EU Court of Human Rights bans use of CCTV against Criminals.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-19 02:13am

Cameras watching your every move, but you can't use them against criminals.

-- This, perhaps, is the ultimate irony.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-19 02:18am

I can't wait till a criminal sues to have those surveillance cameras put back inside the interrogation rooms, to guarantee that they aren't brutalized by the police.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-07-19 05:10am

Stupidity level ~ un-quantifiable!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-19 05:33am

Well there was case in which school detentions were ruled illegal, but this easily tops it for insanity. The EU shall do a fine job of destroying its self.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-19 06:16am

the article wrote:Police officers must now have a court's permission to film in secret.

I can see nothing wrong with that. It's like search warrants. Bear in mind that, according to the law, places with cameras MUST have a warning about it, and in that case it is legal to use the images (obviously). What is forbidden is the proliferation of hidden cameras to catch the citizens faults, without valid reason. and I live better with that than with the opposite (big brother is watching you).

You people are being far to obedient to the State law enforcement, which is strange being americans and all.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-07-19 06:18am

Maybe I mis - read the article, but I was under the impression (wrong?) that he was suing because the were taping the interview without his permision? If so, then it is very stupid.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-07-19 06:22am

Crown wrote:Maybe I mis - read the article, but I was under the impression (wrong?) that he was suing because the were taping the interview without his permision? If so, then it is very stupid.

If they didn't ask him OR the court, then it's not stupid. It's protection of privacy.

the article wrote:The robber was convicted after officers at Bilston Street Police Station in Wolverhampton used CCTV cameras to film him in November 1997 after he refused identity parades.

If the English legal system warrants the suspect the right to refuse identity lines (such as is apparently the case) then the police cannot be a smartass and go around it.

PS: Duchess, the title is obviously misleading. It should read "EU Court of Human Rights bans use of hidden CCTV against Citizens, without court approval", which is far more reasonable. I can change it for you, if you wish.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-07-19 07:00am

I don't see a problem with it.
Just because you do it for the "good of society" doesn't make it any better.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-19 11:11am

Colonel Olrik wrote:
PS: Duchess, the title is obviously misleading. It should read "EU Court of Human Rights bans use of hidden CCTV against Citizens, without court approval", which is far more reasonable. I can change it for you, if you wish.

That's alright. This one will attract more attention.

Incidently, the outrageous thing about this is, indeed, exactly that.

If you have a camera up and you're filming people with that, that's an outrageous violation of privacy right there. But the court didn't ban that. Oh no--it just banned using the tape in court. Granted, there are circumstances when the tape can be used (with a judge's permission)--but what's the point? Why still have cameras up, then? You could just put them up specific to a case, then, with a judge's permission. What is effectively implied here is that the police department in question will continue to have this hidden cameras, recording people, even as it is unable to use them (while it tries to find some solution to the matter).

It's outrageous because--well, if you're going to live in a despotism, you might as well live in an efficient one. Better Qin Dynasty China than Achaemenid Persia.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-19 12:18pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: It's outrageous because--well, if you're going to live in a despotism, you might as well live in an efficient one. Better Qin Dynasty China than Achaemenid Persia.

Duchess, do you use obtuse references on purpose, or do you just know so much about ancient history that you do it without thinking?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-07-19 12:31pm

Andrew J. wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: It's outrageous because--well, if you're going to live in a despotism, you might as well live in an efficient one. Better Qin Dynasty China than Achaemenid Persia.
Duchess, do you use obtuse references on purpose, or do you just know so much about ancient history that you do it without thinking?

*whispers behind Duchess' back*

1 part of the former, and 2 parts of the latter

Honestly Olrik, if he is being questioned, it's a generally accepted fact that police do indeed record you conversation, and video tape you. It is required to prove that no intimidation was used during the interview, and to accurately record testimony.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-20 02:47am

Andrew J. wrote:
Duchess, do you use obtuse references on purpose, or do you just know so much about ancient history that you do it without thinking?

Like Crown said. Seriously. Sometimes I have to stop and think and realize that people don't know that stuff off the tops of their heads.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-07-20 02:55am

Strangely enough, I understood what Marina said.

I think I should be scared.

:D

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-20 02:56am

Steve wrote:Strangely enough, I understood what Marina said.

I think I should be scared. :D

Put to death is more like it

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-20 03:04am

Fascinating. So they've got these close circuit TV cameras to record thing... but are inadmissable as evidence via violation of privacy unless judges specifically request they be put up?

Roight. So, what are they good for then?

(and incidently, Steve, since you knew what Marina was talking about, you're to be put in the stockades for 24 hours so children can throw rotten meat and read passages from the Herodotos at you. I'm sorry but that's the law.)

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-07-22 07:46pm

Well shit, thats pretty messed up.

Does it relate to ALL CCTV, or just those where one has an expectation of privacy - such as within a private residence?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-22 07:58pm

weemadando wrote:Well shit, thats pretty messed up.

Does it relate to ALL CCTV, or just those where one has an expectation of privacy - such as within a private residence?

Considering this particular event took place in a police station..

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-07-22 09:18pm

OK, then thats fucked.

If it was a CCTV camera on the street catching a shot of you through your window doing something illegal, THEN it might well be inadmissable as you had an expectation of privacy... But in a police station?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-22 09:30pm

Steve wrote:Strangely enough, I understood what Marina said.

I think I should be scared. :D

::resisting comments here::

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-22 11:23pm

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought that the UN was condemning Comedy Central.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-07-22 11:50pm

Durandal wrote:When I saw the title of this thread, I thought that the UN was condemning Comedy Central.

I saw some of the stuff on there when they had some stand ups going on. It didn't seem like a bad plan at the time.

But Comedy Central against criminals...Hm...

Post by **Edi** » 2003-07-23 03:46am

The stupidity is in fact quite unbelievable. What next, they'll not be able to use photos taken of arrested people in a lineup without their permission if the guys refuse to show?

True, police should only be able to film in secret if they have a court permit, but there would obviously have to be an exception for people who are being held for questioning or are arrested (of course, the exception couldn't extend to client-lawyer meetings).

There's also the added stupidity that if you reverse flip this decision and look at the other side of the coin, cops will automatically have to be granted immunity from prosecution for negligence if people die in their custody through their own fault (e.g. somebody taken in to custody to sleep off a drunk, but who dies of alcohol poisoning or late manifesting drug OD, happens all the time). If you can't film without the detainee's permission, too bad if their condition deteriorates and they croak. The cops responsible for night watch duty in a station typically keep tabs on inmates through CCTV cams, but not anymore, I guess.

Edi

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-23 03:57am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Cameras watching your every move, but you can't use them against criminals.

-- This, perhaps, is the ultimate irony.

I was considering supporting the EU, but this is just ridiculous.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-23 12:34pm

Edi wrote:The stupidity is in fact quite unbelievable. What next, they'll not be able to use photos taken of arrested people in a lineup without their permission if the guys refuse to show?

As I understand, the reason this was done was precisely that. The suspect refused to stand in lineup, which the suspect had a right to do (presumably due to a prior ruling like this), so they had to resort to this to let the suspect be identified by the victim.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-07-24 04:08am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:As I understand, the reason this was done was precisely that. The suspect refused to stand in lineup, which the suspect had a right to do (presumably due to a prior ruling like this), so they had to resort to this to let the suspect be identified by the victim.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The case in the article was indeed like you say, but I meant that next they won't be allowed to use officially taken pictures (e.g. the ones taken when the suspect is booked) without the perp's permission when they need to distribute them to the public (e.g. in case of some fucker escaping from prison or something). It's mindbogglingly stupid in any case.

Edi

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

EU Court of Human Rights bans use of CCTV against Criminals.

EU Court of Human Rights bans use of CCTV against Criminals.

Re: EU Court of Human Rights bans use of CCTV against Crimin