We've gone full circle: ACLU calls on police to stop recording peaceful demonstrations - Polidicks

[quote]PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island accused Providence police Friday morning of videotaping protesters in a deliberate attempt to ”intimidate” demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights.[/quote] ACLU statement is in the source. [url]http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20150123-aclu-calls-on-providence-police-to-stop-recording-peaceful-demonstrations.ece[/url]

Police should wear them purely for job safety.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46999353]Police should wear them purely for job safety.[/QUOTE] Protesters can get rowdy.

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;46999452]Protesters can get rowdy.[/QUOTE] And then get a tear-gas canister to the sternum. and then we're right back where we started.

[quote]deliberate attempt to ”intimidate” demonstrators exercising their First Amendment rights.[/quote] The fuck are you talking about. If you are intimidated by a fucking camera you are either deranged or someone looking to start shit.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46999513]The fuck are you talking about. If you are intimidated by a fucking camera you are either deranged or someone looking to start shit.[/QUOTE] It's because "protesters" usually think shoving a camera in a cop's face intimidates them.

how the fuck is the police video taping them "intimidating"

There is legitimate reason to be concerned. Cops can fly a quadcopter with a good camera over a protest, feed the image into a facial recognition system, and identify pretty much everyone at that protest depending on what databases (BMV?) that department has access to. With that information, they don't have to deal with arresting people at the scene of the protest. The authorities can simply divide and conquer by intimidating or arresting people at their homes and workplaces after the fact. They could get a lot of people fired just by sending their bosses pictures of them at a protest. Or just, you know, stick that information in your file for later reference. Maybe the police won't be as inclined to help you when they see you were at an anti-police protest a year earlier. It's really not that farfetched. The potential for abuse like that has been around for years. It just takes the will to use it. But blurry body-mounted shakycams don't do that. And, you know, put on a ski mask or something if you're afraid of being ID'd at a protest.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46999640]There is legitimate reason to be concerned. Cops can fly a quadcopter with a good camera over a protest, feed the image into a facial recognition system, and identify pretty much everyone at that protest depending on what databases (BMV?) that department has access to. With that information, they don't have to deal with arresting people at the scene of the protest. The authorities can simply divide and conquer by intimidating or arresting people at their homes and workplaces after the fact. They could get a lot of people fired just by sending their bosses pictures of them at a protest. Or just, you know, stick that information in your file for later reference. Maybe the police won't be as inclined to help you when they see you were at an anti-police protest a year earlier. It's really not that farfetched. The potential for abuse like that has been around for years. It just takes the will to use it. [/QUOTE]Like, have you been playing way too much Watchdogs? That shit isn't real, you know.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999669]Like, have you been playing way too much Watchdogs? That shit isn't real, you know.[/QUOTE] Someplace like NYC, it literally is. [URL="http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/new_york_reports_2500_fraud_ar.html"]Their BMV system is already equipped with facial recognition.[/URL] [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/"]Local police like the NYPD have access to a massive FBI facial recognition database.[/URL] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/tech/innovation/security-cameras-boston-bombings/"]Parts of the NYC CCTV system can automatically acquire, look up, and track faces, and have a 30 day memory.[/URL] Sorry, it's really not science fiction anymore. It's real, and it's been around for years. The NSA has been expanding the federal facial recognition database by data mining Facebook and other social media. Nobody really knows how extensive their database is, but some automated scanning of Facebook alone would give them facial information on the vast majority of Americans. Their intel already percolates down to DHS and their sub-agencies. It's not far away from being accessible to any cop sitting in a patrol car with a computer. Some protester called you a fat pig? Well, a quick picture later, and you know exactly who he is, where he works, where he lives, and who his family and friends are.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999669]Like, have you been playing way too much Watchdogs? That shit isn't real, you know.[/QUOTE] You'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do in a government that engages in blanket surveillance, and is now trying to criminalize Snowden-style whistleblowing with a minimum ten year sentence.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46999640]There is legitimate reason to be concerned. Cops can fly a quadcopter with a good camera over a protest, feed the image into a facial recognition system, and identify pretty much everyone at that protest depending on what databases (BMV?) that department has access to. With that information, they don't have to deal with arresting people at the scene of the protest. The authorities can simply divide and conquer by intimidating or arresting people at their homes and workplaces after the fact. They could get a lot of people fired just by sending their bosses pictures of them at a protest. Or just, you know, stick that information in your file for later reference. Maybe the police won't be as inclined to help you when they see you were at an anti-police protest a year earlier. It's really not that farfetched. The potential for abuse like that has been around for years. It just takes the will to use it. But blurry body-mounted shakycams don't do that. And, you know, put on a ski mask or something if you're afraid of being ID'd at a protest.[/QUOTE] Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

[QUOTE=archangel125;46999728]You'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do in a government that engages in blanket surveillance, and is now trying to criminalize Snowden-style whistleblowing with a minimum ten year sentence.[/QUOTE] I don't doubt the surveillance as much as the efficiency and accuracy of modern facial recognition accessible to a police department.

[QUOTE=Levelog;46999741]I don't doubt the surveillance as much as the efficiency and accuracy of modern facial recognition accessible to a police department.[/QUOTE] On that I agree. The idea of the government using some of the information gatherered for clandestine blackmail under an anonymous alias? Totally plausible to me.

[QUOTE=archangel125;46999728]You'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do in a government that engages in blanket surveillance, and is now trying to criminalize Snowden-style whistleblowing with a minimum ten year sentence.[/QUOTE] They're trying to criminalize people who whole sale give out tons of US secrets to the entire world, not to mention breaking his contract in doing so? What Snowden unveiled was something that needed to be unveiled, but don't act like the government shouldn't have or wouldn't have not done so, and don't act like any other government wouldn't have either.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46999669]Like, have you been playing way too much Watchdogs? That shit isn't real, you know.[/QUOTE] some casinos have facial recognition software for identifying cheaters and other undesirables. it's not far fetched that cops might have similar technology. it's a stupid concern though, you'll never get a positive id off a chest cam

[QUOTE=archangel125;46999728]You'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do in a government that engages in blanket surveillance, and is now trying to criminalize Snowden-style whistleblowing with a minimum ten year sentence.[/QUOTE] Are people still pretending that the US is the only western government that does this?

Ho-ho-HOLY FUCK. Pick your battles and make up your mind. [B]You cannot have your cake and eat it too.[/B]

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46999796]Are people still pretending that the US is the only western government that does this?[/QUOTE] Oh, Canada's been using the intel you guys have been gathering too, since our own intelligence agencies don't have the infrastructure. Under this cocksucker of a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, I'm willing to bet we'd be doing the same if we could. However, I don't like it, and I don't think anything justifies it. Saying a government can spy on its own people because 'hey, what government won't, right?' is a load of horseshit. It's a step closer to a police state and I'm opposed to anyone who thinks it's a good idea. I'd rather have my freedoms and less security than have the government invade my privacy and have access to all of my personal communications for a little more safety.

[QUOTE=archangel125;46999728]You'll forgive me if I don't have as much faith as you do in a government that engages in blanket surveillance, and is now trying to criminalize Snowden-style whistleblowing with a minimum ten year sentence.[/QUOTE] After the Snowden leaks, honestly, I'm willing to believe that anything is possible. Go back five years and say that 'the NSA is spying on us, reading our emails, and planting tracking chips in our laptops' and you'd be laughed out of the room. It's a reality at this point, and I don't think it's fair to continue laughing at the idea of further surveillance being possible.

lool fuck off ACLU. In a world where people see one story about a bad cop on the evening news and decide all cops are to be shit on, disrespected and the like it'd be about as dumb to not wear a bodycam as it is to not wear your kevlar vest. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46999640]There is legitimate reason to be concerned.[/quote] No, there isn't. [quote] Cops can fly a quadcopter with a good camera over a protest[/quote] Yeah so can I and anyone else with access to about $500 worth of commercial grade RC gear and a GoPro Hero 3. Hell, I can go one step farther, my drone would look just like a Cessna to the people on the ground since my RC airacraft is a 67" wingspan, .46cid powered high-wing trainer. Unless you're heavily into aviation you're never going to be able to tell my Hobbico NexSTAR from a Cessna 172 at 11PM in the middle of a noisy protest. The conditions drown out the obvious clues pretty quickly. [quote] feed the image into a facial recognition system, and identify pretty much everyone at that protest depending on what databases[/quote] And they can do that with security footage of the businesses that inevitably get trashed by the people who deserve police attention. [quote]With that information, they don't have to deal with arresting people at the scene of the protest.[/quote] Which is good. It's more dangerous for them to try to make the arrest in the crowd. [quote] The authorities can simply divide and conquer by intimidating or arresting people at their homes and workplaces after the fact. They could get a lot of people fired just by sending their bosses pictures of them at a protest. [/quote] Which they wouldn't do. Watching a significant chunk of their paycheck disappear to settle just one wrongful arrest lawsuit is enough of a deterrent. Doing this sort of thing en masse would, quite literally, bankrupt any police department in the union. Not even LAPD or NYPD could survive more than ten or so high-profile wrongful arrest suits clearing at one time. [quote]Or just, you know, stick that information in your file for later reference. Maybe the police won't be as inclined to help you when they see you were at an anti-police protest a year earlier. It's really not that farfetched. The potential for abuse like that has been around for years. It just takes the will to use it. [/quote] And that will will never come because it is blatantly illegal to do those things. Cops doing so can and will find themselves in jail. The blue wall only goes so far, when you're doing this sort of stuff you're pretty much el-bonerino'd. [quote]But blurry body-mounted shakycams don't do that.[/quote] They can and do. There's another thread in SH right now identifying someone who murdered a cop at point blank range. [quote] And, you know, put on a ski mask or something if you're afraid of being ID'd at a protest.[/QUOTE] So basically give cops probable cause that you're going to be turning a peaceful protest into a riot, then? The right to peacefully assemble without fear of police retailiation is ensconced in our very constitution. No police department is ever going to encroach on that, it would only end in a complete shitstorm centered on them.

[QUOTE=TestECull;47001190] The right to peacefully assemble without fear of police retailiation is ensconced in our very constitution. No police department is ever going to encroach on that, it would only end in a complete shitstorm centered on them.[/QUOTE] Your entire argument boils down to "They're too honest to do that!" I'm not buying it. This is what your right to peacefully assemble without fear of retaliation looks like today: [IMG]http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Police-action-in-Ferguson-690.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47001278]Your entire argument boils down to "They're too honest to do that!" I'm not buying it. This is what your right to peacefully assemble without fear of retaliation looks like today: [IMG]http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Police-action-in-Ferguson-690.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Cherrypicked and likely staged pictures will get you nowhere. Stop doing what Fox News does and [i]think[/i] for a minute.

[QUOTE=TestECull;47001321]Cherrypicked and likely staged pictures will get you nowhere. Stop doing what Fox News does and [i]think[/i] for a minute.[/QUOTE] wait i can get cherrypicked but how do you even stage an image like that

Cameras are valid sources for evidence, why would they stop using them during protests? With all the protests that ended up damaging property and such they're going to need the videos to prosecute.

[QUOTE=Cone;47001380]wait i can get cherrypicked but how do you even stage an image like that[/QUOTE]Staged does not mean the scene was scripted, but that the photographer intentionally took the picture in a misleading way using opportunistic positioning, framing, timing, and the like. Basically the photographer takes the shot in a way that presents the scene in a different way than it really was.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47001278]Your entire argument boils down to "They're too honest to do that!" I'm not buying it. This is what your right to peacefully assemble without fear of retaliation looks like today: [IMG]http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Police-action-in-Ferguson-690.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Is that a paintball gun? [IMG]http://puu.sh/eXMff/8208a3e11d.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Waffle Lord;47001504]Is that a paintball gun? [IMG]http://puu.sh/eXMff/8208a3e11d.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] filled with .68 caliber solid rubber and pepperball rounds

[QUOTE=Waffle Lord;47001504]Is that a paintball gun? [IMG]http://puu.sh/eXMff/8208a3e11d.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Probably pepperball gun

[QUOTE=MR-X;47001416]Cameras are valid sources for evidence, why would they stop using them during protests? With all the protests that ended up damaging property and such they're going to need the videos to prosecute.[/QUOTE] That's likely the exact reason they don't want the cameras on them. "We shouldn't be arrested! We're just protesting!"