The Globe reports today that Boston Police seem to have a policy of arresting folks who record them in action. It is more than a little disconcerting that a privacy law protecting individuals from surveillance without their consent has been so contorted by law enforcement. The police do not should not have a privacy right in their actions while on duty, especially not their behavior while dealing with civilians, becuase police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on duty acting in an official capacity.
Digital recording on cellphones and cameras offers us an opportunity to hold police officers accountable on the streets. I can’t see any valid argument for outlawing this type of watchdog. Their is no safety concern. The officer’s actions are in no way private.
First, the City of Boston and the Boston Police Department should immediately set a policy of not arresting civilians for recording police action in public.
Second, the legislature should amend the privacy law being misused by police to make it clear that this type of surveillance is not within the scope of the behavior intended to be regulated.
Discuss
10 Comments . Comments are closed.Thank you for posting this
I saw it myself, and I hope that this gets the attention I think it fully deserves.
On a related point, I wonder how many folks know that it is now illegal to photograph or videotape an MBTA vehicle. Of course, the friendly folks at the MBTA have a formal Photo Policy that leads one to believe it should be easy enough to get a permit. For awhile, there was buzz from pieces like this that suggest that "non-commercial" use was ok.
What this policy doesn't tell you is that the MBTA now refuses to issue permits. Of course, if you are a commercial photographer willing to pay, you're all set — except:
Even more fun, in light of the many and multiple formal reports of how dangerous the MBTA really is, is the last statement of this paragraph:
In terms of threats to my personal freedom and direct infringements of my constitutionally-protected rights, I am far more at risk from local authorities like the Boston Police and the MBTA than from any Muslim shoe or underwear bomber.
Not as bad as you think
Your post suggests that it is illegal for me to stand on the corner and photograph a bus passing by. But I think the policy only applies to people who are "on or in MBTA property or vehicles" when they take the photographs. Now, that's a pretty bad policy, but it's not as bad as all that.
TedF
Wait a minute!
We're talking about actions taking place outside in broad daylight, right? There's no privacy AND 1st amendment rights on the part of the recorder. Besides, I thought more police departments were required to record their own actions anyway.
That's what I thought!
After all, the Boston Police posted those traffic light cameras to catch the license plates of folks who run red lights. There are exterior cameras all over creation used by public and private entities for security reasons.
Sauce for the goose, etc.
Excellent point...
EVERYTHING is video taped nowadays...I walk into a store, I'm video taped, I drive my car on 95, I'm video taped. Hell, I can watch a ground level photo of my house from Google.
A Badly Written Law
The state law applies only to unauthorized audio recordings. You can photograph or make videos without sound to your heart's content. Ironically, the law was written to regulate wire tapping and other secret audio taping, but it has been used several times by police and district attorneys to prosecute citizens who have attempted to record traffic stops and arrests. Go figure.
Here is the Law
You can read it here.
Very big in the CT news under the
Tazer grandma/police state category.
Specific solution:
Institute a one-party consent wiretapping law. Currently, all parties involved in a conservation must consent to a recording. Requiring just one party involved to consent to recording covers "wiretapping" as we generally think of it, while still allowing recording like that being discussed here.
Important stuff.
Thanks for posting this. It's worth noting that charges were ultimately dropped in some of these cases. But it's definitely a policy that should be clarified.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 8:42 PM