Continue tracking this! The War on Cameras Just Went Code Red: It is one topic area where true citizen militance is called for.
Elsewhere I’ve already discussed how a U.S. District Court judge ruled against the right to film cops. Yes, wagers are strong that this ruling may be overturned. Fields vs. City of Philadephia concerns two people photographing and filming the police in public areas. Each had their cameras confiscated.
Elsewhere I’ve already discussed how a U.S. District Court judge ruled against the right to film cops. Yes, wagers are strong that this ruling may be overturned. Fields vs. City of Philadephia concerns two people photographing and filming the police in public areas. Each had their cameras confiscated.
As I’ve long said, few civil liberties matters are more important. (Indeed, major steps toward establishing this citizen right meant that 2013 was an important milestone in U.S. civil liberties.) But even the plaintiffs in this case -- paladins who are fighting for our right to see -- have been doing it all wrong! Their point of law is overly narrow because it seems the only Amendments from the Bill of Rights that anyone seems to remember, anymore, are the first and second and maybe the fifth.
But in this case, the judge’s ruling can be proved desperately and blatantly wrong by referring to one of my favorite, under appreciated amendments… the absolutely vital and powerful Sixth.
The Sixth Amendment is the one that empowers citizens to aggressively demand to see. To confront their accusers, to compel witnesses on their own behalf and to have access to any information that might exculpate them from a crime.
Let's be clear about what is at stake. In any conflict between a citizen and the State, there is such a vast disparity of power that only one weapon can possibly level the field and give an innocent person a fighting chance. That weapon is The Truth. It is necessary and should be entirely sufficient. The whole and entire purpose of the Sixth Amendment is to give innocent citizens a fighting chance to use the truth in their own defense.
It is simple, straightforward and obvious to extend the 6th to a citizen's right to (in a manner that does not interfere) record interactions with police. By expanding the number and variety and verifiable quality of "witnesses," such recordings enhance the ability of citizens to compel exculpatory witnesses in their own defense. When the mighty act to suppress such acts of witnessing, they are reducing the very resource the Sixth gives us a right to use. See where I go into this, elsewhere.
It is shameful... simply shameful... that the attorneys fighting these court battles have missed this key argument, obsessing as they have on just the First Amendment. Someone needs to get through to them.
Yes, the First Amendment vitally protects your right to speak.
But the Sixth protects your right to exist.
But in this case, the judge’s ruling can be proved desperately and blatantly wrong by referring to one of my favorite, under appreciated amendments… the absolutely vital and powerful Sixth. The Sixth Amendment is the one that empowers citizens to aggressively demand to see. To confront their accusers, to compel witnesses on their own behalf and to have access to any information that might exculpate them from a crime.
Let's be clear about what is at stake. In any conflict between a citizen and the State, there is such a vast disparity of power that only one weapon can possibly level the field and give an innocent person a fighting chance. That weapon is The Truth. It is necessary and should be entirely sufficient. The whole and entire purpose of the Sixth Amendment is to give innocent citizens a fighting chance to use the truth in their own defense.
It is simple, straightforward and obvious to extend the 6th to a citizen's right to (in a manner that does not interfere) record interactions with police. By expanding the number and variety and verifiable quality of "witnesses," such recordings enhance the ability of citizens to compel exculpatory witnesses in their own defense. When the mighty act to suppress such acts of witnessing, they are reducing the very resource the Sixth gives us a right to use. See where I go into this, elsewhere.
It is shameful... simply shameful... that the attorneys fighting these court battles have missed this key argument, obsessing as they have on just the First Amendment. Someone needs to get through to them.
Yes, the First Amendment vitally protects your right to speak.
But the Sixth protects your right to exist.
== The Cameras! ==
About a third of police departments in the United States have started to use body cameras, and they typically have almost complete control over the programs. Police departments decide when cameras should be rolling, how long the footage is stored, who gets to see it and how it can be used in the future. This article - The Real Problem with Police Video - is perhaps too one-sided… there are some solid arguments for process restraint in releasing raw footage. But the core point is a valid one… that police body and dash cams should be almost-always-on and deposit their footage directly to safe caches that are under neutral control.
Unlike many civil libertarians, I do not demand instant access to public and press! So long as some due process - even one that is slow and careful - ensures eventual transparency, then “eventual” should be good enough. Good enough to deter most bad behavior, good enough to ensure convictions of the blatantly guilty, and good enough to allow defense attorneys access to exculpatory evidence. Instant access to the press is of much lower concern to me. "Eventual" will suffice to get 99% of the good from cop-cams.
It is protecting the data that must be ensured. That alone will make clear to all good cops one essential need, in their own best-interests: “Hey, we better do something about our own thugs on the force, asap.” Indeed, as predicted long ago in The Transparent Society the problem of police tampering with cameras has an inherent solution… which is more cameras.
Unlike many civil libertarians, I do not demand instant access to public and press! So long as some due process - even one that is slow and careful - ensures eventual transparency, then “eventual” should be good enough. Good enough to deter most bad behavior, good enough to ensure convictions of the blatantly guilty, and good enough to allow defense attorneys access to exculpatory evidence. Instant access to the press is of much lower concern to me. "Eventual" will suffice to get 99% of the good from cop-cams.
It is protecting the data that must be ensured. That alone will make clear to all good cops one essential need, in their own best-interests: “Hey, we better do something about our own thugs on the force, asap.” Indeed, as predicted long ago in The Transparent Society the problem of police tampering with cameras has an inherent solution… which is more cameras. Take this recent example - one of many: “In May, Burger King district manager Jay Darshane accused officers of deleting the security footage (of the Laquan McDonald shooting) after spending over three hours in the fast food restaurant on the night of the shooting. According to Darshane, the video equipment was working properly, but 86 minutes of footage, from 9:13 p.m. to 10:39 p.m., disappeared after the officers left. We had no idea they were going to sit there and delete files,” Darshane said. “I mean we were just trying to help the police officers.”
Unable to clearly explain why the 86 minutes disappeared, Police Supt. Garry McCarthy blamed the missing files on technical difficulties. But “NBC5 obtained screenshots taken from a surveillance video inside Burger King on the night of McDonald’s death. The photos appear to show officers using the computer console that recorded the fatal shooting.”
Good cops. You must make examples of the bad ones. Omerto is over. And we will catch this crap, more and more. It’s time.
== Liberal activists and lazy thinking ==
Indolent and reflexive thinking is rife in all directions (except those who have read The Transparent Society ;-) For example: why is there so little acknowledgement that technology helped to make Black Lives Matter come alive?
Demand more tech! Chant it! Urkle should be as big a symbol as Rodney King.
The very first piece of tech that's needed? Simple clips that let folks pin cell phones to their shirts, so they can keep recording while showing cops that their hands are empty! Why have we not seen those clips handed out at every march or rally or to every ghetto youth? Some things truly ought to be obvious.
Oh. This interactive website shows the range of state laws on police body cams: Some states restrict public access to recordings, others require all-party consent, while some states dictate when and where cameras or audio can be used:
== Saving Liberty and Privacy ==
Commercial companies are now specializing in selling hacking services to police agencies and governments, eager for side door and backdoor methods of getting around encryption. While this story is disturbing on many levels, it also shows just how fragile are the quasi-religious hosannahs to encryption that are sung, almost across the board, by would be liberty defenders, ranging from Anonymous to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to Edward Snowden.
Oh, I will credit some of them with good intent. Indeed, my own dread of Big Brother is no less impassioned! No, I am simply amazed that otherwise smart people can actually convince themselves that commonfolk will ever play a game of shrouds and shadows as well as can elites of government, commerce, criminality, technocracy or adversary nations. Refutations come every single week, in an endless litany of (surprise!) leaks.
Oh, I will credit some of them with good intent. Indeed, my own dread of Big Brother is no less impassioned! No, I am simply amazed that otherwise smart people can actually convince themselves that commonfolk will ever play a game of shrouds and shadows as well as can elites of government, commerce, criminality, technocracy or adversary nations. Refutations come every single week, in an endless litany of (surprise!) leaks.
Liberty can be preserved. But we must start by asking “how did we get the freedoms we already have?” That simple question reveals a basic truth. We did not get them by cowering, or following todays reflexive cry that “everybody should hide!”
We got it all through open assertive citizenship. By demanding to supervise. To see.
And finally... pulling back a bit...
We got it all through open assertive citizenship. By demanding to supervise. To see.
And finally... pulling back a bit...
== The abstraction: Liberty is primary. Privacy is desirable, but contingent ==
Look at how our definition of "privacy" changes from generation to generation, even yearly. That malleability is indicative of a CONTINGENT right... one that is important to free humans, but that each generation can redefine to suit its own needs. Like the right to property. Both privacy and property are implicitly supported in the US Constitution, but only in very vague, general terms, leaving each generation free to redefine them.
PRIMARY rights are different. They are rights that we cannot allow any generation or set of leaders to dilute. Because once they are damaged we may never get them back. These are the rights that allow us to knowingly argue about the contingent rights! Primary rights empower us to back out of a mistake.
What rights are paramount and primary? The freedom of citizens to know most of what's going on. The freedom then to openly and in confident safety argue! Freedom of knowledge and of speech are fiercely and explicitly and repeatedly defended in the U.S. Constitution, because almost any constraint - once rationalized - can lead to more, then more. Then a return to the brutally stupid rule by oligarchy that ruined almost every other society.
Our problem is simple: those who place privacy on a pedestal equal to freedom of knowledge and speech are making a huge error. We can have some privacy! But only if freedom comes first.
PRIMARY rights are different. They are rights that we cannot allow any generation or set of leaders to dilute. Because once they are damaged we may never get them back. These are the rights that allow us to knowingly argue about the contingent rights! Primary rights empower us to back out of a mistake.
What rights are paramount and primary? The freedom of citizens to know most of what's going on. The freedom then to openly and in confident safety argue! Freedom of knowledge and of speech are fiercely and explicitly and repeatedly defended in the U.S. Constitution, because almost any constraint - once rationalized - can lead to more, then more. Then a return to the brutally stupid rule by oligarchy that ruined almost every other society.
Our problem is simple: those who place privacy on a pedestal equal to freedom of knowledge and speech are making a huge error. We can have some privacy! But only if freedom comes first.
Alas, many of the measures that are proposed, to "save privacy" will shut information that we'll need, in order to stay free.
