After
reading McElroy’s article “Are Cameras the New Guns?” I was surprised. I was shocked to find that my home state,
Massachusetts, like many other states, can charge people with a felony if they
have recorded something without all of the parties consent especially in relationship to defending oneself against a crime or police brutality. People
cannot use their personal surveillance of an event to their defense. I was appalled to hear this because if the
footage is to defend yourself then how is it wrong. It is wrong to randomly film people for some
thrill or to slander them in some way, but using it as evidence should be aloud.
I
believe that raw footage should be able to be used and should be objective in
any kind of struggle. A camera in the
sense is seen to me as a device that captures the truth especially if the
person holding it is not an artist. Yes
some may argue that if a victim is holding the camera there is a bias and if
there is a police officer there is a bias.
If there are two different cameras capturing the same scene and the same
thing is happening there should not be any discrepancies. It is frustrating to me that defending
yourself is now a crime. I simply cannot
understand it.
5 comments:
I agree that it is absolutely absurd that all filming without consent is a felony. I like the point that you make about raw footage being allowed. I think this is very important because the main reason why it is outlawed is that it can be tampered with and edited to hide or alter the truth. Raw film holds more truth to me than someones second hand witnessed testimony. This is why i believe that cops should be required to have body cameras so they can be monitored. Police are public servants and should be treated as such.
I really enjoyed your post as it contextualized many of the similar thoughts I had after our class discussion. It seems as though officers are more fearful of their reputations becoming tainted than losing their lives. Instead of being afraid of the violence and corruption in front of them the officers are stopping to tell people to stop taking footage of them. I understand being afraid of things being taken out of context but what I don't understand is not doing your job. If you are afraid of someone taking what you're doing out of context or because you are not sure that it follows protocol means that you obviously aren't doing your job right.
I was shocked as well when reading this article. I think people should be able to use their own personal videos, photographs, or any form of surveillance in an argument of defense and to prove innocence/prove someone else as guilty. Yes, I would agree that it is wrong to film people to slander them, but as you stated, the raw footage, which I'm sure there is a way to view in the metadata of a file to prove that it is the original copy of the video, should be able to be utilized as proof. Without that video, the person's case may never be solved or increase the length of the case. I would agree with Ransom and Morgan, that cops shouldn't be afraid of cameras catching them doing something wrong. We should be able to film them because they should have nothing to hide.
I whole heartedly agree with what you said about how you should be able to use raw footage that you have taken in your defense. It is appalling to think that someone on trial is not able to every available resource to help them in their defense. Yes it is possible for things to be tampered with and altered digitally, but that is detectable through metadata any other digital means. I do not see why pure raw footage taken by the a person on trial especially if it is the difference between a guilty or not guilty verdict.
Kaitrin Acuna
It is frustrating indeed, and I agree. I don't think I agree with it being illegal. I was a bit surprised to hear that about Massachusetts as well. I am wondering where it is that these laws originated from. Was it to protect us? For example, if we end up shooting footage of a criminal who does NOT want her or his image out there, our ownership of that footage could put us in a lot of danger. Maybe the laws originated here? With police brutality being all over the news, I always jump to assume these laws are for their benefit, but I need to remember to think of other situations as well.
Post a Comment