From what I've read, the audio restrictions are generally greater than are those for video. I guess maybe state laws haven't kept up with more recent technology.
I think what concerns people is the thought that video recording a cop issuing a gratuitous beat down would somehow be illegal. I can't imagine if it's happening in a public place that it would be illegal.
So I'm reading how you can now be prosecuted for videotaping the police in action.
Tell me this is just a bad dream I had of a totalitarian society in the throes of infancy...
because it sounds more like the actions of a true police state than a democracy.
If you spin the cops as the heroes, film away. But if you reveal their corrupt activites, YOU get prosecuted as a felon.
This world is fucked up.
These state statutes criminalizing video or other electronic eavesdropping don’t invade your privacy rights but in fact protect it. Talk to Mel Gibson about what this kind of unconsensual eavesdropping can do to your career.
The police don’t give up the same rights we all have merely because they are on duty. The Maryland statute is not limited to phone communications but applies to any oral communication:
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this
subtitle it is unlawful for any person to:
(1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of
this subtitle; or
So the guy who recorded the police oral communications without their consent and posted it on Youtube clearly broke the law. You can still expose police misconduct - but you have to do it legally.
Police are supposed to be my employees. I have a right to film my employees on the job so long as I don't do it while they are using the restroom.
Maybe somebody with a gun will ultimately come to take my money away in order to pay cops if I don't voluntarily comply. (*grin*)
Now I have it figured out. *I* am the servant and they are the master ... because they can come shake me down, but I can't do it to them.
Um, as taxpayers we DO pay their salary.
Join planet earth in reality...
the police are operating in a public place? My question isn't necessarily restricted to this guy's location but more in general.
-- Modified on 7/20/2010 6:14:50 PM
require mutual consent to record a conversation only if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. So in those states you can record a Rolling Stones concert without breaking the law.
The Maryland statute is not so limited - regardless of whether there is an expectation of privacy or not, interception of communications is prohibited unless an exception applies.So don't tell anyone about the recording I made in Landover in 1981 of Mick singing You Can't Always Get what You Want.
From what I've read, the audio restrictions are generally greater than are those for video. I guess maybe state laws haven't kept up with more recent technology.
I think what concerns people is the thought that video recording a cop issuing a gratuitous beat down would somehow be illegal. I can't imagine if it's happening in a public place that it would be illegal.
discretion to prosecute, for example, the taping of Rodney King, even if it was technically illegal under the statute.
But remember the police have good reasons for not wanting to be videotaped and placed on Youtube. It's a dangerous job already, and with enough bozos out there who think all police are "pigs," they should be entitled to all annonymity provided by law.
is an entirely different matter. For example, it is generally not illegal (or at least in the past it wasn't) to intercept "private" communications over radio (cell phone, police radio, etc.). It IS illegal for the recorder to communicate the intercepts to anyone else.
I think the same should apply to video recording of police, but that's just my opinion.
LMAO because you are cop doesn't make you somehow less culpable for your behavior.
If I break the law, and its on you tube, I dont have the same rights. If someone attacked me for being a escort, I cant claim I have the right to anonymity bc I might be harmed bc some whacko doesn't like my job.
In public you have no privacy rights. Not even the cops.
Nonsense. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If the cops beat the hell out of someone in public, they're "privacy" isnt violated by being videotaped.
As far as I'm concerned we need more of this, not less. The pigs can tape you with cams on their dash, they can tape you at traffic lights, hell, they can tape you just about anywhere they want. But tape them to make sure they're doing their fucking jobs?
This is a pretty clear violation of the 1st amendment. I imagine the freedom of the press clause applies. Looks like I'm going to have to give a donation to the ACLU of MD.
As far as I'm concerned, all public servants are our employees, and we can videotape them all until we're blue in the face.
How about we have more of this instead of less. I say we make it mandatory that every Congressman or White House official, including the President, has to have a camera in his office, which can be viewed online at any time.
I agree with WW. (hell just froze over)
It's not an invasion of privacy to film some asshole with a badge who thinks he can do whatever he pleases.
It's what one DOES with the recording that matters and is potentially harmful.
Worst case, someone records an undercover cop, posts on You Tube, etc and then he is assassinated by the bad guys as a result.
It is the audio not the photo . The new SLR cameras can use video and a still photo can be made or the film stream without audio and if it was made in public I do not see how it would not be allowed per the reading of the Maryland law.
Many if not most states still focus on the audio. I think it's simply a case of laws not keeping up with technology.
My point was meant to be general in nature and not specific to Maryland.
-- Modified on 7/22/2010 5:46:20 PM
its because you never grew up. Your attitude toward police is that they are sub-human to a man (or woman). You've said before you've never met a decent one ever. Grow up.
"As far as I'm concerned, all public servants are our employees, and we can videotape them all until we're blue in the face. "
Yeah, right. You want to videotape military manuevers and strategic planning sessions and then post it publicly for the enemy? You want to videotape interrogations and then post it publicly so the partners in crime will know exact what has already been confessed? You want to videotape evaluations and letters of recommendation and then post it publicly so there will never be an honest assessment? You basically now claim there is no right to privacy at all in any context whatsoever while a government employee.
And you wonder why I call you stupid with a capital S.
Anthony Graber should have every right to use his video cam at any public place....Period
Where he went wrong was posting it on the internet a week later..
The officer didn't threaten him with the gun or pistol whip him so no foul there.Once the officer saw the suspect did not seem dangerous, he put the gun away..
Anthony Graber had no right to post the video on UTube.
Under Maryland law like it is written as of present like Marikod points out it was not the video picture but the oral conversation that was recorded that is not permitted under Maryland law since both parties have to give consent to be taped . I believe a video without oral recording would be allowed .
-- Modified on 7/21/2010 2:24:06 AM