Famed Appeals Court Judge Worries That Allowing People To Record Police Might Mean That People Actually Record The Police
from the wtf? dept
While I definitely don't agree with famed 7th Circuit appeals court judge Richard Posner on everything, he's generally recognized as a smart judge with a strong libertarian belief and a recognition and understanding of real economic issues. However, there are a few times when he seems to just reach a weird conclusion. Case in point: in a case involving Illinois' somewhat ridiculous "eavesdropping" law, which makes you a criminal just for recording the police with a mobile phone, Judge Posner has suggested that letting people film police is undesirable:"If you permit the audio recordings, they'll be a lot more eavesdropping.…There's going to be a lot of this snooping around by reporters and bloggers," U.S. 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner said. "Yes, it's a bad thing. There is such a thing as privacy."...Say what now? We're talking about recording public officials who are paid with taxpayer dollars doing a job in public, and Posner is worried about their privacy rights? Wouldn't it be a good thing for reporters and bloggers to be "snooping around" police if it turns up problems or corruption? And, really, since other courts have already declared similar rules unconstitutional, and it hasn't rendered those kinds of states into this crazy dystopia that judge Posner envisions, shouldn't that be evidence that these "concerns" are out of touch with reality?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, illinois, police, privacy, recording, richard posner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IMHO
Shouldn't "we the people" know if we're getting our moneys worth from the assholes?
Citizens' taxes are paying for their salary; shouldn't any citizen be able to scrutinize their performance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
a public servant should expect scrutiny when on duty.
a private citizen has a reasnoable expectation on privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
A police officer who is currently on duty is a servant of the public and therefore should expect no right to privacy while performing the duties that the public pays them to do.
When the officer is off-duty, they are then private citizens, with the same expectation of privacy as any other private citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
Likewise, a police officer is a public employee, paid by the public. While being publicly paid, the public gets to monitor them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
And to reply to your stupid comment:
YES, every science-damned second that I am working as a public servant I should be recorded so the citizens who's forcibly taken wages pay for my salary know how good of a job I am doing (you putz).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
> as "at any moment of the day when they're
> on the clock" or something to that effect...
In several states, police officers are on duty all the time, 24/7/365, even while at home or on days off. They can be recalled or required to respond to an incident at any moment.
Should they be required to have cameras and monitoring equipment installed in their homes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
Those laws specifically define being on call as being on duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
In cases where that applies, it just means making the distinction between on call and on duty. There's nothing to prevent them introducing that distinction once it matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
If I am a public servant, and I am performing job related activities, then yes.
I love simple questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
Uh, that isn't what Lobo said. He said public servants should be subject to monitoring while on the job. As someone payed for by taxes, this might make sense. Applying that to private individuals and all their movements, words, and actions, as you suggested, is as non-analagous as it is silly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
If I was a public "servant"? Sure,
Are you offering to allow your employer to record all of your movements, all of your words, and all of your actions?
Fixed that for you. And if my employer wanted me to do that, I would then have a choice to make, wouldn't I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
Get back in line, serf!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
I hear the North Shore of Maui is pretty good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IMHO
Try snowboarding - word on the street is it's easier anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
Police corruption, that`s easy, google Murdock (News of the World) & all the back handers they were paying to the Police (STILL yet to be "investigated").
And all this is just in the UK!
May I refer you to all the intercepted mobile calls during 911? You know all the "warrant-less wire-tapping that occurred...
That`s not even taking into account all of the bent USA cops that have already been Youtubed!
They are called PUBLIC servants for a reason.
/Rant off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMHO
The real gray area comes when "off-duty" police officers arrest motorcyclists who record them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMHO
In a less glamorous sounding take on that statement - when I pumped gas on the grave shift, the gas station had a system of security cameras. Now that I think on it, the 'Mystery Shopper' was a form of surveillance as well.
Personally I expect ANY time I'm being paid to do something, that I should be getting at least occasional checks to be sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it protecting people when the cops do it, but endangering police and violating their rights when civilians do it?
It's a depressing double standard. One that can land you in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eavesdropping on corrupt psychologist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is absolutely no reason that when in public, public officials cannot be filmed. There is no expectation of privacy while standing on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The "audio" portion is just a means to an ends used by abusive police depts to get the videotaping stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As opposed to a police officer "altering" his testimony when no video evidence exists, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Face it no one remembers everything 100% correctly but an unaltered video and audio is 100% correct from the view and mic of the recording device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You and me both.
And my dad's a cop, so it'll be awkward when I come to visit and whip out my cell phone whenever he starts talking. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously if the records diverge there will need to be an investigation into why. But that's the court's job.
And since police already can and do sometimes keep their own records, the public being able to is just a matter of leveling that particular playing field.
Sauce for the goose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if it's okay to record the officer s/he often interacts with victims of crime, witnesses, etc which most likely aren't expecting to be recorded. One can also easily imagine scenarios where, if the recording was made public quickly, it would prevent or make it harder to catch the guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What exactly is he famous for?
Oh yes, he is famous for abandoning anti-trust enforcement.
No surprise he comes up with a gem like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: public places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: public places
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd think that assumption is problematic, which is why you don't want citizens being recorded all the time. I would think that the same argument could be made for police officers (or other public servants) even when their on duty.
What if the public servant has a strange tick and scratches himself a lot or is very flatulent or picks his nose all the time? Recordings of their every moment on duty could be embarrassing for them and easily used by others to denigrate or humiliate.
Further, would you record them while they're urinating in the bathroom stall? Where would the recording end? Everyone deserves some amount of privacy.
I would be in favor of a cop-mounted camera that is turned on during an incident that records the situation from the point of view of the cop being mandatory, though. I think that would help explain some of the things that cops do and could also be helpful in developing remedial and training programs for cops. I'd also think that should a cop not turn on the camera during the incident, he would be punished.
I also think that eyewitness recordings can be useful to help fully understand incidents and so all recordings of cops shouldn't be made illegal as some many others have stated. I would think, though, that malicious recording (e.g., sticking your camera or phone in a cop's face for no reason while claiming to some kind of watchdog or whatever) would be illegal. I guess what I'm saying is that context matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As far as a "Cop-mounted camera" they have dash-cams in all the police cars. That's why they ALWAYS perform thier actions in front of the vehicles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, I do agree with the overall point in your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And of course recording a cop at the urinal should only be allowed if he is excercising his duty there, like arresting someone.
To clarify:
Whenever a public servant excercises his authority in public, any and all forms of recording should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly, I cannot begin to count the number of times where a judge asked probing questions that seemed as if the judge had already made up his/her mind, only to have that same judge author the court's opinion holding exactly to the contrary.
Having listened to oral argument (link below), clearly Judge Posner pushed back on counsel for the ACLU. The same was done with respect to counsel for the State of Illinois.
How the decision will ultimately come out is less dependent upon what transpires at oral argument, and more in consonance with existing judicial precedent.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=11-1286_001.mp3
I believe it is fair to say that the issue here is not as "crystal clear" as some seem inclined to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*crosses fingers*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police State
"[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447-48.
I and many others would appreciate it if you actually do some research before spreading inaccurate information as if you know what you're talking about. Learning to research and apply the law isn't that complicated--I've won three lawsuits against the state for civil rights violations all on my own, no lawyer, and I barely graduated high school and never went to college. The biggest reason civil rights violations go unpunished is because most victims don't know their rights, let alone consider challenging violations. Spreading bad information contributes to that problem. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, etc. Bad info might inadvertently result in someone being quiet when they could or should speak, or worse, in someone thinking unlawful action by the government is actually lawful despite a personal desire to challenge it.
And as a practical matter, Mr. Revolutionary, if you're going to advocate the violent overthrow of government, you should at least know what you're overthrowing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a little bit in agreement with the judge
When people go out of their way to "eavesdrop" on them, let's face it, it's usually to TRY to get dirt. That, mixed with overly sensitive people who can't get jokes and can't get that people are allowed to have an opinion of their own different from theirs will make sure that the officer in question is severely reprimanded for something very tiny.
I'm all for exposing injustice with people taxpayers are responsible for, but I think the privacy issue shines when even the small insignificant things are taken out of context and misconstrued because someone was trying to get the story or get the dirt.
I honestly don't think that it should be stopped, that's my official position on it. I think people should be able to record whatever they want. I disagree strongly with the suggestion by the judge that recording will lead to a huge influx of eavesdropping; quote: "they'll be a lot more eavesdropping". That's just not true.
What I also believe though is that these officers should be allowed privacy, because people will go out of their way to make a big deal out of a little thing. Should this be enforced by law? No. it should be enforced by commonsense. People should stop going out of their way to expose bullshit and then there really wouldn't be an issue, would there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use of Recordings
If the cop is being smeared/attacked because s/he's gay, and the recording is to expose that nature of personal information with the intent of harming the cop's career, then the cop should be protected by law.
Interesting legal question, and I don't guess I envy the judge making the call. This one requires wisdom that is in short supply in this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide
(Or at least that's the argument they use on us)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real reason they're afraid of cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption vs being able to do the job.
That said there are times when such observation could be detrimental to their ability to do their job. Examples would be a reporter leaking out information that alerts a suspect to their imminent capture and allows their escape, or key detail that were being held in reserve to separate the actual perpetrator of a crime from some nut job confessing for his 5 minutes of fame. Or details like the identity of an undercover officer that gets him killed.
It's all about responsibility, yes the police should be doing their job and doing it right, but the public also has a responsibility to the police not to get in the way of them doing their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity of the People appointed to protect the peoplep
why are video camera allowed in stores and banks and all over the public domain taping/videotaping people at work or taking
care of their BUSINESS?
I truly hope that the stupidity/cupidity disease running rampant through the present political world has not reached the bench. Pleas show me this JUDGE was misquoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]