Citizen Videos Counter Official Accounts

Today's New York Times has a story, "Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest," that is by turns infuriating and enlightening -- infuriating because of the apparently unpunished official misconduct that it plainly suggests, and enlightening in its demonstration of citizen empowerment. From the story:

A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention.

For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.

Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going to pick up sushi.

Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.

As Mark Forscher, who pointed the story out to me, notes: "Although the Times doesn't come out and call it 'citizen journalism' or 'grassroots media' isn't this what it's all about? Regular people empowered through the creation of their own media to hold those in power accountable?"

Accountability is more than getting bogus charges dropped, however. It's holding to account public employees who lie in pursuit of law and order. Not much sign of that in these cases.

Nonethelesss, the message is starting to get clearer for everyone. The ubiquity of cameras has disturbing privacy implications. But it also means that the truth won't always stay buried.

Comments

[Robert Leonard]

Dan,

I just finished listening to a similar presentation at the NYC Grassroots conference from a presenter that talked how they are educating "the profiled group" to carry a video camera as it is the new first line of defense against police harassment.

sure beats guns and knives...

bob

[ashusta]

"Accountability is more than getting bogus charges dropped, however. It's holding to account public employees who lie in pursuit of law and order."

I'd say that public employees who lie in the line of duty are rather decidedly not upholding rule of law.

Of course this all harkens back to Rodney King, but the ubiquity of privately (in this case truly private citizen) owned media production facilities allows us to collectively monitor the State more effectively every year.

[Wil]

I don't think they are lying in the pursuit of law and order as much as they are lying in the pursuit of intimidatiion, quashing dissent, and protecting their jobs.

[Al]

Yes, this is good. In the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, I believe video tape was used, not for the first time, but pretty heavily. The same "footage" of a "riot" was shown over and over again. In a documentary, they showed some well-viewed video footage and then the same riot from another vantage point using a film camera. The video was shot up close and the camera was jostled quite a bit. It looked like a huge crowd. The film camera was about a hundred feet away and it showed maybe 10 to 12 people involved - it wasn't a big crowd at all. The video set the tone for public opinion because it was repeatedly shown. It's too bad there weren't more cameras around to counter some of the one-sidedness of it.

I think what we'll see now is more restrictions so the police can't get in trouble. Cities can't afford to be sued so the protestors will be further isolated when possible. More permits will be required and the police will have cameras too. So the protestors will have to "do more" to get noticed as they'll be further and further from the action. Just my $0.02 plus tax.

[Erik Schmidt]

This reminds me of David Brin's notion of uibiquitous cameras. The twist is that they're not just accessible by law enforcement entities - they can be viewed by anyone and everyone. Usually when we speak of privacy, we're talking about staying out of the watchful eye of Big Government. However, if Big Government is only one of many eyeballs looking at the same event, it theoretically becomes more difficult for the government to get away with abuses of power, because Big Government no longer has a monopoly on the means of observation.

This is just grist for the mill. Even Brin states that he doesn't know if this is the right answer or not. But it is an intriguing way of looking at the issue of surveillance in an open society.

[Charlie Gordon]

I'm curious -- any lawyers out there?

Seems to me that the cops are "Sworn Officers". What does "Sworn" mean? Does it mean, perhaps, sworn to uphold the law?

Would a Sworn Officer, who lies about the facts in a case, be committing Perjury?

any lawyers out there?