Although I called them wiretap laws, iirc they're really called "interception of private communications" statutes (or something like that).
Which is why Glik was arrested when the cop asked him if his phone's video recorder also recorded audio. As soon as Glik said yes ~boom~ he was arrested. The cop thought he had his reason to arrest him. It seems that such statutes are increasingly being used to arrest "unwanted" video recording of uncomfortable events (read: "police brutality") And yes, Glik most assuredly did intercept a communication. Problem was it wasn't "private". It was quite public. So that statute didn't apply. Not even close. And the court agreed in this case. And they now have to pay out civil damages as well. Funny thing is "wiretap" laws had to be enacted in the first place to stop police from wiretapping suspect's phones. You now need the consent of one of the parties or a warrant to do that. Ironic that the police are now trying to use a statute that their own abuses led to, in order to deal with pesky irritants like photographers, civil libertarians and pinko types. Thank goodness guys like Glik are willing to stand up to them. I'm actually quite confident that as these things are eventually appealed to higher and higher courts, our rights to record public events (~especially~ what the police are doing) will be upheld. Cheers, frank "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: "P. J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> Sent: March 31, 2012 3/31/12 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Subject: Re: Photography in public places Sadly wiretap laws are being seriously abused in a number of jurisdictions in the US, not just by the police, but by prosecutors as well. I don't know of any convictions under them, but the intimidation factor is usually enough for state purposes. On 3/28/2012 9:45 AM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > Excellent decision! > > I can't believe the cops would charge him under wire tapping sections of the > criminal code. They apply to private electronic communications, which > photographing police in public is assuredly not. > > Interesting point alluded to in the article: now that so many carry cellphone > cameras and video recorders, and now that so many are blogging and otherwise > posting photos and videos on line the line between journalist photography and > public photography is quite blurred. Several of our tv stations openly > solicite their viewers to submit interesting/newsworthy videos! > > Everyone has the potential to have their work shown on the news, so everyone > should have the same rights to record as the mainstream media. > > Great article, Mark. Thanks for posting. > > Cheers, > frank > > "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- > Christopher Hitchens > > --- Original Message --- > > From: Mark Roberts<postmas...@robertstech.com> > Sent: March 28, 2012 3/28/12 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"<pdml@pdml.net> > Subject: Photography in public places > > Good news for once: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57405594-281/boston-admits-it-cell-phone-photography-is-not-a-crime/ > > -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
