Imagem de vídeo amador: caso Rodney King, 1991
Numa matéria divulgada por Roger Clarke, uma curiosa categoria punitiva - "illegal surveillance" - é alegada para coibir (ou mesmo prender) indivíduos por filmarem com seus celulares ações (e abusos) policiais. Claramente, uma tentativa de criminalizar formas atuais de contra-poder que nascem de apropriações e táticas menores, relativamente desordenadas, quase casuais e muitas vezes da ação solitária de um indivíduo, mas cujos efeitos coletivos racham os regimes de visibilidade, o aparato tecnológico e a força policial da vigilância "legal".
Trechos da matéria do Boston.com:
Police fight cellphone recordings
Daniel Rowinski, New England Center For Investigative Reporting / Jan 12, 2010
"Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.
Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.
“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’
The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
Jon Surmacz, 34, experienced a similar situation. Thinking that Boston police officers were unnecessarily rough while breaking up a holiday party in Brighton he was attending in December 2008, he took out his cellphone and began recording.
Police confronted Surmacz, a webmaster at Boston University. He was arrested and, like Glik, charged with illegal surveillance.
There are no hard statistics for video recording arrests. But the experiences of Surmacz and Glik highlight what civil libertarians call a troubling misuse of the state’s wiretapping law to stifle the kind of street-level oversight that cellphone and video technology make possible.
“The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,’’ said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, who helped to get the criminal charges against Surmacz dismissed."
Numa matéria divulgada por Roger Clarke, uma curiosa categoria punitiva - "illegal surveillance" - é alegada para coibir (ou mesmo prender) indivíduos por filmarem com seus celulares ações (e abusos) policiais. Claramente, uma tentativa de criminalizar formas atuais de contra-poder que nascem de apropriações e táticas menores, relativamente desordenadas, quase casuais e muitas vezes da ação solitária de um indivíduo, mas cujos efeitos coletivos racham os regimes de visibilidade, o aparato tecnológico e a força policial da vigilância "legal".
Trechos da matéria do Boston.com:
Police fight cellphone recordings
Daniel Rowinski, New England Center For Investigative Reporting / Jan 12, 2010
"Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording.
Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.
“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’
The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
Jon Surmacz, 34, experienced a similar situation. Thinking that Boston police officers were unnecessarily rough while breaking up a holiday party in Brighton he was attending in December 2008, he took out his cellphone and began recording.
Police confronted Surmacz, a webmaster at Boston University. He was arrested and, like Glik, charged with illegal surveillance.
There are no hard statistics for video recording arrests. But the experiences of Surmacz and Glik highlight what civil libertarians call a troubling misuse of the state’s wiretapping law to stifle the kind of street-level oversight that cellphone and video technology make possible.
“The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,’’ said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, who helped to get the criminal charges against Surmacz dismissed."
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário