Friday, April 17, 2015
Photography and Surveillance
All of the articles posted regarding photography and surveillance contained one line that was nearly identical; "there should be no expectation of privacy in a public space". A seemingly obvious statement, but one that continually became muddled, misinterpreted, and even discarded by the personalities in the articles. Collectively the articles presented a statement that asserted that this law should apply to everyone and presented the reader with examples of how it had not been upheld. The main issue with this law concerns citizens filming the police, until reading these articles I was unaware that some states have a two party consent law concerning recording so this being an issue at all was surprising. I have been following the police brutality cases mainly on NPR and was under the impression that one could film police activity as long as they weren't directly interfering with their work, keeping all parties safe. This approach to video recording at least to me seems the most reasonable mainly because, as mentioned before, "there should be no expectation of privacy in a public space" and this shouldn't and to some extent doesn't exclude police officers. As we have been stressing in class, the average American in photographed up to 200 times a day and surveillance cameras don't just stop or blur out officers. If they are under surveillance any way there should be no reason why a civilian camera should impact their day to day. As citizens we aren't given the option of signing a release form when we are captured on street, traffic, google earth, satellite, cameras so there isn't any grounds for an officer to expect privacy when in public especially when they retain the title of public servant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with your observation that "There should be no expectation of privacy in a public place" but I think the issue of recording police officers is not so black and white that one answer applies to all situations. I feel that as long as the video recording is non-disruptive to the officer it should be allowed, but if it bothers them to a point where they can't focus on what they are doing it's probably not a good idea. Most officers are not bad people and are not overly brutal and forceful, so I don't feel that they are afraid of being exposed for doing their job wrong. That was not my initial reaction to the readings, but after giving it more thought after our discussion in class, that is how I feel. I think each case should be judged by its specific factors rather than one general law.
I agree with Nicolette on this issue. Certainly I think that civilians should be able to record the police whenever they are in a public place, however like Nicolette state the issue is not black and white. There are definitely times when the issue becomes blurred. I think that there is a certain discomfort when being constantly documented. It is probably just as uncomfortable for them to be watched by us and it is for us to be constantly watched by them. Think about the last time you were driving down the highway and a cop was driving right behind you. Think about how tense and nervous you became because even though you weren't doing anything wrong in your mind what if the cop perceived you to be doing something wrong. I think a similar stress can be felt by police when they are recorded. Again just like Nicolette, my initial reaction was not so understanding, I too questioned the pushback against body cameras by police officers. However, after analyzing it a little further I can understand why there is a resistance.
Post a Comment