Cameras: Conspicious vs. Stealth? (warning, long post..)

[smasha]

Everyone has cameras now, even the cagers, the dog-walkers, the joggers. It's almost enough to make me want a tin-foil hat. We are a surveillance society now. Might as well use it to our advantage.

CCTV used to be used for fortress-like buildings, now it's available for everyone.

for anyone using cameras in traffic (this is now police, bicyclists, motorcyclists, truck drivers, bus operators, pedestrians and even regular car drivers) these cameras are an asset to those who are safe and follow the rules, and a liability to those who are unsafe and don't follow the rules.

i highly suspect that video cameras will be REQUIRED in all new cars within a few years, built directly into the cars, record an 8-24 hour loop, and be illegal to tamper with (will the video be accessible to the vehicle's owner to download?). too many times when i was an EMT we'd get on a crash scene and struggle to figure out what happened: cameras built into cars will solve that problem when the police need to sort out the mess. no more he-said-she-said games. there will soon be an impartial witness at nearly every crash scene.

[ItsJustMe]

I don't know about cameras being required by law, but what has happened is that in some countries, insurance companies will give a discount if you drive with a dashcam. Many people would be happy to buy a $120 dashcam to save $100 a year on insurance. The people who don't, as smasha has pointed out, are probably the people who know that they are likely to be caught by their own dashcam as being at fault.

[no motor?]

It's interesting to find that others have been thinking using about a very obvious camera (or a fake camera) on a bicycle. I've been thinking about doing this for a while after discovering the effect pointing my cell phone at cars has when I cross the street in a crosswalk marked with a sign stating the new state laws requires motorists stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Before I held up my cell phone most cars would continue to drive as if I had no right to inconvenience them by trying to legally cross the street. But when I hold up my cellphone, about half of the drivers suddenly decide to follow the law and stop. I'd love to find a way to achieve this same effect when riding, has anyone done this?

And FWIW, I have no desire to use a camera to record anything that could be used as evidence of any sort, as I have no faith at all in the police following up on any criminal acts the camera might record. I'd merely want to use it to increase my safety while riding.

[TheHen]

there have been cases of individuals targeted with that stupidity (usually because someone made the police look bad) but IIUC EVERY state in the US where those charges were filed was overturned at or before the state appeals court, and the courts ultimately confirmed that in a public place there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. if you want to have a private conversation, you need to go to a private place.

IIUC, the courts have also confirmed that wiretap laws apply to tapping a wire (recording of electronic communications that are reasonably believed to be ephemeral). those laws are not relevant for face to face communications, and they were never intended to be.

I don't know if you're right, but maybe one or our posters who is a lawyer can sort this out. I looked up the statute in the state I am (mostly) living in now.http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/165.540

a person may not: ...(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained...

This sec*tion requires per*son recording own conversa*tion with others to give unequivocal warning to that effect. State v. Bichsel, 101 Or App 257, 790 P2d 1142 (1990)

There was a recent case hereabouts that involved a motorist recording his conversation with the cop who pulled him over. He was charged under this statute. He beat the charge not because it is legal to record a conversation without informing the other parties, but because the cop was also recording their conversation and had informed him. The court ruled that since the cop knew he was being recorded, it didn't matter who was doing the recording.

So, it looks to me like in OR (and maybe other states) you may record anything you want to in a public place, but the folks being recorded must be somehow informed that it is occurring. I believe a highly visible camera is sufficient as a warning that recording is taking place, but a hidden camera is not. This seems to apply only to the audio, which may explain why so many security cameras are video only.

We also had a case locally where a cop was being recorded and he responded by taking the data from the camera and beating the videographer (some of our cops are real pieces of work). The cop/city got hammered in court. The cop tried to say the citizen didn't warn him that he was recording but the court ruled that the camera was too obvious to ignore.

I would be interested if anyone has found a clean case where someone was prosecuted successfully under this or a similar statute. As far as I know, the statute still stands in OR.

[fuji86]

there have been cases of individuals targeted with that stupidity (usually because someone made the police look bad) but IIUC EVERY state in the US where those charges were filed was overturned at or before the state appeals court, and the courts ultimately confirmed that in a public place there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. if you want to have a private conversation, you need to go to a private place.

IIUC, the courts have also confirmed that wiretap laws apply to tapping a wire (recording of electronic communications that are reasonably believed to be ephemeral). those laws are not relevant for face to face communications, and they were never intended to be.

I agree that if you are in public, anything you say or do is subject to scrutiny and being recorded if it adversely effects me and if it makes the evidence more indisputable, recording that is acceptable. I've even had employers throughout my career on rarer occasion even have private conversations with me that I wish I had on tape. The one's that don't want it, it's my personal opinion that these will be the first to lie, cheat and steal, deny they ever did or said anything and they will try to weasle their way out of accountability & responsibility at every turn. I can't be the only one that has experienced it too ? Unfortunately we live in a world where you have to protect your interests. If your employer can gather evidence using surveilance, they should be equally as recordable and every evidence just as admissable in court. Going off the record should never happen.

[dougmc]

The people who don't, as smasha has pointed out, are probably the people who know that they are likely to be caught by their own dashcam as being at fault.

Of course, if the dashcam is in your own car, that means you have the opportunity to dispose of the evidence if needed (unless you're seriously injured, of course) and then claim that it wasn't on. It's good enough for the police, it's good enough for you.

And if the camera is stealthy, nobody may even realize to look for it unless you tell them to. As an added bonus, if people can't see it, they won't steal it.

In the case of a dashcam in your car, I'd say it's clearly in your favor to go stealthy rather than obvious.

[dynodonn]

....And if the camera is stealthy, nobody may even realize to look for it unless you tell them to. As an added bonus, if people can't see it, they won't steal it.

The only time that my cams were noticed was at a cycling forum, a number of cyclist spotted them since they didn't look like any of the bike accessories that they had, otherwise to my knowledge, the general public has been oblivious to them.

[hotbike]

Just shot this video today. I was bombing down Glen Head Road, on Long Island, Eastbound. At the end of the run , I stop, and I make a request of the gentleman behind the wheel of a white cadillac cts, and I got the plate number. anyway, it's on record. I was going faster than the speed limit (33 in a 30MPH zone).
I have my camera on a tripod in the handlebar basket , which is actually a plastic box.
I want to mention that as soon as I Up-Loaded this video to YouTube, I got a message which read "We have detected that this video is a little shaky, would you like us to fix it for you?" and I clicked "YES" , and in a few minutes , I had this image-stabilized video.

I do indeed have the plate number of that white caddy, for future reference. Notice also, as he passes, he's closer to me than to the Double Yellow. That driver probably didn't realize, or even suspect that I had a camera on him.

PS- There is another cyclist ahead of me, he was just going the same direction at the same time by happenstance, I have no idea who he was, but he seems to have turned left into the post office.

[degnaw]

What did he do? It's not visible in the video, and you don't mention anything in your post.

[hotbike]

What did he do? It's not visible in the video, and you don't mention anything in your post.

It was just that he was right on my tail , like he expected to pass me at any moment. I was in fact exceeding the speed limit.

This brings up the question of whether we need a rear-facing camera, in addition to a forward-facing camera.

But the point is that I was able to read the plate number , in the video, using the Apple's Image Browser, which is good, because I can't always write them down.

[weshigh]

It was just that he was right on my tail , like he expected to pass me at any moment. I was in fact exceeding the speed limit.

This brings up the question of whether we need a rear-facing camera, in addition to a forward-facing camera.

But the point is that I was able to read the plate number , in the video, using the Apple's Image Browser, which is good, because I can't always write them down.

This is why I like the helmet camera. I can turn around and get license plate or car description. When I am stopped at a light I usually look back for a sec or two to get a tally of the cars behind me including the plate/driver of the car immediately behind me.

[wheel]

So youtube is a great way to archive even if it is a private video.
There is also vimeo.

I prefer helmet cam as I can look around.

I don't use two cameras because that becomes your life trying to edit the thing. I do have rides and then record it with a couple of cameras.


I have almost every version of Contour I like them because I can rotate the lens.
They're small and have a great helmet mount that acts as a sticker.

Contour Roam is great.
A quick flick of the switch the thing turns on and records.
Its waterproof and the batter lasts up to 3 hours.
The lens spins 180 degrees
The lazer is now a line
metal tripod ( i have a metal tripod that is a clamp. )


Cons
battery not replaceable
All of my previous editions have had with record button switch problems. (easy to record in your bag with count our roam)
File size is huge (but that is ok)


I find the rear camera neat, but we still are a 10 decade away of making this feasible in making it simple.

Here is a rear facing camera
I use a tripod mount that clamps to my rear rack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lNxCVMFBSg

Notice no license plate?


I want a forward facing camera to show I didn't go through a stop light or stop sign so that is my reasoning behind getting a the front. as priority.

Helmet camera follows my eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH_SF9KH0Ec

Very vaulable