The de-liberalization of photography

On 2010-11-29 17:27:52 -0800, peter said:

On 11/29/2010 6:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.

I want to live in your state.


At one time I seriously considered living n yours, but decided I would
be happier as a visitor.

Agreed, visits to Florida only.
I need to have a bump on my horizon.
Flat makes me dizzy whether it is Florida, Nebraska, Kansas, etc.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:25:56 -0800, Paul
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:32 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:

PS, is it really necessary to have all this crap in the quotebacks?
That's a heck of a lot of garbage to scroll past. I took the time to
change my reader so it's much simpler. I can't imagine what the
programmers were thinking to make this the default!

This is all that's required and is a hell of a lot easier to read:

tony cooper wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
tony coope wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
GMAN wrote:
RichA wrote:

SHEESH!!!!

OK, grumpy mode off


More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

I don't think you understand the system. The Supreme Court does not
rule on cases not brought before them. It doesn't make any difference
how egregious the violation is. The court doesn't hear an appeal if
the appeal is settled in a lower court or the case is dropped.

from the link above:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/head...guns/#?cnn=yes
"Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there
are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction
has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a
settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,”
the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written
policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.

I'm not sure what your point is, Paul.

I was just pointing out the part of the story that related to the
discussion. It seemed maybe some had not read the article or missed that
part.


In this case the issue was
resolved by settlement. Any appeal was dropped, so the case will not
continue to move up the ladder towards a Supreme Court hearing.

There are cases where it is hoped that an appeal will be denied
because that allows the case to move up the ladder. However, a
reversal by any higher court usually stops a practice.


As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider
passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law
enforcement officials.”


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:34:11 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:


From the Economist article, 2010.07.22:
http://www.economist.com/node/166360...ry_id=16636027

QUOTE:
THREE pickup trucks pulled up outside George Norris’s home in Spring,
Texas. Six armed police in flak jackets jumped out. Thinking they must
have come to the wrong place, Mr Norris opened his front door, and was
startled to be shoved against a wall and frisked for weapons. He was
forced into a chair for four hours while officers ransacked his house.
They pulled out drawers, rifled through papers, dumped things on the
floor and eventually loaded 37 boxes of Mr Norris’s possessions onto
their pickups. They refused to tell him what he had done wrong. “It
wasn’t fun, I can tell you that,” he recalls.

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He
eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers
into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers
and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers
in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a
shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to
match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted,
handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two
suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it
hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke ’em?”
Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international
smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more
than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on
other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting
he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some
orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For
this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government
official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with
conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to
guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17
months in prison. After some time, he was released while his appeal was
heard, but then put back inside. His health suffered: he has Parkinson’s
disease, which was not helped by the strain of imprisonment. For
bringing some prescription sleeping pills into prison, he was put in
solitary confinement for 71 days. The prison was so crowded, however,
that even in solitary he had two room-mates.

/QUOTE

Break this one down, though, Alan. Those agents didn't act on their
own. Some higher official made the decision. The agents, if the
article is accurate, used bully-boy tactics but they were following
instructions.

The prosecutors then made a decision to bring the charges even though
a preliminary investigation should have revealed that Norris was
guilty of no more than careless business practices.

The judge then imposed the sentence, and that was probably based on
some federal guideline for sentencing.

If it was up to me to say where this went wrong it would be at the DA
or AG level; whichever office was involved. It was at that point
where the process should have been stopped.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 11/29/2010 9:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-11-29 17:27:52 -0800, peter said:

On 11/29/2010 6:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,

RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense,
and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of
privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the
Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or
some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone
has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found
guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it
to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.

I want to live in your state.


At one time I seriously considered living n yours, but decided I would
be happier as a visitor.

Agreed, visits to Florida only.
I need to have a bump on my horizon.
Flat makes me dizzy whether it is Florida, Nebraska, Kansas, etc.


I have never done well in heat and humidity.

--
Peter

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:52 -0500, peter
wrote:

I want to live in your state.

At one time I seriously considered living n yours, but decided I would
be happier as a visitor.

When I made the move, almost 40 years ago, I was living in a northern
suburb of Chicago and driving into downtown Chicago every morning to
call on the likes of Cook County Hospital and driving back in the late
afternoon. The commute was a minimum of an hour and sometimes as long
as 2.5 hours...each way.

In February I asked for a transfer to another territory and was told
that the company didn't transfer salesmen. I started interviewing and
was offered a job with a competitor in late March. When I turned in
my notice, the company reversed themselves and offered me a transfer
to Florida.

It was July before I sold my house and relocated to Florida. (There
were other reasons for the delay) I arrived in Florida on the July 4th
weekend driving a 1972 Chevrolet Nova with no air conditioning. From
the frying pan into the fire.

I like Chicago. I really do. But, given the circumstances, Florida
seemed to be the better option. If I could have taken the train or
the El to an office in Chicago I'd probably still be there.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 11/29/10 PDT 6:31 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

PS, is it really necessary to have all this crap in the quotebacks?
That's a heck of a lot of garbage to scroll past. I took the time to
change my reader so it's much simpler. I can't imagine what the
programmers were thinking to make this the default!

This is all that's required and is a hell of a lot easier to read:

tony cooper wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
tony coope wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
GMAN wrote:
RichA wrote:

SHEESH!!!!

I'd maintain, esp. for off topic or non-technical discussions that 80%
of what's written can be nicely, thoughtfully deleted. Seldom is more
than one page needed, or desired as the context is in the thread if more
than a sentence or two is required to be quoted.

But there are a few guys who seem loathe to trim.

--
john mcwilliams

On 2010-11-30 03:19:27 -0800, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
...and in California, those same voters then complain when they are
told that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.


Good grief!

California population 37 million, inmates 170,000.

UK population 61 million, inmates 80,000.

The UK government believes its prison population is far too high ...

Yup! Though I believe they are getting that under control by reducing
the prison population to 166,000.

You should consider taking the California prison tour sometime. That
would take you from the Mexican border to the Oregon Stateline. That is
33 prisons and many low security fire camps.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/index.html

There are also some California 111,000 parolees to deal with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-11-30 03:38:05 -0800, Whisky-dave said:

On Nov 30, 11:19*am, Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
...and in California, those same voters then complain when they are
told that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.

Good grief!

California population 37 million, inmates 170,000.

UK population 61 million, inmates 80,000.

The UK government believes its prison population is far too high ...

Interesting but I'm not sure what it all means other than California
has more criminals.
I wonder if the term inmates is the cause as I know we have youth
detention centres
and various other schemes to keep people out of jail.

What it means is, we have a massive violent gang crime problem, we have
some very bad sentencing guidelines which are law, not good law, but
law.

The term inmate applies to all incarcerated convicted criminals in
California. We also have a considerable population of incarcerated
youth convicted of crimes when under the age of 16. They are termed
"wards."
Some 16 year olds have been convicted as adults, received long
sentences, and are transferred to adult prisons once they are in their
20's.

....and we have various schemes and programs to keep people out of jail.
If you ever have the opportunity to check a CLETS (California Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System) report or "rap sheet" you will
find it takes quite a dedication to stupidity and ignoring many "second
chances" to actually end up in prison. I am not speaking of those
convicted of major crime here.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:30:04 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Rich wrote:
On Nov 30, 6:38*am, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:19*am, Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
...and in California, those same voters then complain when they are
told that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.

Good grief!
California population 37 million, inmates 170,000.
UK population 61 million, inmates 80,000.
The UK government believes its prison population is far too high ...

Interesting but I'm not sure what it all means other than California
has more criminals.
I wonder if the term inmates is the cause as I know we have youth
detention centres
and various other schemes to keep people out of jail.

The size of the prison population merely reflects the fact more people
in the U.S. break the law on average more than in other countries.
Possible reason is that America has a larger percentage of lower-class
than other western countries.


Both you and Whisky-Dave are trying to make the situation fit your
personal prejudices.

Overall, California has a significantly lower crime rate than the UK.
And if you remove gun crime from the statistics, California's crime
rate is actually less than half that of the UK's.

Gun crime is obviously higher in the USA (and therefore in California)
than in the UK because most gun ownership is proscribed in the UK. But
the overall crime rate is lower in the USA than in the UK.

Crime rate comparisons don't mean much in this context if you ignore
sentencing practices. If the same crime in the UK and the US result
in a 1 year sentence in one country, and a 10 year sentence in the
other country, the prison population in the second country will be
higher. Parole practices will also affect the prison population
comparison.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-11-30 07:28:09 -0800, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-11-30 03:19:27 -0800, Bruce said:
Savageduck wrote:
...and in California, those same voters then complain when they are
told that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.

Good grief!
California population 37 million, inmates 170,000.
UK population 61 million, inmates 80,000.
The UK government believes its prison population is far too high ...

Yup! Though I believe they are getting that under control by reducing
the prison population to 166,000.


Phew! ;-)


You should consider taking the California prison tour sometime. That
would take you from the Mexican border to the Oregon Stateline. That is
33 prisons and many low security fire camps.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/index.html


Why, thank you for the suggestion. But there are many places that I'd
like to visit in CA that come higher up the list. ;-)

Agreed.
Skip the prisons and the LA basin, try Yosemite, Kings Canyon-Sequoia,
Big Sur, Death Valley, Tahoe, The Mendicino & Central Coast, The wine
tour.



There are also some California 111,000 parolees to deal with.


You mean they got let out?

Only briefly.

--
Regards,

Savageduck