Every once in a while, a story comes across the news where police officers confiscate a camera from someone recording or photographing police brutality. Police are also known to confiscate cameras from people who try to photograph or video what police think are sensitive areas, like transit facilities or public buildings.
Public photography is completely legal, but this obviously doesn't stop the police from making up their own laws.
Camera phones: this would only require a software change to an existing phone. Upon a picture being shot with the phone, it is immediately e-mailed, so even if the police confiscate the phone immediately after the photographer shoots the picture, it's too late.
Traditional digital cameras and video cameras: this gets more difficult, since cell data connections aren't fast enough to transmit photographs and video. The user (or a nearby accomplice) could have a receiver with a CompactFlash slot and a wi-fi radio that makes an ad-hoc network with the camera's wi-fi radio. Photographs are stored to the receiver immediately, and video would be streamed. If the police take the camera, as long as they don't know about the storage receiver, tough for them.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Although this might work for a while until the police find a way to make possession of the technological improvement illegal, a more straightforward approach might be to act politically to hold police powers to their proper limits.
Good point. The real solution is to hold police to their legal limits.
Police alone can't make possession of such a device illegal; that would have to come from a legislative body, and it's unlikely to happen. Currently, when the police arrest someone for simply photographing the police or public structures, they are making up the law in the first place. Sometimes they use "9/11" or "terrorism" as the "law". Lawsuits have been won for wrongful arrest over this.
Obviously, even public-grounds photographers have their limits. You can't directly interfere with someone or block a public right-of-way with a tripod. The police can't [even though they do] arrest you for just "taking pictures", but they could arrest you for blocking or interfering.
Private building security guards have been known to harass, detain, or confiscate cameras from sidewalk photographers. If this happens, you can call the cops on THEM, since these guards have no authority beyond their building.
Plus, how would the police find the wi-fi receiver, especially if it's on your accomplice? The cops arrest you for photographing them, and your accomplice [who might be 100 feet away] walks off with the goods.
A camera taking still pictures could simply start downloading them via cellphone connection automatically as soon as the picture is taken with no way to stop it. Even if the cop seizes the camera, it will continue downloading unless he smashes it. It should be designed so that it gives no outward indication that it is downloading even if examined carefully. The battery compartment should be designed such that the battery can't be removed without unscrewing multiple small screws with a screwdriver, so he can't quickly pull the battery. The battery could be recharged by plugging it in without removing it.
He could still smash the camera to stop it, but a typical cop won't know that the camera is downloading, so he probably won't bother. The downloading components could be designed to be very robust, so even if the camera is smashed it might still keep downloading anyway.
Good point about cops not knowing. If a cop takes and smashes your camera phone, chances are s/he was doing something illegal in the first place and doesn't want video evidence. Think Rodney King video.
I honestly think a smash-resistant phone with a remove-resistant battery cover is excessive. My Verizon/Motorola camera phone can have a picture e-mailed off in under 5 seconds from pushing "Send", and a cop won't be able to grab your phone and smash it that quickly.
Plus, if cops KNEW that they couldn't suppress photography by just grabbing cameras, their behavior would probably improve. I'll bet cops behave a bit better if they know a lot of nearby buildings have outdoor security cameras...
My comment above was in response to your concern that traditional digital cameras can't download quickly enough over cell connections. My point was that it wouldn't matter if it took a long time as long as the cop doesn't know it's downloading and he can't easily stop it. This could even work for a video camera. BTW, the camera should have a built in memory card in addition to a removable one. The cop might think he can eliminated the evidence by simply taking the removable card.
Sony just released a digital camera with integral wi-fi. Since the camera runs a Linux kernel, the possibilities are endless.
There is also the Eye-fi for still digital images, but i don't know that there was anything out there for video feeds. Keep thinking on it. Great idea! (I'm sure the Paparazzi would love it too!)