Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan
Pedoman dan Aturan Diskusi
Laporkan postingan ini
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
He should be deported for being a mexican.
https://www.google.com/search?q=recording+consent+laws+in+the+USA
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+one+party+consent
"One-party consent or single-party consent means that you can record a call or meeting as long as you have consent from one of the parties in the meeting. You don't need explicit consent from the other party."
("Meeting" as defined by these laws includes any interaction between two people and one of the parties who is present may give consent to themselves to record under such circumstances - this means in one-party (recording) consent states, you can record every interaction that you are a part of without needing consent from the other parties - but you have to be one of the people interacting and not just a third-party observer.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+one+party+consent+states+in+the+USA
"One-party consent: A person can record a conversation if they are a party to the conversation, or if one party consents with full knowledge."
I don't think so.
Based off of the results I'm finding - the following are some of the countries allow one-party consent for video recording in public areas (from outside of a dwelling, for example) where one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy :
United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Australia
The following link contains a list referring to legality of one-party consent photos (video should probably be the same) for 50 of the major countries in the world :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
The vast majority are lit up green with no need for consent.
Only 14 out of 50 of them explicitly forbid it in some capacity, the rest apparently don't.
There may be caveats to this depending on the state, province, or other jurisdiction, so one should consult with their local legal records and / or an attorney before proceeding on this information - but the point is, there are actually plenty of countries in the world where the requirement for recording consent is not the standard.
And my take is that : nor should it be.
Any country that criminalizes keeping a video record of what you do in places where people do not have an expectation of privacy, is a country that does not believe in accountability. That video footage can account for your time if you are accused of something, and furthermore, if someone is committing a crime then that video footage would be able to account for that too. Criminalizing video recording in reasonable situations to record, is a law that only supports criminals because - psshhh... yeah right, like the guy who you're recording commit a crime is going to give you consent to record him. This is also why some countries where two-party consent is required, make an exemption for video footage that was either destroyed immediately after being recorded or which recorded a crime being committed by a third-party.
Pardon me? "nancy boiz"? What the ever lovin eff?
Its like callin ppl ♥♥♥.
LOL ok, not sure what has to do wit the thread. Maybe it was "Tree Hugger" that set him off? Weird.
Pretty sure nick is ♥♥♥, I would say it's pertinent. :D
Police need one of two things to do an investigation. A warrant, or probable cause. They can't just go around digging through peoples personal spaces and data on a hunch or an accusation.
As I stated, no investigation needed in this case for them to obtain said video, because no investigation is needed for police to just accept submissions of information that is willingly provided to them with police reports that they receive.
But, more generally speaking :
That isn't true but you seem to be confusing performing a search of private property (without consent) with police investigative work.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+do+police+investigations+entail
From the following article :
https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/security-and-global-studies/resources/what-is-a-criminal-investigator/
Probable cause is a legal standard that means a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or that someone is responsible for it. Often, the mere accusation of a crime, such as harassment or assault, is all the "probable cause" that police need to proceed with a case instead of dismissing it outright. In these cases, you have someone claiming an injury, which when it comes to assault, is often provable, but when it comes to harassment, it often is not provable, yet there's someone claiming to have experienced it, and if you can get them to sign a police report which has a clause which says (depending on jurisdiction) something close to "under penalty of perjury, I hereby certify that all information in this statement is true and accurate", so the "witness" or "victim" gets believed and that document gets used as evidence (more on that in a moment, below) but it's also worth noting that just because someone certifies that they are not committing perjury, it doesn't mean that they aren't.
(This is the same way that the BadUSB exploit occurs, because asking potential liars if they are liars, turns out to be a really bad way of identifying liars - and unlike BadUSB, with humans we have other reliable methods for checking for lies, but unfortunately, those methods are usually not checked.)
To perform a search, they have to convince a judge that they should get a warrant, giving them an exemption to the 4th amendment, but to just speak to people, or collect publicly available information, they need no such document.
No warrant is needed to speak to "victims", "witnesses", or anyone else willing to talk when a claim is made.
No warrant is needed to collect information from public sources, which are already available to every other member of the public, or which are freely handed over by any member of the public. (This is why some companies build their reputation on saying no to the police and requiring that they bring a warrant because many of them just turn over information freely with no warrant, to the detriment of many people who are not even perpetrators.)
No warrant is needed to watch the movements and behaviors of someone (maybe "a suspect") in public and document what is observed because there is no expectation of privacy in public.
No warrant is needed to analyze what data has already been collected.
...and when it comes to pressing charges, they don't even need that much - all they need are the "witness" / "victim" statements and some written police reports, signed by "witnesses" or "victims" - "under penalty of perjury" (but as an attorney explained it to me, they want people reporting, so unless someone admits on any record that they lied about a domestic crime (ie. harassment / assault), people will never be held accountable for filing a false police report for such matters - therefore, for those types of accusations, we can just dismiss the "under penalty of perjury" part, because it will never be enforced without an outright confession from a liar).
To press charges, they don't even need a solid case - they just need to convince the district attorney to accept the charges - which they do because, as that same attorney that I spoke with put it, "victims statements are considered evidence for domestic accusations" and "often cases will be tried even if all they have is the accusation out of an abundance of precaution for escalation because no judge and no district attorney (who is subject to being voted out) wants to come under public scrutiny, media or otherwise, for failing to bring a case due to the possibility that said case results in the death of a girl, which causes said public scrutiny to occur". ...and finally, that same attorney also said, "I have seen many cases brought to trial, including for something as serious as ♥♥♥♥, where the only evidence that they had were the statement and tears of some girl on the stand, which still resulted in convictions from a jury."
Now, if that's how ♥♥♥♥ cases go, you can imagine how harassment, assault, and other minor domestic claims go similarly...
Furthermore, there is a presumption that public officers properly perform their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ duties, which creates the trustworthiness that supposedly justifies accepting a hearsay statement from the officer. (Which you can find legal sources which back this simply by searching online, but also by speaking with an attorney to confirm it.) ...but that's in court - before court, that presumption that officers supposedly properly perform their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ duties, causes cases which lack sufficient evidence to be accepted on the presumption that the evidence actually is sufficient (in addition to the reasons it gets accepted from the above paragraph) - meanwhile, too many officers take the stance of "let the courts figure it out" when filing charges, and also as the reason for filing charges, assuming that the courts will sort out the truth, at the same time that the courts are assuming that the police actually have evidence.
This is why police should be performing investigations, though, because it causes a lot of harm to the accused to be charged especially if charges are not dropped quickly (even if the case doesn't make it to trial), and if there's EXCULPATORY evidence that the crime alleged DID NOT occur, then the police should be looking into that.
Very often, they do not.
In the case of Nick, if there's video of the incident, and the accusing party has access to that video, then it's a pretty open and shut case.
However, in other cases, the police may ignore video or potentially even destroy it if it's on systems that they control - which checking video of an incident is extremely basic investigative work that they could be doing and often can get legitimate access to without a warrant - and when they either disregard or destroy that video, it is extremely bad for the truth and justice of a case, regardless of whether that video footage was evidence of a crime, or exculpatory evidence.
Video footage is often evidence of objective truth.
When people, especially police, decide to listen to personal truths and disregard evidence of objective truths - justice is not being served.