This is not unexpected when you consider the number of times citizen have recorded police officers using excessive force. Those same videos that will wind up on YouTube to dispute the official findings.
It depends on the local laws and where you are doing at the moment. If this is correct for Maryland residents: "a person may not "willfully intercept" what it calls "oral communications." It defines "oral communications" as "any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." Then to record the conversation would be illegal but recording the visual images would not be illegal. So if I was across the street and I see a police action but I can't record the sound I'm ok? It makes no sense. Equally makes no sense that there is not a clear or specific policy that can be communicated to the public. You certainly do not want police officers interpreting their own understanding of the law. There is a Gizmodo post about this: http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogr...@...> wrote: > > All: > Thought I might bring this up for discussion (the issue having recently made > national news), as some may not be fully aware of their rights while > shooting video in or on public lands and places. The ramifications of this > story are chilling, but not insurmountable if one knows their rights. > > On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, > until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber > wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the police > stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was in > plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never seen > one). > > After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of his > stop by the policemen. This apparently rubbed law enforcement the wrong way, > who on April 7th showed up at Graber's door with a search and arrest warrant > for "wiretapping" under Maryland State law (resulting from Anthony's video > post on YT). Maryland wiretap law mandates two-party consent for electronic > recording. Police seized all Graber's computers, cameras and electronics as > purportedly containing or constituting evidence. > > ...Problem is Graber broke no wiretap laws! > > If you'd like to discuss WHY Graber broke no wiretap laws, post accordingly. > Otherwise, lacking that interest, one gets what they get should the > wrongfully cite of "wiretapping" ever come up, after shooting footage in > public. ;) > > Mark Villaseñor, > http://www.TailTrex.tv > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm > http://www.SOAR508.org >
