Debate Magazine

Do Laws Against Video Recording of Public Servants Like Police Violate Our Rights

Posted on the 26 November 2011 by Mikeb302000
I enjoy adding new concepts and new knowledge to what I know. My background in French prompts me to want to scream that the second 's' in sousveillance, 'sous', pronounced like the given name Sue, being the opposite of the French 'sur' for above or over. But far more significant, and something that was otherwise below my personal radar was the notion that we cannot, in some places, preserve a record of events involving authority.
I had always been taught that you could legally and properly video anyone in a public place for personal use. That rule of thumb is clearly changing, but I doubt most of us have been aware of that change.  I believe this is a change we should all oppose.
The events in Arab spring were in large part triggered by this kind of video going viral, beginning with the social media.  It has also been a huge part of the response which grew the Occupy Wall Street protests from a few people to so many, after the videotaping of what many consider a police abuse of power.
Arguably our holding our authority organizations, and we might add to that would-be authorities, like political candidates making speeches to otherwise private gatherings, would be examples of very useful and necessary and important use of this technology.
I would even go so far as to advocate that the use of this technology is MORE important to our citizens being free in this country than firearms are. (Hey, I felt I had to get the tie in to our usual topic somehow, and this seemed a legitimate observation.)
What say you, readers?
From the Dylan Ratigan show, MSNBC.com:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

Paperblog Hot Topics

Magazine