Does anyone else find it a little ironic/hypocritical that the gov cries about wanting its "privacy" in cases such as this but is constantly pressing for more warrantless wiretapping? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the assumption that without a warrant, the government isn’t restricted to charging you with only the specific crimes it was looking for in the scope of the warrant. So basically, by Obama doing things such as expanding the executive branch’s rights to wiretap without warrants, he’s taking a giant dump on civil rights/our right to privacy. Do you notice all of those “CIA is hiring!” commercials on the radio now? Don’t you think it’s a little odd that the CIA would be trying to recruit with cheesy radio commercials in the first place? Those are because they’re hiring masses of workers to sift through all the information from their increased scope of wiretapping. This reminds me of the NKVD (the Soviet Secret Police) back in the 50s. They’d give rewards to ppl for spying on their neighbors and turning them in, and it rapidly snowballed into a frenzy of paranoid witch hunts and people getting their whole lives ruined because they were “told on” and suspected or mistaken for doing something that was deemed a threat to the Soviet Union. They used fear to turn the country against itself – much in the same way that the Patriot Act is. On a side note, I've been noticing that these home security companies have been using fear to peddle their home video camera systems, too (which can be easily monitored by the government, giving them a direct feed into your own house… just look at the pictures on the adt website). The whole scenario that happened in Russia seems especially plausible, considering the leftist authoritarianism (a la Soviet Union) that Obama is steering this country towards. Now I’m not trying to fear monger here, I’m just saying that we have all the right ingredients here to make a huge mistake that Russia made half a century ago, and all the people on here defending it because it in the name of homeland security should be aware that they’re going down this same route.

Warrantless wiretapping is just another small domino that is knocked down towards the de-evolution of America into a police state. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the assumption that without a warrant, the government isn’t restricted to charging you with only the specific crimes it was looking for in the scope of the warrant. So basically, by Obama expanding the executive branch’s rights to wiretap without warrants, he’s taking a giant dump on civil rights/our right to privacy. Do you notice all of those “CIA is hiring!” commercials on the radio now? Don’t you think it’s a little odd that the CIA would be trying to recruit with cheesy radio commercials in the first place? Those are because they’re hiring masses of workers to sift through all the information from their increased scope of wiretapping. This reminds me of the NKVD (the Soviet Secret Police) back in the 50s. They’d give rewards to ppl for spying on their neighbors and turning them in, and it rapidly snowballed into a frenzy of paranoid witch hunts and people getting their whole lives ruined because they were “told on” and suspected or mistaken for doing something that was deemed a threat to the Soviet Union. They used fear to turn the country against itself – much in the same way that the Patriot Act is. On a side note, I've been noticing that these home security companies have been using fear to peddle their home video camera systems, too (which can be easily monitored by the government, giving them a direct feed into your own house… just look at the pictures on the adt website). The whole scenario that happened in Russia seems especially plausible, considering the leftist authoritarianism (a la Soviet Union) that Obama is steering this country towards. Now I’m not trying to fear monger here, I’m just saying that we have all the right ingredients here to make a huge mistake that Russia made half a century ago, and all the people on here defending it because it in the name of homeland security should be aware that they’re going down this same route.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
by Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com.

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate....more at Gizmodo

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/polic...

And this from Law.com

Massachusetts lawyer Simon Glik is suing three Boston police officers and the city in Boston federal court for arresting him after he used his cell phone to record an arrest.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed Glik v. Cunniffe in the District of Massachusetts on Monday, along with Boston attorney Howard Friedman.

Glik was arrested in October 2007 after openly using his cell phone to record police allegedly using force during a Boston arrest. The Boston Municipal Court threw out the case after four months. At the time of his arrest, Glik was a recent New England School of Law graduate, who had just wrapped up a clerkship with the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court Department.

Glik seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.

The lawsuit says Glik is suing the city for "failing to properly train Boston police officers that they cannot arrest people for openly making video or audio recordings of their conduct in public."

The suit also claims the city "failed to supervise and discipline" Boston police officers to ensure that they made arrests that complied with the state's unlawful wiretap statute.

The defendants include the city, police sergeant John Cunniffe, police officer Peter Savalis and police officer Hall-Brewster, whose first name is unknown to the plaintiffs.

Reached by telephone at his West Roxbury, Mass., residence, Glik referred all questions to his attorneys.

The Massachusetts statute bars only secret audio recordings of police activity, not open audio recordings or any type of video recording, said Friedman, who specializes in civil rights and police misconduct claims.

"We hope the lawsuit will have the effect of changing the practice and training policies in Boston and also in other departments that will learn of the case and see the precedent set by the decisions in this case," Friedman said.

The Boston Police Department generally doesn't comment on pending litigation, said spokesman Eddy Chrispin.

Christopher Loh, a spokesman in mayor Thomas Menino's press office, said the city had no comment at this time because it hasn't been served with the lawsuit.