question of the day: Is there still an as yet untapped potential for ubiquitous cameras to give power back to the public?

Police themselves seem to have no trouble with the idea of putting cameras on the citizenry at all times, and now that the citizens have cameras themselves, they find themselves feeling a little shy? What a pity.

The writer's equation of cameras with guns is dead-on. Now that the law enforcmeent community and well-intentioned but naive elected officials have successfully taken firearms away from many law-abiding citizens, our best recourse against abuse of power by the state is information. It's sadly no surprise that they want to take that away.

Thanks for getting this information out. It's important that people know about this.

As a Maryland resident the law is pretty clear about "expectations of privacy". In a public place you have no expectation of privacy. That includes the side of a public road.

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes instances where the proceedings will affect a court appearance, such as an arrest. In other words, if a cop is arresting you, you have a right to record it.

Other people may not, however, have a right to record the arrest and this is where the law and practice are hitting a wall. The police contend that people recording them in the performance of their duty puts them at risk of retaliation. I contend that NOT recording them in the performance of their duty puts us at risk of abuse.

There have been several instances this year alone of incidents of police abuses in Maryland that bear out this contention.

Frankly, the "two party consent rule" is just another way that the government is covering their own ass.

Yes, cameras give power to the public, and yes, that is a very good thing. More information is always better. These laws preventing people from videotaping police are flagrantly authoritarian.

Too many cameras take away our rights though. What have you got to hide is what they asked during the Salem witch trials.

Just think, if you were the person who filmed Rodney King getting his ass kicked, you could be arrested for it.

I don't know the ins and outs of the cop punching that girl. From what I hear, she was belligerent and arrogant towards him but I think when he hit her, there an element of him losing control of himself and the situation. I used to have a friend who was a cop - and well anyway - cops are trained to slap handcuffs on people pretty quickly and I can't help thinking that restraining her might have been a wiser way to go. He risked inflaming the situation, especially if there was a group of people gathering. Bad judgement on his part.

Laws preventing police from being videotaped might as well just say outright "we just don't want their brutality publicized". More cameras in the hands of the average person to catch this kind of crap is a good thing.

Yeah, that punch was out of line. Nothing she had done up to that point justified his response. Cops are trained to keep situations calm, not to escalate them. And the ridiculous part is that this was all about a jaywalking offense, which is hardly so serious as to have even warranted the officer's attention in the first place. It's no surprise she responded the way she did over something so minor. I've seen people jaywalk in full view of police cars and had nothing happen.

From what I read, the area she was jaywalking in, is an accident black spot, which is why the cop was there warning people. Do you get fined for that in the States? Was he trying to giver her a friendly warning or punish her?

One of the laws of physics is that you change something by observing it. I'm not going to watch the footage but I have to wonder if the cop felt under pressure when someone started filming him. He may have felt that he needed to assert himself quickly. Cops are crazy, though. Anyone remember that footage of the cop who pulled a gun on someone who threw a snowball at him? Power corrupts!

The last time I returned to my home country, I was shocked by the number of surveillance cameras. Even more surprising was the reaction of my conservative, law abiding mother, who was complaining about how intrusive the cameras were. If she felt they were unjustified, you can imagine the disdain a leftwing hippy like myself felt.
The UK did not question their civil liberties after a particularly shocking murder (Jamie Bulger's murder) when the perpetrators were caught leading the child away on camera in a shopping mall. People wanted the cameras up, because they recorded something that nobody would otherwise want to believe - that the murderers were 10 year old boys. However, in current day to day life, there appears to be no conclusive evidence that the presence of cameras reduces crime.
On the whole I feel no animosity towards the police, however the whole "who is watching the watchers" argument comes into place. (It's not the police, it's privately contracted civilians) Especially when, in the UK, you hear of local councils using CCTV to spy on civilians for very minor acts and misdemeanors.
Where I live has a very low crime rate. I have yet to spot a CCTV camera. The only place in my city I can think of that has surveillance cameras is named after George Orwell. He would be turning in his grave.
The law of "not photographing the police" has become ridiculous, we automatically assume that everyone is a criminal. Surely if we treat people like criminals, they will behave as such accordingly.