The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

My favourite moment, for those of you unfamiliar with Canadian politics, is at 4:20 when they realize she's connected to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews

This was the tail end of his political career:

"In February 2012, as Minister, Toews introduced the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act (also known as Bill C-30).[118][119] If passed, the bill would grant police agencies expanded powers, mandate that internet service providers (ISPs) provide subscriber information without a warrant and compel providers to reveal information transmitted over their networks with a warrant. When criticised about privacy concerns, Toews responded that people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."[120] Public response followed, with an anonymous Twitter account posting personal information of Toews' court proceedings during his divorce, and around this time Conservative support appeared to back away from the bill and open up to amendments.[121] Toews later denied that he had made the "child pornographers" reference, despite his comments being available in Hansard and on video.[122] In February 2013 the government announced Bill C-30 would be scrapped entirely in favor of changes in Canada's warrant-less wiretap law"

I do, but only because "nobody" = "no person". So that statement is technically true, even though computers (not people) are recording ALL phone calls, and doing speech-to-text, and looking for keywords, and those keywords being flagged as present in the metadata, and used by the algorithms. So yes, a court order might be needed for a human to actually listen to a full conversation, but it already goes way beyond the intentions of the old wiretapping laws.

Email, which is plaintext (unencrypted), should never be considered secure. The FBI used Carnivore before it was legal (Patriot Act) and continue to use electronic surveillance in every form possible. (within the secret "legal" framework and oversight)

I guess the only real controversy is exactly how many classified programs that congress knows about and approves of, and votes to renew regularly? How can the people know how their representative is voting if the ballots are done in secret?

Jesse Ventura 2016!

Fucking cops. Part-timing as a security guard at Wal-Mart with his police uni on. Is that legal?

Anyhoo, the only state where it's illegal to video a cop, even cops in public with no expectation of privacy, is Illinois. All other states, as far as I know, even those with laws (wiretapping laws) requiring both parties (the recorder and the recorded) to be aware of said recording, recognize that police in public have no expectation of privacy and may be recorded, as long as you aren't breaking any laws (like trespassing) to do so.

Cops lie. It's just a fact. They rely on the public's ignorance. Don't be ignorant. Know your rights. This shit won't end until cops are afraid to challenge informed citizens like this. Oversight, so far, is effectively non-existant. I think the reality of police behavior in this country is untenable in today's age of camera phones and instant media. Something has got to give. Keep recording these assholes.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This is similar to what happened here http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

However on September 27, 2010, some criminal charges against Graber were dropped. Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.

This situation is no different.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This doesn't apply to public spaces where there is no expectation of privacy.

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).

>> ^curiousity:

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)


Same over here, audio has different "weight" than video.

@conan
Depends on the state. Most of the time you can get away with it because it is public property (and owned private property) and it is not recording any sound (avoids following under wiretapping laws.)

I bet the cops have a serious hard-on for this guy. If a recording device is part of your body, do wiretap laws still apply?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Wonder if all those changes in wiretapping laws had more to do with domestic control than foreign terrorism? There would be no reason to attempt a third rate burglary if you could legally amass volumes of embarrassing private details of the lives of potentially troublesome politicians.


My guess is that they were trying to remove some of the more annoying hoops people had to jump through for legit investigations. Label someone as a "possible terrorist" and tracking them becomes less tedious. I suppose it could also make gathered evidence less likely to be thrown out in court, civil liberties be damned.

At the same time, I just assume there is some level of unregulated monitoring going on with or without the changes. It wouldn't be admissible in court, but that isn't a problem if they're trying to hide the monitoring to begin with. Corporations and knowledgeable individuals do it too.

Wonder if all those changes in wiretapping laws had more to do with domestic control than foreign terrorism? There would be no reason to attempt a third rate burglary if you could legally amass volumes of embarrassing private details of the lives of potentially troublesome politicians.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I didn't say "anyone's" encrypted traffic. You said that they could listen to their own encrypted traffic and citizens can't.
OK, that was a little trollish of me


A citizen can do just the same, encrypt their radio traffic too. You must be inferring that I said citizens have a right to listen to encrypted police traffic, and that is governed by a completely different set of laws. Only courts can authorize that kind of action.

In any case, wiretapping laws are generally much more severe than traffic laws. Equating the two in argument is a bit obtuse; because one is criminal and the other is generally civil (Referring to felonious speeding and reckless driving).

There are good arguments here, and people should be aware of both sides. Often times these arguments are better suited for civil court cases simply because people cannot make policy changing decisions (case law). If the producer of the video has a serious case with the police violating the law he need only take it up with a lawyer, and seek a civil suit against the Department.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Right exactly.
When the public decodes the signal, it's "highjacking", but when the cops decode the signal, it's called "listening".
Just like when a cop is sitting in a red zone in his car it's called "observing". And when a citizen does it, it's called "illegally parking".
I can't believe you thought you just won that argument. I'm not a troll just because I have what I feel is a legitimate point to make.


The officer has to have legal authority (Warrant) to decode the secure traffic because of the many number of laws which calls lawful authority to decode encrypted traffic. The 4th ammendment, and the Computer Intrusion acts, wiretapping laws, even postal laws. An officer simply cannot make that decision it warrants a Judge take a look and be sure that the act is lawful.

I assumed you were trolling, based on this comment "C'mon, let's hear it...?".

I can't believe you actually think that an officer of the law has the legal right to decode anyone's encrypted traffic without sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I don't give a shit what the biker was doing. That cop should be fired, and here's why. Pull a weapon with no identification, and just say you are State Police? Given different circumstances that cop could have been killed for that break in protocol, or put innocent lives of motorists in danger. In my state the unmarked cars have lights and sirens.
What would he have done if the biker had fled? Shot him? I'm sure that would have been all well in court, as he was subduing a dangerous criminal. Felony speeding is not assault with a deadly weapon.
I'm all for the biker being arrested but I'm also pretty fucking pissed about the weapon with no identification. Shit makes me irate.
I'm also a bit pissed they took all his shit for a faulty wiretapping law. Schmawy thanks for the context, I was under the impression that the cop was being a dip-shit.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

The (marked) state police car was directly behind him. They were chasing the guy down. Watch the end of the longer video. The guy on the bike knew he was being pulled over .. watch him look behind himself at 3:00 before he finally has to stop. This guy was fleeing. The cop was totally in his rights to draw his weapon, which he immediately holstered after he had the situation under control.
Weird how there's no audio (sirens) in the longer version isn't it?


I saw no lights on that vehicle, no way to signal to other motorists the danger of an emergency situation.

That's "marked" car? Where are the lights? I don't see the red and blue.

In other words! Freeze! Enhance!

http://videosift.com/video/Hollywood-s-favourite-meme-Zoom-Enhance