Secretly Record The Police On Your Phone
Ethan I. Solomon posts at CopBlock about a new app put out by the ACLU to secretly record the police.
(Story is short on facts -- he doesn't mention the name of the app, but if you search for ACLU police tape app, I think it'll come up -- can't get my phone to connect to app store now and Gregg is sleeping.)
Excerpt from the piece:
A new phone app from the ACLU is designed to run in the background on Android cellphones and an audio only version for the iPhone. The feature allows users to record video or audio without showing on the phones screen. In case the officer asks to see your phone he or she won't be able to tell that it is in fact recording."Police often videotape civilians and civilians have a constitutionally protected right to videotape police," Alexander Shalom, ACLU NJ's policy counsel told The Star-Ledger . "When people know they're being watched, they tend to behave well."
While this particular app is technically only legal for use in New Jersey, there is a growing market for similar apps in places around the globe. It seems like it will only be a matter of time until similar applications are made available.
Why the sudden trend of videotaping police? Other than the obvious facts of the proliferation of video and picture capturing devices out there is the fact that it is a way to keep ourselves safe from corrupt police who take advantage of their position within the community. Anyone decrying their use must have something to lose, something they don't want people to see on video camera.
There is no reason why officers should be scared to be taped unless they are doing something wrong. They should be following the rules and regulations set down for them in a polite and helpful manner. That is their job, that is what they are paid to do. It should not be that in America we should be scared of our police.
"This app provides an essential tool for police accountability," ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs said in a statement. "Too often incidents of serious misconduct go unreported because citizens don't feel that they will be believed. Here, the technology empowers citizens to place a check on police power directly."
I'm seriously thinking my next USB headset is going yp be this: http://looxcie.com/looxcie
Jim P. at July 13, 2012 12:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/13/secretly_record.html#comment-3260848">comment from Jim P.Here's the Looxcie at Amazon.
Amy Alkon
at July 13, 2012 12:39 AM
ACLU-NJ Police Tape is the app's name. You can read the PC Mag article on it.
Looxcie, eh? that's a spiffy looking little gadget.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 13, 2012 6:17 AM
I get the difference between a police officer being a public servant and the rest of us being private citizens, but unqualified statements like this make me cringe:
"Anyone decrying their use must have something to lose, something they don't want people to see on video camera."
This is the mentality that leads people to meekly accept the continuing erosion of their rights. I'd hope someone championing civil rights would at least clarify the difference between public & private before tossing off such a trite argument.
Niki at July 13, 2012 7:09 AM
I would get this ap - not that it would get much use. I was stopped this week for the first time in 16 years. The officer certainly incited my wrath. He kept asking me to take my license out of my wallet which I was struggling mightily to do. Why keep repeating after I have said, yes sir and I'm trying to sir. Are his orders supposed to make my license fly out of my wallet?
Jen at July 13, 2012 8:21 AM
I kept having trouble getting my license out when I needed to buy a decongestant at a pharmacy. I put a little loop of scotch tape on one end. It makes a little tab you can use to pull it out with.
nonegiven at July 13, 2012 10:03 AM
"Anyone decrying their use must have something to lose, something they don't want people to see on video camera."
This is nothing more or less than the presumption of guilt.
Exercise for the reader: if you presume the police to be guilty as a matter of course, should you then assume that the general public is similarly guilty?
I know the answer to this. I'm trying to get you to think about the concept of the presumption of guilt.
Radwaste at July 13, 2012 5:48 PM
Radwaste:
Exercise for the reader: if you presume the police to be guilty as a matter of course, should you then assume that the general public is similarly guilty?
The point of saying that about the police is turning back around their (oft-made) statements as a "exercise for the listener".
So you turning it back around means we're back at the start.
But as it happens, yes, you can presume that. Except for one major difference.
The police are "public servants", on the public payroll, and paid to be the people enforcing the laws/regulations and other manifestations of the social contract.
How they do that is directly counter to their personal privacy - on the job.
Unix-Jedi at July 14, 2012 11:53 AM
Leave a comment