The best way to Record the Cops: A Guide to the Technology For Keeping Government Accountable [Accountability]

This summer the problem of recording on-duty cops -and consequent phone and camera confiscations-has received a substantial amount of attention. Here’s the way to make certain your coverage won’t wander off must you find yourself in this sort of situation.

Camera-wielding citizens were arrested in Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts under interpretations of state wiretapping laws, while others were arrested in New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Florida, and elsewhere based on vaguer charges involving obstructing or interfering with a police officer.

So far Massachusetts is the best state to explicitly uphold a conviction for recording on-duty cops, and Illinois and Massachusetts are the only real states where it truly is clearly illegal. The Illinois law has yet to be considered by the state’s Supreme Court, while the Massachusetts law has yet to be upheld by a federal appeals court. Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler recently issued an opinion concluding that arrests for recording cops are based on a misreading of the state’s wiretapping statute, but that opinion isn’t binding on local prosecutors.

In the remainder 47 states, the law is clearer: It truly is generally legal to record the police, provided that you don’t physically interfere with them. You will be unfairly harassed, questioned, or perhaps arrested, however it’s unlikely you’ll be charged, much less convicted. (These are general observations and will not be treated as legal advice.)

One reason this issue has heated up recently is that the democratization of technology has made it easier than ever for almost anyone to tug out a camera and quickly document an encounter with police. So what’s the right way to record cops? This is a snappy rundown of the technology that’s obtainable.

Cameras without wireless networking capabilities are the least attractive option. If they’re destroyed or confiscated, you’ve probably lost the damning video you simply recorded, including the video documenting how your camera was confiscated or destroyed. But provided you’ll be able to hold on on your camera, digital video recorders today are inexpensive, small, and beautifully practical. The right-known everyday, easy-to-use brand right now is probably the Flip Video line, which start at $149. Even the cheapest Flips fit in your pocket, power up in about three seconds, and feature one-button recording. They are also easy to take advantage of. They include a built-in USB port and instant formatting for sites such as LiveLeak and YouTube .

Kodak has a pocket video camera for $100, and Amazon list a couple dozen different flash-memory cameras for under $50. Still too expensive? For $20, this camera sold at USBGeek is shorter than a stick of gum and shoots 640×480 video at 30 frames per second. It has a memory slot to hold up to 32GB of memory and a two-hour battery life. Or try this keychain camera . It’s tiny, has the advantage of not looking much like a camera, shoots 720×480 video at 30 frames per second, and sells for all of $12 (with free shipping) at Meritline.com.

Last year’s demonstrations in Iran and the 2009 police shooting of Oscar Grant on a subway platfom in Oakland, California were very public incidents, with dozens of cell phones taking photos and video as they happened. Authorities could not possibly have confiscated every phone camera (although in both cases they tried). But in other cases, police confiscate cameras, and when they are returned the potentially incriminating video or photos are gone. But technology is helping there too.

If you find your files or videos have been deleted once your camera has been returned, your best option is to look into recovery software , which in many cases can bring the deleted files back. Don’t use the phone or camera until you’ve tried the software.

The better option, though, is to exploit a camera with networking capabilities. We’re increasingly seeing spy movies-come-to-life cameras like this Bluetooth device from Looxcie, which you wear over your ear and permits you to instantly email video, but a similar technology is additionally standard now in most smart phones. The facility to store audio or video off site-to email it to friends (or yourself), or to upload it to social networking sites-is becoming an increasing number of accessible. And it’s an attractive powerful check on government, as shown by the Iran demonstrations, the Grant shooting, and the alleged police abuses shown in hundreds of videos uploaded to video sharing sites.

Qik and UStream , two services available for both the iPhone and Android phones, allow instant online video streaming and archiving. After you stop recording, the video is quickly saved online. Both services also permit you to send out a mass email or notice in your Twitter followers when you’ve got posted a new video from your phone. Not only will your video of police misconduct be preserved, but so will the video of the police officer illegally confiscating your phone (assuming you continue recording until that point).

Neither Qik nor UStream market themselves for this purpose, and it probably does not make good business sense for them to accomplish that, given the chance of angering law enforcement agencies and attracting attention from regulators. Nevertheless it’s hard to overstate the flexibility of streaming and rancid-site archiving. In advance of this technology, prosecutors and the courts nearly always deferred to the police narrative; now that narrative needs to be in keeping with independently recorded evidence. And as examples of police reports contradicted by video become increasingly common, a number of things tend to happen: Prosecutors and courts will likely be less inclined to uncritically accept police testimony, even in cases where there isn’t any video, and bad cops will probably be deterred by the information that their misconduct is apt to be recorded.

But there continues to be room for improvement. With both Qik and UStream, you may delete your uploaded videos from your phone, because of this in case your phone is confiscated before you could turn it off (or while you keep your phone unlocked), whoever took it may get into your account and erase your evidence. One not terribly reliable way around this problem could be to encourage any of your pals or Twitter followers who happen to be online at the time to download your video the moment they get notice of it. However could be far better in the event you had the technique to make your videos deletable only when you’ve logged in from a computer. Another improvement often is the ability to ” black out” the phone while it’s taking video, so it isn’t so obvious that you simply’re recording.

UStream and Qik don’t seem to be more likely to add either function, since both are beneficial only for those that have the desire to make surreptitious recordings. But how about an ACLU or NAACP app designed specifically for recording police? The NAACP’s ” All Alert” project encourages people to report incidents of police abuse through a toll-free phone number, text messages, or Twitter. But the process for registering a complaint is pretty cumbersome, and the program doesn’t allow instant streaming and archiving.

Scott Morgan of Flex Your Rights , which educates people about their rights during police encounters, says his organization has been exploring the opportunity of offering this type of service. ” I believe it’s an amazing idea,” Morgan says. ” We’ve talked to some developers about it. I suspect the issue for a small group like us is getting server space for videos and figuring out the networking issues.” Globally, it’ll make great sense for a corporation like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to develop an analogous easy-to-use application, allowing people around the world to emulate the instant documentation we saw through the protests in Iran.

The dizzying advancements in personal technology over the past decade have slipped a robust government accountability tool into our pockets. However happened mostly by chance. The technology was intended for other uses, and it still needs some fine tuning to work better as a protection against abuses of state power. It’s hard to think about a more worthy project for a civil liberties group.

Radley Balko is a Senior Editor for Reason Magazine , where this newsletter originally appeared.

Source

This post is tagged: federal appeals court, general observations, maryland attorney general, maryland illinois, wireless networking capabilities