The article mentions 2 apps, but I'm sure these are not the only ones. It would be nice to know about others too.
One note of caution, though: some states are 2-party consent states, which means, both parties have to consent to an audio recording. If you happen to be in one of those states, and the cops find out that you've been recording them, you can be in deep trouble.
"some states are 2-party consent states, which means, both parties have to consent to an audio recording."
IANAL, but I believe that there is no state where this applies to public recording. The issue is "expectation of privacy". http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html
In the rochester case, the public servant informed Ms Good that they did not feel safe, and then used the "refusal to obey a police instruction" as the crime. However, citizens are only required to obey lawful instructions. I do not believe that the instruction was lawful.
Until our public servants in law enforcement are educated on the matter of law, a citizen will be taking a risk in exercising their rights. I believe that it is our duty to do so.
What is the advantage of using this app as opposed to using the built-in Voice Memos app and then turning off the phone's screen? Both approaches record audio fine, don't show any immediate indication that recording is happening, and at least with Voice Memos, I don't have an app called "Cop Recorder" running if the police decide to get curious.
>What is the advantage of using this app as opposed to using the built-in Voice Memos app and then turning off the phone's scree
I don't believe there is one. I emailed (CopWatch) a few weeks ago and have not heard anything. One of my suggestions was to change the name.
I know of a person in which a novelty iPhone scale app was used as probable cause to search their vehicle. He is a developer who wanted to see how an iPhone app could act as a scale. Our estimations were correct, vibration and position are used to make a very crude estimate.
The mere existence of this app angered the police and allowed them to justify a full vehicle search, yielding nothing.
A name like CopWatch is a red flag, and I would not want to have an app of that name on my phone if recording secrecy was my end goal.
The app does not upload in real time, but rather works like any other built in app, recording locally, uploading at user instruction, plus needing data entry prior to uploading. Given that we have all seen video of officers destroying recording devices, or recording devices returned broken, it is important to protect that function.
This app in curent form offers no protection against corruption in law enforcement.
My best recommendation is to use UStream. It records locally if there is no cellular or wifi connection. If a data connection can be found, it records directly to the remote servers. You can delete the local file, and even the local representation of the remote server file, but the master will be retained when you login to the webapp. You must only protect your login and password to the webapp, and all recordings made while connected through a data connection should be safe for a sufficient period of time.
I should note, the above suggestions are only tested on iOS devices. I have no idea if they hold true on other mobile platforms. The UStream deletion of local files while retaining remote files could also be a bug, albeit one that has been there for over a year now.
I disagree with the headline. It is not "spying" to record the police in public any more than it is spying for them to record you with a dashboard camera. Both recordings should serve the same purpose - to create a record of events that can be used to ensure the law is upheld. I don't see how any honest law enforcement professional could disagree with this.
Also strip personally identifying information for immediate anonymity. A phone serial could be embedded or at least a phone make (mine does phone make. Flickr enjoys this btw). Combine that with who owns the phone serial or used phone make in the area (apparently some phones broadcast such information) and the person can be identified.
> Also strip personally identifying information for immediate anonymity.
I question just how anonymous a recording of your interaction with the police can be made. Surely the officers in question will recognize recordings of themselves and have records of just who all they pulled over that day?
It's more about capturing something that someone does not want to be seen and later traceable back to you because you didn't know about your phone embedding data into pictures.
Say for example, you caught me killing a puppy with your camera phone. I'm your neighbour so you post the picture online with a hint to location via an anonymous account through many proxies. There's newspaper frontpage outrage and I'm outraged. I investigate and look at the picture file. Lo and behold, I recognise the camera make as yours and know who it is. So it's not only police that you want to protect yourself from.
It stops recording when the phone is locked. But I'd imagine that as long as it's recording, the phone wouldn't go into lock mode unless you specifically told it to. The good news is that even if someone takes your phone and deletes the video, you can email Qik to recover whatever portion of the video was uploaded to their servers before the deletion.
But I'd imagine that as long as it's recording, the phone wouldn't go into lock mode unless you specifically told it to.
That's the thing... you want it to. If you're pulled over by the police you want to 1) start recording, 2) start uploading to a server in some other jurisdiction 3) Lock your phone so that police can't see that it's recording/uploading, 4) the power-off button is disabled.
A police officer noticing your phone during an arrest and clicking on "stop recording" is a totally different situation than him asking you for your password.
Well, I wrote the software, not the article. It's a catchy headline sure, and the apps are called Cop Recorder, which a lot of people see as anti-police. But, there are lots of cops who use the software too.
We are not an anti-police project, we are a pro-data project! There are good police and bad police, and we publish recordings of both.
ok, so that concerns me, because i am not convinced that "more data" is a good thing. more surveillance in general is, it seems to me, going to help those with power rather than those without - they have more resources, for example.
what i thought was good about your app, from this article, was that it was intended for the underdog - that something about the process to combine data, say, was intended to provide a counterbalance to the abuse of police power.
but now you're saying you're neutral about it. that you're as happy for it to be used by the police against others, as for others to use it against the police. doesn't that mean that you're likely making things worse?
and what about other morally questionable areas? mob-justice, for example. what are you going to do if a bunch of people start pooling observations of someone they are calling, say, a paedophile, when there's no conviction against them? or gays? or people of one race or another, asserting that they commit more crime...?
just arguing that "more data is good" seems horribly naive. data a tool that can be abused in many ways. if you're choosing how to shape that force, and choosing well, great, but if you're going to ignore the moral responsibility that comes with the data, what makes you think you are helping?
Now imagine a world where anyone could enter a gps coordinate and height and see the activity there, at anytime in the past. You think we'd have TARP? You think we'd be at war in afghanistan? You think we'd have priests fucking children? Lynchings? Drunk driving?
Many think this would be a dystopian future that forces everyone to conform. I believe that if all those people who only pretend to conform were actually required to conform, we'd suddenly see a great debate on what "normal" should actually be.
Asimov wrote a story about this, and seemed to suggest that his view was that the end of privacy would be a bad thing (but maybe I read it wrong).
[edit: i was wrong; it wasn't bradbury, i'm remembering the asimov work you mention - an excellent story, i agree]
but it ignores the existing power structure. everyone knows that banks screwed up - but who is in jail? same thing goes here: it won't be an equaliser; only the little people will be punished. most people won't be using their viewers to avoid a war, they will be watching infotainment on 3d tv.
if you don't explicitly challenge the existing power structure you implicitly strengthen it.
To paraphrase the police, if police officers are doing their job with in the letter of the law then they have nothing to worry about being recorded.
I'm not sure why the framing is 'spying' on the police, as the police should welcome such monitoring to ensure that all officers are performing their public duties to the public, tools like these are extremely helpful in weeding out the 'bad apples' and I fail to understand how recording a public police force in public performing their public duties could be considered spying.
Surely, the police would welcome evidence of the overwhelmingly positive effect they have on society being made more public. The police know the value that CCTV can bring to the public, these tools help the police realize the benefits of constant recording of their own members and should welcome efforts to verify that their records match 3rd party records so they can weed out those who would seek to distort the record. It's well known that the police sometimes have problems with evidence going missing, these tools help restore the evidence that understandably goes missing during an investigation.
Tools like these are a great way for citizens to help the police do their job, and aid the police in collecting evidence that might be cost prohibitive in the current economic climate. It would be great if the police could distribute these tools from their websites and make them more available, perhaps on the back of their business cards they could make this information available.
The Vancouver angle is especially interesting, as in the heat of the moment RCMP members in the Vancouver area often remember a different version of events than was recorded.
"Robinson, in a bid to get his driver’s licence returned, told a B.C. Supreme Court that he had two stiff drinks at home before returning to the scene of the accident, which caused him to fail a breathalyzer."
I wonder if apps like this could be used to circumvent the recording consent laws in certain states. Instead of having the phone/app make the recording, it could transmit the video/audio stream to a central server in another state where recording without consent is legal. Plus you wouldn't be at risk of losing your recording if somebody takes your phone.
I sincerely doubt this (though I'm no lawyer.) Generally the rules are written so that it applies to the act of recording. The copy is being made on the phone, then sent.
I'd be interested to know if having an open phone line while speaking to the police could be defended in court. Consider an app that didn't actually _record_ locally, only streamed to a remote server (in a state where the recording was legal) that recorded the conversation.
Anything that uploads to a server should have plausible deniability built in. What I mean is that it should still save locally the last 15 seconds of video so that you have something they can force you to delete.
One note of caution, though: some states are 2-party consent states, which means, both parties have to consent to an audio recording. If you happen to be in one of those states, and the cops find out that you've been recording them, you can be in deep trouble.
On the other hand, sometimes just recording the cops in plain sight can get you into trouble, as evidenced by Emily Good's arrest in Rochester, NY. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110625/NEWS01/...