GoPros Illegal ??? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

GoPros Illegal ???

OpenGambit said:
I don't think the consent of both parties is the issue at all actually.

That would make filming anything in public illegal if that interpretation held up. The only legal question is whether that is a "private conversation".

Considering the implications on democracy as a whole if it was found to be a "private conversation" I would gladly bet that it wouldn't be considered one.
Click to expand...

Filming is fine. It's only the audio, that's questionable in this circumstance, which is why I posted above about disabling it.
 
Oh i am aware that its the audio thats the issue. I am just saying that its unlikely that a court of law would actually take the stance that a cop doing his job in public is a "private" conversation.
 
OpenGambit said:
Oh i am aware that its the audio thats the issue. I am just saying that its unlikely that a court of law would actually take the stance that a cop doing his job in public is a "private" conversation.
Click to expand...

I would agree that would be the reasonable decision. Even the virtually certain outcome. Unfortunately what I've seen lately, from American courts, occasionally, isn't what I would refer to as sane, let alone reasonable.
 
That kinda happens when DAs and Judges have to go through elections.
 
OpenGambit said:
I don't think the consent of both parties is the issue at all actually.

That would make filming anything in public illegal if that interpretation held up. The only legal question is whether that is a "private conversation".

Considering the implications on democracy as a whole if it was found to be a "private conversation" I would gladly bet that it wouldn't be considered one.
Click to expand...

That incident happened in an all-party consent state where unlike Ontario, you can't ordinarily record a conversation unless all parties in that conversation consent. The question was how far the requirement for consent extended with respect to recording conversations with public officials.
 
turbodish said:
That incident happened in an all-party consent state where unlike Ontario, you can't ordinarily record a conversation unless all parties in that conversation consent. The question was how far the requirement for consent extended with respect to recording conversations with public officials.
Click to expand...

No, thats completely wrong, because its clear there was no consent. Again, the issue is whether the law applied because the law only applies to private conversations.

There is no issue with consent because there was none. period.
 
OpenGambit said:
No, thats completely wrong, because its clear there was no consent. Again, the issue is whether the law applied because the law only applies to private conversations.

There is no issue with consent because there was none. period.
Click to expand...

Read my last sentence again and then ask yourself what it is you are actually disagreeing with.
 
turbodish said:
Read my last sentence again and then ask yourself what it is you are actually disagreeing with.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not about "how far" the requirement of consent "extended".

its wrong to use words implying that the issue is somehow related to a degree of consent. Its that simple. The legal issue isn't about lack of consent because there is no dispute about the fact that consent was not given.

There are at 3 elements of the offence in the wiretapping law.
1. audio recording
2. private conversation
3. lack of consent.

The only thing at issue is 2. You are mixing it up.
 
OpenGambit said:
its wrong to use words implying that the issue is somehow related to a degree of consent. Its that simple. The legal issue isn't about lack of consent because there is no dispute about the fact that consent was not given.
Click to expand...

The issue is whether the requirement for consent extends to a situation involving the recording public officials. This is not the same as saying there is or is not a "degree of consent".
 
OpenGambit said:
I disagree with that.

I didn't think he was breaking the letter of the law actually. Thats because I don't think a cop having a conversation with someone he is giving a ticket to is a private conversation.

the wiretapping law only applied to private conversations.

That was my interpretation when I read it.
Click to expand...

my reading of that law suggested to me that it had to do with the covert wiretapping of private conversations by a third party. that situation did not exist in the case under discussion. I have no idea what the case law may have been, but my impression was that of malicious prosecution. the fact that they dropped it suggests that the DA realized there was no chance of winning.
 
turbodish said:
The issue is whether the requirement for consent extends to a situation involving the recording public officials. This is not the same as saying there is or is not a "degree of consent".
Click to expand...

its wonderful that you can manage to fit 2 out of 3 elements of the offence in a sentence.
However, its still a horrible characterization of the legal issue that shows you are mixing up two elements of the offence, but at least you dropped the words "how far". Its an improvement.
 
BusaBob said:
my reading of that law suggested to me that it had to do with the covert wiretapping of private conversations by a third party. that situation did not exist in the case under discussion. I have no idea what the case law may have been, but my impression was that of malicious prosecution. the fact that they dropped it suggests that the DA realized there was no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

The case is really not that interesting from a legal perspective because its actually a huge slam dunk. Fliming police doing their jobs in public is clearly protected under the 1st amendement and the concept of democracy as a whole. It actually is more interesting from the perspective of how unethical police officers will use their powers to curb civilian oversight.
 
OpenGambit said:
The case is really not that interesting from a legal perspective because its actually a huge slam dunk. Fliming police doing their jobs in public is clearly protected under the 1st amendement and the concept of democracy as a whole. It actually is more interesting from the perspective of how unethical police officers will use their powers to curb civilian oversight.
Click to expand...

it is shocking that they would do that. i found it incredulous that they would have even charged him with that in the first place. stories like this one that weakens one's faith in the police
 
As I understand it, the law is only applicable if you have modified the smooth, outer shell of your helmet. To use a Cardo Scala (which attaches to the helmet) or any other com-system, a GoPro or Contour camera or a mohawk is legal as long as you haven't permanently affixed said items. If you have glued or otherwise permanently affixed them, it may be considered modifying. From what I've heard...a lot depends on the cop and their 'interpretation' of the law.
​
 
Last edited:
Nyx13 said:
From what I've heard...a lot depends on the cop and their 'interpretation' of the law.
​
Click to expand...

And that's not something a law-abiding citizen would want to bet his insurance rate on :cool:
 
turbodish said:
The issue is whether the requirement for consent extends to a situation involving the recording public officials. This is not the same as saying there is or is not a "degree of consent".
Click to expand...

A police officer is not a "public official", he's a police officer.

*Edited for clarification* You're casting a very broad net, with your comment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom