Tape the cops, go to jail.

[srqrebel]

m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.

Why do I have to put a sign telling people I have cameras in my house? It's none of their business.

I agree it's none of their business, but why not just strike that clause later? That should be easier in 2-3 years when the police administrator-crats fail to show it's had any impact on their work. In the interim, we'd be a hell of a lot better of now, by having neutralized the arguments of most likely detractors.

I guess you could say my strategy on this particular issue is "Freedom-Now!", as opposed to "get incarcerated-Now!"

If the incrementalist approach gets the job done, then by all means let's do it!  The idea is certainly to move forward, not spin our wheels.  But we also need to make sure we don't get stuck in a comfort zone and take our eyes off the end goal: Full recognition of private property rights.  To me that means nobody but me has any legitimate expectation of privacy on my property (except for guests while in the bathroom or bedroom, in which case social ostracization of violators is a free market deterrent that works infinitely better than government force).

[d_goddard]

I just realized two things:

1) I open my trap and "amchair-quarterback" Ian's show way more than I decently should; turnabout is fair play, after all

2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?

[Lex]

2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?

I think we're too extreme for him 

[FTL_Ian]

So... some degree of protection from active, possibly malicious snooping is not a right in the same way that life, liberty, and the right to bear arms are rights?
I understand the position (though I do not agree with it); I'm just stating it as plainly as possible.

Hell no it's not.  You must take RESPONSIBILITY for your privacy if you want it protected.  Writing laws and using the force of the state to impose your privacy preferences is unacceptable.

The light coming from your house is an elecromagnatic wave too, Ian. The particular wavelength is not central to the discussion

You dodged the question. 

I don't have the reference in front of me, but I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression: eg, if your windows and blinds are open, you're broadcasting; if your blinds are closed, you're ostensibly protected-private, so yes, the infared gun and the hyperbolic mike with the 24x7 internet stream and "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website are indeed a violation, to be stopped, by force if necessary.

This paragraph shows how unreasonable your position is.  You make the typical minarchist move of taking the issue to an extreme.  You know my answer, if you don't want thermal images of you showing up online, install thermal sheilding in your home.  Paranoia!

At any rate, I'm interested to see your prosposed change to the law.
I mean, proposed language that you can go with in front of the legislature, not to bullshit about on a forum.
Or... do laws not matter, so it's not worth your while getting them changed?

No, I've said I'd play politics for a while in NH to give it a shot.  Laws don't matter much to me, but they do to others, so that's why they are worth working on.

Though my proposed change is to strike it all, so that means we'd meet in the middle, which would probably be something like what you proposed.  Just like I want to strike the laws against drugs, property taxes, and more.

[Braddogg]

I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression

SCOTUS may not be the best source for determining right from wrong . . . .

[Rocketman]

so yes, the infared gun and the hyperbolic mike with the 24x7 internet stream and "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website are indeed a violation, to be stopped, by force if necessary.

Oh boy, I was in the act of swallowing a cookie when I read this and about spit it all over the screen.  (Fudge stripe, Denis, nothing special). 



My proposed legislation, if I happen to try my hand at legislation drafting (not tonight), would be more radical than Denis's and less radical than whatever Ian's suggesting.  I do think we can afford to be pretty aggressive with this one since even an extreme position on this issue isn't likely to hurt our credibility much.  Even something like "Whereas police are employed in the service of New Hampshire citizens, New Hampshire citizens shall have the right to record police acting in the line of duty, with or without consent" is not the PR nightmare equivalent of "All drugs shall be legalized."  Is it?

[tracysaboe]

dennis how about just proposing a repeal of all the text that was added to the law, the text that made possible this nasty situation  ?

Because it makes sense to me to have privacy protection enshrined in the law.

Does it make sense to allow you to use a zoom lens and a hyperbolic mike to capture me walking naked out of my own shower and having an argument with my wife, for you to broadcast that over the internet -- without my even knowing the recording exists?

I see it as a major strategic win for us, if we can record all law enforcement interactions with impunity. We can then really hold their actions up to the withering gaze up public scrutiny, a-la "NH Copwatch".

Hmmm... what if Roger Grant were to be the key "NH Copwatch" videographer? What if the show got syndicated nationally, making him and an (as-yet unidentified) director and marketing guy fantastically wealthy? By god, I would love that.

I guess it seems to me like it's each individuals personal responsibility to secure themselves. If somebody wants to play peeping Tom, let them.  If it bothers me, I'll hang up curtains.

Now if somebody actually violates my property by tresspassing and installing cameras in my house and mikes on my windows -- well, basic property right laws already deal with that. You don't need more laws.

TRacy

[tracysaboe]

is whether there exists a right to privacy,

There is no right to privacy. There's also no "right" to bare arms. All rights stem from basic private property rights. You have a right to own a gun and keep it because it's YOUR gun. Not because of some etherial right to bare arms.

If you don't have any such way to express privacy "rights," in terms of property rights, then you've got nothin.  (And no. That's not a mis-spelling. I wanted it to sound like that.)

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

. . . but I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression

You're realying on the Supreme Court to define our rights now? 

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

2) Where the hell is Ian's moderating voice-of-sanity co-host, Mark?!?? How come he's not posting here?

I think we're too extreme for him 

What happened to MAnwitch?

TRacy

[Lex]

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18b.asp#_ftnref9

Human Rights and Property Rights

     It is often asserted by critics of the free-market economy that they are interested in preserving ?human rights? rather than property rights. This artificial dichotomy between human and property rights has often been refuted by libertarians, who have pointed out (a) that property rights of course accrue to humans and to humans alone, and (b) that the ?human right? to life requires the right to keep what one has produced to sustain and advance life. In short, they have shown that property rights are indissolubly also human rights. They have, besides, pointed out that the ?human right? of a free press would be only a mockery in a socialist country, where the State owns and decides upon the allocation of newsprint and other newspaper capital.

     There are other points that should be made, however. For not only are property rights also human rights, but in the most profound sense there are no rights but property rights. The only human rights, in short, are property rights. There are several senses in which this is true. In the first place, each individual, as a natural fact, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. The ?human? rights of the person that are defended in the purely free-market society are, in effect, each man?s property right in his own being, and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced.

     In the second place, alleged ?human rights? can be boiled down to property rights, although in many cases this fact is obscured. Take, for example, the ?human right? of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate ?right to free speech?; there is only a man?s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.

     The concentration on vague and wholly ?human? rights has not only obscured this fact but has led to the belief that there are, of necessity, all sorts of conflicts between individual rights and alleged ?public policy? or the ?public good.? These conflicts have, in turn, led people to contend that no rights can be absolute, that they must all be relative and tentative. Take, for example, the human right of ?freedom of assembly.? Suppose that a citizens? group wishes to demonstrate for a certain measure. It uses a street for this purpose. The police, on the other hand, break up the meeting on the ground that it obstructs traffic. Now, the point is that there is no way of resolving this conflict, except arbitrarily, because the government owns the streets. Government ownership, as we have seen, inevitably breeds insoluble conflicts. For, on the one hand, the citizens? group can argue that they are taxpayers and are therefore entitled to use the streets for assembly, while, on the other hand, the police are right that traffic is obstructed. There is no rational way to resolve the conflict because there is as yet no true ownership of the valuable street-resource. In a purely free society, where the streets are privately owned, the question would be simple: it would be for the streetowner to decide, and it would be the concern of the citizens? group to try to rent the street space voluntarily from the owner. If all ownership were private, it would be quite clear that the citizens did not have any nebulous ?right of assembly.? Their right would be the property right of using their money in an effort to buy or rent space on which to make their demonstration, and they could do so only if the owner of the street agreed to the deal.

     Let us consider, finally, the classic case that is supposed to demonstrate that individual rights can never be absolute but must be limited by ?public policy?: Justice Holmes? famous dictum that no man can have the right to cry ?fire? in a crowded theater. This is supposed to show that freedom of speech cannot be absolute. But if we cease dealing with this alleged human right and seek for the property rights involved, the solution becomes clear, and we see that there is no need at all to weaken the absolute nature of rights. For the person who falsely cries ?fire? must be either the owner (or the owner?s agent) or a guest or paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud upon his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a motion picture, and now, instead, he disrupts the performance by falsely shouting ?fire? and creating a disturbance among the patrons. He has thus willfully defaulted on his contractual obligation and has therefore violated the property rights of his patrons.

     Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is not the owner, but a patron. In that case, he is obviously violating the property right of the theater owner (as well as the other patrons). As a guest, he is on the property on certain terms, and he has the obligation of not violating the owner?s property rights by disrupting the performance that the owner is putting on for the patrons. The person who maliciously cries ?fire? in a crowded theater, therefore, is a criminal, not because his so-called ?right of free speech? must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the so-called ?public good,? but because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another human being. There is no need, therefore, of placing limits upon these rights.

     Since this is a praxeological and not an ethical treatise, the aim of this discussion has not been to convince the reader that property rights should be upheld. Rather, we have attempted to show that the person who does wish to construct his political theory on the basis of ?rights? must not only discard the spurious distinction between human rights and property rights, but also realize that the former must all be absorbed into the latter.

[d_goddard]

I recall SCOTUS considers the work the observer applies in determining whether there was a transgression

SCOTUS may not be the best source for determining right from wrong . . . .

Agred 100%.

When proposing legislation, however, one should be mindful that the Reps, Senators, and the Committee Chairmen among them do care what SCOTUS has had to say on any particular issue. Especially the "good guys" in the legiuslature, the ones who agree most with us and are most vocally happy we're here, they don't want to pass laws that then get struck down as unconstitutional.

Now, the smoking-ban proponents, they don't give a hoot about that g-d piece of paper, and they're happy to let the courts decide which laws happened to cross that annoying little "constitutionality" line.

[d_goddard]

I do think we can afford to be pretty aggressive with this one since even an extreme position on this issue isn't likely to hurt our credibility much.

In this case, I'm not so concerned about our credibility -- like you say, we're not being radical here, in the average person's eyes! Rather, I am concerned that the proposed legislation will actually pass, so we get some real advance in freedom as a result of our work.

I believe that having any victories, even small ones, but especially ones that get a lot of media attention (as this case has), hugely help our cause, by showing liberty-lovers everywhere that New Hampshire is a place where you can fight for Freedom -- and win. Therein is a virtuous cycle that ensures that small measures that succeed are not comfortable traps. Rather, they are the catalysts of further reforms, made possible by an influx of more activists.

"Whereas police are employed in the service of New Hampshire citizens, New Hampshire citizens shall have the right to record police acting in the line of duty, with or without consent"

I've pretty much come around to this line of thinking -- thanks to srqrebel, AlanM, Roycerson, etc. I'll drop the bit about "provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording", and offer it as amended language, if (when) the AG and police spokepeople start to complain.

Also, the nice folks on the RLCNH Yahoo group had a really good idea -- expand the text ever so slightly, to allow recording of any public official, while they're doing their public duties.

So, with you folks' much-appreciated feedback, the working text winds up looking like this, for now:

AN ACT relative to permitting audio and video recording for personal security.

1 New Subparagraph; Capture of Audio with Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers Allowed. Amend RSA 570-A:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (k) the following two new subparagraphs:

l) A person having an interaction with a uniformed law enforcement officer, or with any public official acting on public business, to make an audio and or video recording of such interaction.

m) Within a person's domicile, as defined in RSA 259:23, to make audio and or video recording for security purposes, where such recording shall not include areas outside the person's own property, and provided that there is a sign informing visitors of such recording prominently displayed outside the domicile.

Oh ,and Lex... the "ugly signs" you're complaining about are the stickers that every manufacturer I know of slaps on the side of their recording boxes... like the one in the pic of Mr. Gammon's house.

[Lex]

I believe that having any victories, even small ones, but especially ones that get a lot of media attention (as this case has), hugely help our cause, by showing liberty-lovers everywhere that New Hampshire is a place where you can fight for Freedom -- and win. Therein is a virtuous cycle that ensures that small measures that succeed are not comfortable traps. Rather, they are the catalysts of further reforms, made possible by an influx of more activists.

Good point there!

I've pretty much come around to this line of thinking -- thanks to srqrebel, AlanM, Roycerson, etc. I'll drop the bit about "provided that such officer shall be notified of said recording", and offer it as amended language, if (when) the AG and police spokepeople start to complain.

I think that's the best way to go.

Also, the nice folks on the RLCNH Yahoo group had a really good idea -- expand the text ever so slightly, to allow recording of any public official, while they're doing their public duties.

I think that's an excellent idea!

Oh ,and Lex... the "ugly signs" you're complaining about are the stickers that every manufacturer I know of slaps on the side of their recording boxes... like the one in the pic of Mr. Gammon's house.

We allow people to carry concealed weapons, why not cameras?

[d_goddard]

We allow people to carry concealed weapons, why not cameras?

We allow people to carry concealed weapons ... but not to shoot people with them at random