Tape the cops, go to jail.

[Dave Ridley]

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  ?

[Lex]

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  ?

I agree, that is the simplest approach. Less laws is always better, even dead_president would agree with that 

[d_goddard]

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.

[Lex]

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?

There are several things you can do:

1. Don't have floor to ceiling windows in your bathroom.
2. Use blinds.
3. Get one way windows, so you can see out but not in. I believe these windows let sun in as well.

It's better to protect yourself than to rely on the government to do. If someone wants to video tape your wife naked taking a shower and you think that having a law preventing it is going to stop someone from doing it, then think again. You have to take privacy into your own hands, that is the surest way to keep it. Besides, you are more likely to be videotaped/monitored by the government than by some pervert and this law would not prevent them from watching you, your blinds and one way windows will.

[Kat Kanning]

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?

Should I add that video to the other underground videos on the wiki?

[d_goddard]

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?

There are several things you can do:

1. Don't have floor to ceiling windows in your bathroom.
2. Use blinds.
3. Get one way windows, so you can see out but not in. I believe these windows let sun in as well.

It's better to protect yourself than to rely on the government to do. If someone wants to video tape your wife naked taking a shower and you think that having a law preventing it is going to stop someone from doing it, then think again. You have to take privacy into your own hands, that is the surest way to keep it. Besides, you are more likely to be videotaped/monitored by the government than by some pervert and this law would not prevent them from watching you, your blinds and one way windows will.

The fundamental issue here is whether there exists a right to privacy, in the same sense as a right to life, liberty, keeping and bearing arms, yadda yadda.

I believe there is a right to privacy; we need laws (possibly even a constitutional amendment) to define what the limits on that right are. Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday )

If there is no natural right to some kind of privacy, then the onus is indeed on me to make my house un-video-tapable and un-audio-recordable. It also means that, all things being equal, video cameras on every street corner are perfectly acceptable.

If there is a right to privacy, then it makes no sense to talk about me needing to make my home impossible to videotape any more than it makes sense for me to wear full body armor at all times (since I have a right to my own life). After all, people are going to shoot people no matter what the law says....

[Lex]

Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday )

Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.

[d_goddard]

Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday )

Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.

Seriously -- do you want to repeal the wiretapping RSA entirely?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm

Please read it carefully, understand that it basically does protect your privacy, and simply needs to not protect police as much as it does. Also understand that repealing the whole thing will likely face large resistance from some of our best pro-privacy, anti-Real-ID friends, like Neal Kurk and Peter Burling.

Again: with a lot of work on our part, we can realistically get legal protection any time we surveil our own homes and record any police action. Is that not a good, worthy thing? Are the proposed alternatives likely to both improve our freedom and actually get implemented?

[Lex]

Yes, this is my minarchist self coming out (it must be an odd-numbered Monday )

Alright, lets wait until tomorrow then, maybe the minarchist will go back inside.

Seriously -- do you want to repeal the wiretapping RSA entirely?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm

Please read it carefully, understand that it basically does protect your privacy, and simply needs to not protect police as much as it does. Also understand that repealing the whole thing will likely face large resistance from some of our best pro-privacy, anti-Real-ID friends, like Neal Kurk and Peter Burling.

Again: with a lot of work on our part, we can realistically get legal protection any time we surveil our own homes and record any police action. Is that not a good, worthy thing? Are the proposed alternatives likely to both improve our freedom and actually get implemented?

I don't want to have signs all over my house warning of cameras. That would be ugly as hell.

Maybe I misunderstood what was ment by "repeal of all the text that was added to the law". I'm thinking we should just remove the video recording portion. Let people record whatever they want in their own homes and in public. I don't see what the big deal of that is. I mean the government already records us in many public places and most stores and restaurants have cameras as well, so by repealing that section of the law we're just allowing ourselves the same privilages as the government.

[d_goddard]

Let people record whatever they want in their own homes and in public.

That's exactly what subparagraph (m) of my proposed LSR does. Did you read it?

the government already records us in many public places and most stores and restaurants have cameras as well, so by repealing that section of the law we're just allowing ourselves the same privilages as the government.

Repealing which specific section of which specific law?

Also, note that the proposed legislation allows you to video and audio record both the police and your home. The current legislation makes a distinction between video and audio.

[Lex]

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. And if someone decides to go into my house then they are on private property and can't possible expect to maintain their privacy.

Also, having signs all over my house would be UGLY!

[d_goddard]

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!"

[FTL_Ian]

Sorry Denis, your right to privacy is only to be respected by the government.  Any privacy you want from other individuals you must work for, as Lex outlined.  (Put up fences, walls, encode conversations, etc, until you feel private.)

For instance, if there are radio waves coming out of your house, why is it okay to use the guns of government to stop me from converting those electromagnetic waves into audio and doing as I please with them?

If you are out naked in your backyard with no fence, do you have a "right" to prevent your neighbor from photographing you?  Nope.  You have to put up a fence.

What if the neighbor has access to a powerful satellite, and continues to photograph you naked?  Sorry, still no right to privacy, you have to work at this!  If you don't want to be photographed naked, STAY INSIDE or don't get naked outside.

[d_goddard]

Sorry Denis, your right to privacy is only to be respected by the government.  Any privacy you want from other individuals you must work for, as Lex outlined.

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.

For instance, if there are radio waves coming out of your house, why is it okay to use the guns of government to stop me from converting those electromagnetic waves into audio and doing as I please with them?

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

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.

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?

I'm asking in earnest... if there's something better I can rally behind, I'm eager to see it!

[Tom Sawyer]

 "thermal-hot mammas going pee" website

Got a link?