Man Arrested For Video Taping Police
This is total bunk...
Clearly the charges against this man are totally outrageous. That being said, this case does provide something of a dillema for privacy absolutists who support things like dual-consent recording laws.
See, in some states before you are allowed to video tape or tape record anyone (even people you're talking to on the telephone or in person) you must notify the person being recorded (or in group settings all persons being recorded). In other states (my home state of North Dakota, for instance) no such notification is required. If you are in a position where you can see the person or overhear the person you can record what you see/hear legally.
Personally, I think the latter is how things should be. I think that if you call me on the telephone (or even if I call you) I should be able to record our conversation without having to tell you. I also think that if you're out on your front lawn clearly visible from public space then I should be able to video tape what you're doing.
To me it's all about what expectation of privacy a person has. If you're walking around nude on your front lawn you have zero expectation of privacy. If you're shouting things loudly across a public park you have zero expectation of privacy. If you're a police officer in my home you have zero expectation of privacy.
That's just how it should work.
NASHUA – A city man is charged with violating state wiretap laws by recording a detective on his home security camera, while the detective was investigating the man’s sons.
Michael Gannon, 49, of 26 Morgan St., was arrested Tuesday night, after he brought a video to the police station to try to file a complaint against Detective Andrew Karlis, according to Gannon’s wife, Janet Gannon, and police reports filed in Nashua District Court.
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective’s consent.
Clearly the charges against this man are totally outrageous. That being said, this case does provide something of a dillema for privacy absolutists who support things like dual-consent recording laws.
See, in some states before you are allowed to video tape or tape record anyone (even people you're talking to on the telephone or in person) you must notify the person being recorded (or in group settings all persons being recorded). In other states (my home state of North Dakota, for instance) no such notification is required. If you are in a position where you can see the person or overhear the person you can record what you see/hear legally.
Personally, I think the latter is how things should be. I think that if you call me on the telephone (or even if I call you) I should be able to record our conversation without having to tell you. I also think that if you're out on your front lawn clearly visible from public space then I should be able to video tape what you're doing.
To me it's all about what expectation of privacy a person has. If you're walking around nude on your front lawn you have zero expectation of privacy. If you're shouting things loudly across a public park you have zero expectation of privacy. If you're a police officer in my home you have zero expectation of privacy.
That's just how it should work.
RebTex
Proof
Hannitized
robert108
realitybasedbob
likwidshoe
Carrick
Neiman
Bike Bubba
