It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Restricts New York Police Surveillance

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Hon. Charles S. Haight Jr., has swung both ways in the ability of the law enforcement agencies in New York City. This article states that certain guidelines are going to be met by the law enforcement, in regards to video tapping civilians at certain events. Under the guidelines, the police may conduct investigations — including videotaping — at political events only if they have indications that unlawful activity may occur, and only after they have applied for permission to the deputy commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division, noting that zero applications had been filed to seek permission to do so.
 



www.nytimes.com
In a rebuke of a surveillance practice greatly expanded by the New York Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal judge ruled today that the police must stop the routine videotaping of people at public gatherings unless there was an indication that unlawful activity may occur.

Nearly four years ago, at the request of New York City, the same judge, Charles S. Haight Jr., had given the police greater authority to investigate political, social and religious groups.

In today’s ruling, however, Judge Haight of Federal District Court in Manhattan found that by videotaping people who were exercising their right to free speech and breaking no laws, the Police Department had ignored the milder limits he had imposed on it in 2003.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Once again, the overreaching arm of the law is being brought back into check. The same Judge that had granted the guidelines of the law enforcement to video tape civilians at political events has revoked that ability, IMO as part of preventing the police from further possible "entrapment".

I personally don't feel, nor believe, that the police would even consider using said video coverage in an attempt to serve it as evidence in case of trouble that takes place at the gatherings. There's always been the idea that provisions are being sought to "name" those that stand up to, or against, governmental bodies as to "smooth the way to success" for the corrupt.

It's good to see that steps are being taken to ensure the rights of the people to voice their opinions, or simply to have their voices heard, without having to feel intimidated by the police.




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I disagree with the decision. Nobody has any "right" to privacy when in public. You are fair game to be videotaped by anyone, including law enforcement. What "rights" of yours have been violated? Please don't cite the non-existent "right to privacy".

And this statement:


Under the guidelines, the police may conduct investigations — including videotaping — at political events only if they have indications that unlawful activity may occur, and only after they have applied for permission to the deputy commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division,

is ridiculous on it's face. Are the police expected to be soothsayers? And if they need to prove prior behavior, well, that's a little like asking them to close the barn door after the horse is galloping down the road, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   


Please don't cite the non-existent "right to privacy".


What?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons

I believe that would cover it.

Again from Amendment IV

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With out probable cause the govt. or in this case the nypd have no right to cast a video net and compare those images to images already in their database.
I supose it would come down to if the judge would find it unreasonable.Is it unreasonable to ask to walk down the street without the police watching you.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody



Please don't cite the non-existent "right to privacy".


What?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons

I believe that would cover it.

This is the most common, and unfortunately erroneous, argument given for the "right to privacy". Nowhere is the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution. It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.





Again from Amendment IV

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With out probable cause the govt. or in this case the nypd have no right to cast a video net and compare those images to images already in their database.
I supose it would come down to if the judge would find it unreasonable.Is it unreasonable to ask to walk down the street without the police watching you.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Where is the search or seizure? Nobody is being detained.

The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   


It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.

You know the current A.G. used that logic recently in a judicial hearing about habius corpus.His logic didn't hold up either.

How about illegally seizing my digital image when I have committed no crime.
Cops want to have a physical presence no problem;take my digital image keep it on file when I have done no wrong;big problem.

Oh yeah that and the judge said they had to stop.

[edit on 16/2/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
This is good news especially since the NYPD was sharing the videos taken with the CIA as well as a foreign government in the Middle East who they were being trained by. Arab-Americans here should not have to worry about being arrested or tortured by Shin Beit merely because they protest against Israeli policy while in the USA when they go to visit their families in Palestine.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
How about illegally seizing my digital image when I have committed no crime.
Cops want to have a physical presence no problem;take my digital image keep it on file when I have done no wrong;big problem.

What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.



Oh yeah that and the judge said they had to stop.

It will be overruled.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
This is good news especially since the NYPD was sharing the videos taken with the CIA as well as a foreign government in the Middle East who they were being trained by. Arab-Americans here should not have to worry about being arrested or tortured by Shin Beit merely because they protest against Israeli policy while in the USA when they go to visit their families in Palestine.

Too bad Mohammed Atta didn't survive; he could have used you as a defense lawyer, eh?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by shooterbrody
How about illegally seizing my digital image when I have committed no crime.
Cops want to have a physical presence no problem;take my digital image keep it on file when I have done no wrong;big problem.

What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.




If there is a film crew out that gets your face in a scene they must usually either ask you to sign a release form or they should alter the image to blank out your face. Normally you can't just go out and film people without their permission.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   


What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.

Any form of government taking your picture when you are at a peacefull political protest is unacceptable.Who is going to protest when they know the government is keeping track of who attended.Unless you break a law the government has no right to infringe on your right to protest.Keeping a list of peacefull protestors is an infringement.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The actions in question imho are at odds with your 4th ammendment right to be secure in your person,and your 1st ammendment right to peacably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Just how do you figure the case will be overruled?The judge that made the original ruling narrowed his definition as it was confusing.Who better to define a ruling other than the judge who made said ruling.

The atta remark is simply out of line.
If we let our government fundamentally change our way of life in the US post 9/11 then the terrorists have won no matter what happens in the middle east.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
If there is a film crew out that gets your face in a scene they must usually either ask you to sign a release form or they should alter the image to blank out your face. Normally you can't just go out and film people without their permission.

If I'm not making money off of it, there's no law to stop me. Even so, paparazzi do it all the time. That's how they make their living.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody



What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.

Any form of government taking your picture when you are at a peacefull political protest is unacceptable.

Unacceptable, iyo. Illegal, no.



Who is going to protest when they know the government is keeping track of who attended.

People who believe in their cause. Not "sunshine patriots".



Unless you break a law the government has no right to infringe on your right to protest.Keeping a list of peacefull protestors is an infringement.

No, keeping a list is not an infringement. Neither is snapping your picture.



Just how do you figure the case will be overruled?The judge that made the original ruling narrowed his definition as it was confusing.Who better to define a ruling other than the judge who made said ruling.

It can be appealed, and if it is, I'm sure that a higher judge will see it differently.



The atta remark is simply out of line.
If we let our government fundamentally change our way of life in the US post 9/11 then the terrorists have won no matter what happens in the middle east.

Well, that's their goal, isn't it? And with the help of sympathizers that want to protect their "rights" at the expense of our safety, they will win.

And now I expect the quote about freedom vs security.......



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If we are afforded no political privacy as you state why do we have a secret ballot system?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.


No, they really don't. If I don't consent to being on video - you really don't have a right to videotape me. And If saw your video tape on the Internet, or the news, I'd take you to court.

You are failing to note the difference between being *Witnessed* in public, and *Recorded* in public. People have the right *not* to be videotaped in public, but obviously, if you do something stupid in public, you will be witnessed.

Hence why the justice system has, and continues to, rely on witness testimony. And this is how it should be.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   


And with the help of sympathizers that want to protect their "rights" at the expense of our safety, they will win.

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A SYMPATHIZER!
I served our country during the first gulf war.I served out of a sense of duty to my country and to protect my country.Just because you don't believe in your own personal rights in no way makes you less safe than you were pre-9/11.I did not serve my country only to let it turn into a police state with terrorism as the catylist.For you to call me a sympathizer because I have a differing opinion than yours reminds me of the "red scare"and McCarthyism.That tactic did not work then and it will not work now.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I apologize for taking so long to get back and making my first response so short, but I must throw in my quick 2 cents.

jsobecky... or anyone else that feels the government/police/anyone has the right to videotape you, or even take your picture...

As far as crime fighting goes... if it's ok for them to take pictures/video tape before a crime has been committed, then why don't they get every single citizens' picture/video before they have to take a "mug shot"?

As shooterbrody stated in his earlier post, the Attorney General made the comment that the Constitution didn't provide for Habeas Corpus, as jsobecky has stated about the Constitution not providing for your rights to privacy... that theory against the Constitution doesn't hold any water. Never has, never will.

As well, does anyone/everyone understand the scope of the judicial branch of our government? The judges are going to pass sentences based on the laws... of which have or have not been determined to be Constitutional. If the NYPD feels they have the right to do as they've been told not to do, then they'd better take it to the supreme court... of which has final authority as to Constitutionality.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A SYMPATHIZER!
I served our country during the first gulf war.I served out of a sense of duty to my country and to protect my country.Just because you don't believe in your own personal rights in no way makes you less safe than you were pre-9/11.I did not serve my country only to let it turn into a police state with terrorism as the catylist.For you to call me a sympathizer because I have a differing opinion than yours reminds me of the "red scare"and McCarthyism.That tactic did not work then and it will not work now.


Dude I wouldn't take it to heart. These are the people ruining this country with their beliefs and attempting to take away peoples rights, but they have been pretty much disarmed anyway. We will see a lot of things that were done to satisfy these people regardless of wether you are innocent or guilty, patriotic or not , reversed. These are the type of people who would see us stifled and isolated from the international community as we are right now. Just look at how they have managed things so far.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
If we are afforded no political privacy as you state why do we have a secret ballot system?

I never said that. Please point out where I said that.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   


Nowhere is the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution. It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.



The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.



What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.



No, keeping a list is not an infringement. Neither is snapping your picture.


There you are, your words.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.


No, they really don't. If I don't consent to being on video - you really don't have a right to videotape me. And If saw your video tape on the Internet, or the news, I'd take you to court.

You are failing to note the difference between being *Witnessed* in public, and *Recorded* in public. People have the right *not* to be videotaped in public, but obviously, if you do something stupid in public, you will be witnessed.

Hence why the justice system has, and continues to, rely on witness testimony. And this is how it should be.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by zeeon]

Show me the law that states you have the right to not be videotaped in public.

And I will show you dozens of cases where video from security cameras was used to help convict criminals.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A SYMPATHIZER!

Until you show me where I called *you* a sympathizer, you'd better cool down.

Unless, of course, you want to state that you are more concerned about the rights of a terrorist than the rights of Americans, which is the case that I was alluding to.

Otherwise, don't get your panties in a knot. Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't work here.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join