

I think curtailing the public's ability to record such events will only permit such things to occur again.

Offline Serephino

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2010, 09:29:17 PM »
It could be a good thing.  I agree that police officers abusing their powers is a bad thing, and that the officer is usually believed over a private citizen.  It could be beneficial to have solid proof.

However, I also see this as a double edged sword.  Always having a camera in their faces could actually prevent officers from doing their jobs.  There are people who mistrust the police, and will make it a point to film their every move.  This could also cause a problem if someone gets hurt because they decide they should film something happening.  Like it or not, there are idiots who would pull out their phones to capture a robbery in progress and get themselves shot.  There are idiots out there who will do just about anything. 

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2010, 05:47:43 AM »
I do wonder if that law applies to dashboard cameras though.  For instance if I was stopped for a DUI and was filmed acting intoxicated, could I refuse to give consent for the video?  Thereby the video cannot be admitted in court as evidence because I refuse to consent to its being made?

Offline DarklingAliceTopic starter

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2010, 11:00:16 AM »
I do wonder if that law applies to dashboard cameras though.  For instance if I was stopped for a DUI and was filmed acting intoxicated, could I refuse to give consent for the video?  Thereby the video cannot be admitted in court as evidence because I refuse to consent to its being made?

Doubtful, these sorts of things are usually very one sided in favor of the police.

Offline Asuras

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2010, 10:28:00 PM »
I think if the public gets to see on the evening news families grieving over kids killed in drunk driving accidents, drug shootings, and robberies, they also deserve to see the force the police use in the public's name in responding to these things. If we don't trust the public to overreact to seeing how their police operate, then I don't understand how we can trust them to react appropriately to mothers weeping over children killed in gang violence.

It's the same thing with war and terrorism - for days after 9/11 they had images of planes crashing into the Twin Towers and corpses being dragged out of the wreckage, and no one objected to Americans seeing that, but somehow if it's an American soldier's coffin being brought home it's simply too much for the American people to handle responsibly?

Democracy shouldn't be ashamed of the people.