Support The Conclusion: Why A Camera Should Not Be Considered Equivalent to an Eye

[INRM]

I'm looking for arguments that supports the conclusion that cameras should not be considered legally the same as an human eyeball.

[INRM]

Why should the police warrantlessly placing a tracking device on one's car as to allow one to be tracked be considered somehow different than the police just following/tailing a suspect?

[Pulvinar]

Because it's harder to be objective behind the objective?

[JJM 777]

I agree that cameras should not be considered legally the same as a human eyeball. What an insult to cameras, they can have so much sharper resolution, and what they see can be recorded and replayed afterwards without errors or omissions -- a major disadvantage of human eyes.

[JJM 777]

There is a major difference: a tracking device blindly tells where a car is, but that is not good enough evidence even for speeding tickets where I live, the police must prove who was in the car at the moment (and this they do with speed cameras that take a photo of the driver). The tailing police can be more sure about who is actually in the car.

[marplots]

Another difference is that the tracker will follow the car wherever it goes, while the police are not allowed to do so. For example, if someone drives onto private property (a ranch maybe?) that would otherwise require a warrant to keep following the car.

[Ferguson]

I'm looking for arguments that supports the conclusion that cameras should not be considered legally the same as an human eyeball.

Humans are prone to hallucinations and confabulations. Unedited, well-framed video evidence is nearly incontrovertible.

[Brian-M]

[...] what they see can be recorded and replayed afterwards without errors or omissions [...]

What they see can be recorded and replayed without error, but the images they see aren't necessarily error free...

Chromatic Abreration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)
Lens Flare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare)
Bokeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh)
Barrel distortion (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Barrel_Distortion_01.htm)
Pincushion Distortion (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?key=pincushion+distortion)
Noise (http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_noise.html)

[Brian-M]

I'm looking for arguments that supports the conclusion that cameras should not be considered legally the same as an human eyeball.

Are we talking surgically replacing biological eyes with miniature cameras? Are we talking about disposal of biological vs. electronic waste? Exactly what is the context here?

[Puppycow]

Uh, I don't think that cameras are legally the same as a human eyeball.

The main difference is that I can't publish what I see with my own eyes and show it to others. If I see you naked, only one person has seen you naked. If I take a picture of you naked, I can show it to the whole world.

[epepke]

You can push in someone's eyeball and it hurts. Try doing that with a camera.

[Kid Eager]

I'm looking for arguments that supports the conclusion that cameras should not be considered legally the same as an human eyeball.

Please explain what you mean by that statement. A human eyeball has no legal status, any more than a camera does - unless you have something to the contrary?

[Professor Yaffle]

I get the impression INRM is talking about this in relation to privacy laws.

Just a hunch.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Here I thought cybereyes from Ghost in the Shell were finally in the viable phase....

[Puppycow]

Would it be legal for a private citizen to place a tracking device on someone's car?

I think it would be legal to follow a person as long as you don't break any laws doing it.

The car is private property, and attaching a device to it without the owner's permission seems like it should be illegal without a warrant. Following a person does not involve tampering with their property.

[JJM 777]

it should be illegal without a warrant.
For ordinary citizens. But many things are legal for the police which are illegal for ordinary citizens.

[Brian-M]

Here I thought cybereyes from Ghost in the Shell were finally in the viable phase....

Can't be too long before someone starts ghost-hacking.

[Lamuella]

A camera should not be legally equivalent to a human eye. If I grab hold of someone's camera, squeeze, and move it several feet away from their body, I would not face charges for grievous bodily harm

[Ravenplucker]

A camera should not be legally equivalent to a human eye. If I grab hold of someone's camera, squeeze, and move it several feet away from their body, I would not face charges for grievous bodily harm

Unless it's a robot.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm looking for arguments that supports the conclusion that cameras should not be considered legally the same as an human eyeball.

Given that this conclusion seems to follow trivially and obviously from the fact that cameras and human eyeballs are not physically or functionally the same, wouldn't it be better to start by citing arguments that support the conclusion that cameras should be considered legally the same as a human eyeball?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Why should the police warrantlessly placing a tracking device on one's car as to allow one to be tracked be considered somehow different than the police just following/tailing a suspect?

Similarly to what I just said in another of your threads: since the two actions are in fact different, can you start by citing arguments as to why they should not be considered different? The default, one might think, is that different actions should be considered to be different actions, so the burden of proof is on the counter-claim that different actions should be considered the same; a simple refutation of any counter-claims should be all that's required.

Dave

[Professor Yaffle]

What's with this "support the conclusion" nonsense, anyway. I base my conclusions on the evidence and arguments, not the other way round...

[Beerina]

You can push in someone's eyeball and it hurts. Try doing that with a camera.

I would imagine that would hurt even more! :boggled:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because cameras don't have corneas that may be transplanted into other human eyes via organ donation programs.
Because you can't buy and sell human eyeballs on the internet.

:confused:

I agree with Prof Yaffle: you're approaching argumentation backward. It's apologetics when you start with a conclusion (presumably held as a matter of dogma) and then try to create an argument that gets you there.

ETA: Ah! I see the other thread INRM just started, and now I see what's going on. It's intellectually dishonest argumentation. INRM is trying to set a logical trap so he can say that the same principle that makes eyeballs different from cameras legally must be used to make GPS tracking different than simply tracking a vehicle with a cop in a car. I've reported this and requested the threads be merged.

INRM, if you wish to discuss the Jones case, why not do it honestly?

The legal issue in the Jones case is a 4th Amendment case. You left that out of the camera-eyeball thread. The fact that cameras and eyeballs, and GPS devices and police cars are all legally different things does nothing to support the defense's arguments in the Jones case.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should the police warrantlessly placing a tracking device on one's car as to allow one to be tracked be considered somehow different than the police just following/tailing a suspect?

Your backward reasoning approach notwithstanding, I've explained the jurisprudence at some length on other threads involving the Antoine Jones case.

The case law clearly says that the technology isn't what's key. (Is using a pair of binoculars or even regular prescription glasses or contact lenses somehow fundamentally different than just looking with your eyes?) The issue is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the information being gathered. There is such an expectation wrt telephone conversations, but there is not wrt the location of your vehicle when it's in public.

The novel theory being offered by the defendants is the idea that even though there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, if you track the movements of a vehicle in public continuously for a prolonged time, at some point there arises a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt to the mosaic of information that can be gathered (that is, the pattern that emerges from such prolonged tracking). I've given solid reasons why this theory will almost certainly be rejected by the Supreme Court.

The other issue is about the placing of the device (as distinguished from the use of the device). I predict the outcome of that point won't be dispositive of the case.

On this point, defense has a big hurdle to overcome: placing a device is neither a search nor a seizure.

Even if you construe it as such, the prosecution's case is still on pretty solid ground. Since police did indeed have a warrant for placing the device, we know for sure they had probable cause. The warrant was expired (by one day) and the police affixed the device outside the geographical limit of the warrant. I think they could use the standard argument for warrantless searches and seizures when probable cause is present but the chance of evidence disappearing precludes getting a warrant (or in this case, a new warrant). That is, police were having a difficult time finding the opportunity to affix the device. When the opportunity arose, if they'd waited to get a new warrant, they would probably have lost the opportunity. (Again, this all depends on affixing the device being construed as some kind of search or seizure. If it's not, then there is no 4th Amendment issue).

[JoeTheJuggler]

For ordinary citizens. But many things are legal for the police which are illegal for ordinary citizens.

True, however, the actual question in the Jones case (which is really what INRM is deceitfully addressing) is the 4th Amendment issue, not just any kind of illegal police activity.

Police might have done something illegal, but if it's not a search or a seizure, then the evidence gathered should still be allowed.

The argument that an ordinary citizen couldn't have done what the police did is entirely irrelevant to the question before the SCOTUS. It's an attempt to lower the standard of argumentation (changing "4th Amendment violation" to "illegal activity").

[JoeTheJuggler]

The car is private property, and attaching a device to it without the owner's permission seems like it should be illegal without a warrant. Following a person does not involve tampering with their property.

What if attaching the device is only done in public (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) and does nothing to infringe the property rights of the vehicle owner? How exactly do you define "tampering"?

Is placing a chalk mark on a tire (for tracking parking time violations) illegal tampering?

At any rate, as I've said, "illegal" or "tampering" does not equal "4th Amendment violation". If the illegal activity itself is not a search or a seizure at all, then there can be no 4th Amendment violation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another difference is that the tracker will follow the car wherever it goes, while the police are not allowed to do so. For example, if someone drives onto private property (a ranch maybe?) that would otherwise require a warrant to keep following the car.

This point was already clarified in the case law. (U.S. v. Knotts.) Using older technology (a radio beeper) police could track the movements of the vehicle in public, but weren't allowed to use it to follow movements of the suspect any place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The law is already clear on this point, so there is no difference. That is, evidence gathered from a police tail when the vehicle is on private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy would be excluded as would observing the movements of the car when it's in a place where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is a major difference: a tracking device blindly tells where a car is, but that is not good enough evidence even for speeding tickets where I live, the police must prove who was in the car at the moment (and this they do with speed cameras that take a photo of the driver). The tailing police can be more sure about who is actually in the car.

In the Jones case, the evidence gathered is a pattern of movements of the vehicle in public. It's not really about anything else--just where the vehicle went.

The defense is using the Mosaic theory to argue that even though there is no reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the movements of a vehicle in public, there is a reasonable expectation wrt the pattern of movements of a vehicle in public that was gathered by continuous prolonged tracking of those movements.

[marplots]

This point was already clarified in the case law. (U.S. v. Knotts.) Using older technology (a radio beeper) police could track the movements of the vehicle in public, but weren't allowed to use it to follow movements of the suspect any place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The law is already clear on this point, so there is no difference. That is, evidence gathered from a police tail when the vehicle is on private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy would be excluded as would observing the movements of the car when it's in a place where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Although I agree with everything you said, there's still a problem. Without visually determining when the car leaves the private property (where no information can be gathered) and moves into the public space, you wouldn't be able to know when to turn the tracking back on.

Is it the case that gathering data you shouldn't have (the car location on private property) is allowed as long as you do not use it? I don't know. Could I, for example, tap a phone, record everything heard, but then toss out those conversations that didn't involve my suspect/target?

Is it the gathering of inappropriate information that is disallowed or only the use of it?

The point is subtle, and I expect already covered in law. Could you tell me the determination?

[Gods Big Toe]

What\'s with this \"support the conclusion\" nonsense, anyway. I base my conclusions on the evidence and arguments, not the other way round...

On just about every subject I am able to present arguments on both sides even though I may have already reached a conclusion based on all of the available arguments and evidence. It is not nonsense to ask people to present arguments for one side or the other. In fact it is integral to critical thinking to understand both sides of an issue.

The legal issue seems to come down a reasonable expectation of privacy. A camera can have a higher resolving power than the human eye. Therefore, a person can see me clearly at times when I cannot see them clearly at all and thus not know that I am being observed. Of course, this could also happen if someone is peeping through a hole in the fence.

Cameras can have long exposures. This will enable a camera to see a person in low light conditions that an unaided human eye cannot see.

Some cameras have swivels that allow the user to seemingly be looking in one direction when in fact the camera is seeing something 90 degrees to the side. Again I may be observed when I am unaware.

Since cameras are ubiquitous, a reasonable argument could be made that my expectation of privacy should factor in cameras.

[Kid Eager]

I still maintain the OP is a nonsense post.

If, in fact, the post was about privacy, then it should have asked about privacy and what the law says regarding boundaries thereto. If it were about surveillance, ditto.

Until then, the answer is "hedgehogs"

[Rasmus]

I would imagine that would hurt even more! :boggled:

This.

I just pushed three people in the eyeballs and i am not hurting even a little bit...




:boxedin:

[slingblade]

Not sure what conclusion you want support for, but in general:

A camera is BETTER than a human eye, and the human brain to which the eye is attached, because a camera can't make judgments about what it sees, doesn't have an organic memory and can't forget or embellish what it sees with things that didn't actually happen, can't be swayed or persuaded by others or itself...

A camera is a much better eye-witness than an eye.

Until, of course, the film is developed or digitally extracted, at which time it can be manipulated.

But until that point, I'd trust what the camera says it saw a lot more than I'd trust any of you, or myself.



If that didn't answer your question, then rephrase the question to ask what you actually mean to ask. We're not mind-readers.

[marplots]

Not sure what conclusion you want support for, but in general:

A camera is BETTER than a human eye, and the human brain to which the eye is attached, because a camera can't make judgments about what it sees, doesn't have an organic memory and can't forget or embellish what it sees with things that didn't actually happen, can't be swayed or persuaded by others or itself...

A camera is a much better eye-witness than an eye. (then snipped)

Different, not better. Eyes usually come in pairs, giving binocular vision and depth of field. Eyes naturally scan a scene and focus on different areas, depending on intent and meaning. Eyes are usually attached to brains which help put things in narrative context -- for example, no dog appears in the picture, but I saw a dog go behind that dumpster, so I know it's there.

Another example: A picture of Jesus made out of sticks. I know it's just a random collection of sticks because I saw it as I walked up and from different angles. The camera only captures a particular perspective in a discrete moment. At some point, you have to engage a human mind to determine "what the camera saw," but that mind will not have all the facts that an eye witness had.

Finally, a camera image is subject to manipulation or being taken out of context. The camera may not lie, but Photoshop does.

[DavidJames]

See INRM, you were right, you are being followed and watched
ETA: Ah! I see the other thread INRM just started, and now I see what's going on.


oh, it looks like you spilled something on your collar.

[Checkmite]

All of the complaints I tend to hear with regard to cameras used by police seem to be motivated by the unassailable objectivity of the camera. Someone caught stealing or speeding doesn't have a chance to lie or make excuses to an officer or otherwise try to wiggle out of trouble for instance; defendants can't challenge a camera's recollection or potential bias in court like they can a human officer. It seems some feel this perfect objectivity is "unfair" to a person caught by such a camera.

In my opinion, since it's human officers that end up reviewing the images captured or recorded by the cameras, a human eye is still part of the process, so I don't consider the camera-vs-human-eye distinction to make much of a difference.

[slingblade]

Different, not better. Eyes usually come in pairs, giving binocular vision and depth of field. Eyes naturally scan a scene and focus on different areas, depending on intent and meaning. Eyes are usually attached to brains which help put things in narrative context -- for example, no dog appears in the picture, but I saw a dog go behind that dumpster, so I know it's there.

Another example: A picture of Jesus made out of sticks. I know it's just a random collection of sticks because I saw it as I walked up and from different angles. The camera only captures a particular perspective in a discrete moment. At some point, you have to engage a human mind to determine "what the camera saw," but that mind will not have all the facts that an eye witness had.

Finally, a camera image is subject to manipulation or being taken out of context. The camera may not lie, but Photoshop does.


Yeah, I simply sensed a "gotcha" moment, but not really caring what it was about, I tried to answer in the way that might most frustrate him, and still be true. ;)

[PhantomWolf]

This point was already clarified in the case law. (U.S. v. Knotts.) Using older technology (a radio beeper) police could track the movements of the vehicle in public, but weren't allowed to use it to follow movements of the suspect any place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The law is already clear on this point, so there is no difference. That is, evidence gathered from a police tail when the vehicle is on private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy would be excluded as would observing the movements of the car when it's in a place where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if the police were trailing a car using a helicopter and the car went onto private land, if a murder occured the police would not be able to use the evidence they had from trailing the car?

[gumboot]

So are we talking strictly about US privacy laws here? Because I am pretty sure, for example, that the New Zealand Police cannot attach a tracking device to a vehicle without a warrant.

There difference, as I understand it (at least here), is that a warrant is required to leave a monitoring device behind anywhere, and a warrant (or probable cause) is required to enter a private property without permission.

However collecting information from a public vantage (say photographing people from the street) or from a private location where permission has been granted (such as photographing people from a building across the street) is legal without a warrant.

Monitoring someone from a helicopter, for example, would be legal because the airspace above the private property is public, and anyone can go there. Following said person onto private property however (without probable cause) would not be legal.

Where it would get sticky is when technology began to be used that could monitor activity from a public vantage, that had traditionally not been accessible before - such as some sort of weird X-ray camera.

I am sure our law makers will cross that bridge when they get to it.

[Brian-M]

Finally, a camera image is subject to manipulation or being taken out of context. The camera may not lie, but Photoshop does.

That's why RAW image files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format) are preferred for evidence, because Photoshop (and other image editing software) can't edit or save files in RAW format.

Of course, the cheap cameras most people own don't save the RAW camera sensor data.

[Soapy Sam]

Most human eyes have brains attached.

[marplots]

Yeah, I simply sensed a "gotcha" moment, but not really caring what it was about, I tried to answer in the way that might most frustrate him, and still be true. ;)

I applaud the sentiment. I too enjoy such stuff. Have a beer on me!

[Dave Rogers]

Why should the police warrantlessly placing a tracking device on one's car as to allow one to be tracked be considered somehow different than the police just following/tailing a suspect?

I did some more thinking about this, and it doesn't seem to me that anyone was ever arguing anything else. The strawman argument INRM has erected to knock down is this: If police are not held to have violated the Fourth Amendment by placing a tracking device on a car, and police are not held to have violated the Fourth Amendment by following a suspect, then following a suspect and placing a tracking device on a car are equivalent in law. That this argument is fallacious is simply demonstrated: if a policeman goes into a shop and buys doughnuts, tendering the correct price, this too is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment; he has not illegally seized the doughnuts. Yet this is in no way equivalent to either tracking a suspect's car or tailing a suspect.

In fact, it's our good old friend, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Tailing a suspect is permissible under the Fourth Amendment; attaching a tracking device is permissible under the Fourth Amendment; therefore the two are the same. Clearly fallacious, and clearly incorrect.

Dave

[JoeTheJuggler]

So if the police were trailing a car using a helicopter and the car went onto private land, if a murder occured the police would not be able to use the evidence they had from trailing the car?

No. The test is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Some information about your vehicle's whereabouts, even on private property, has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case I was talking about, the radio beeper was actually in a canister of chloroform. The SCOTUS was fine with using it to track the movements of a vehicle in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but said police couldn't use the device to track the movement of the person when they carried the canister into a building.

I was merely pointing out that the issue of misusing a tracking device has already been addressed. The fact that it could be used for illegal searches doesn't mean that any use of it is an illegal search.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Although I agree with everything you said, there's still a problem. Without visually determining when the car leaves the private property (where no information can be gathered) and moves into the public space, you wouldn't be able to know when to turn the tracking back on.

The legal question is about what evidence is or is not admissible. Even if the police misused the gps device to conduct what everyone agrees to be illegal searches (something not at issue in the Jones case), the evidence gathered about the movements of the vehicle in public is still admissible wrt the 4th Amendment.

Is it the case that gathering data you shouldn't have (the car location on private property) is allowed as long as you do not use it? I don't know. Could I, for example, tap a phone, record everything heard, but then toss out those conversations that didn't involve my suspect/target?
Again, the case law is clear that it's not about where observation happens, but about whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. (The Katz case said that tapping in on a phone conversation even though the phone booth was in public is an illegal search in that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.)

See above why I remarked about the tracker being used on private property in the Knotts case.

Is it the gathering of inappropriate information that is disallowed or only the use of it?
The test is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the information gathered. (Note, it's not enough that there is an actual expectation of privacy--that expectation also has to be reasonable.)

[slingblade]

I applaud the sentiment. I too enjoy such stuff. Have a beer on me!

Thanks! Care for a snifter of apricot brandy? :D

[Robrob]

Why should the police warrantlessly placing a tracking device on one's car as to allow one to be tracked be considered somehow different than the police just following/tailing a suspect?

A tracker is considered to be no more intrusive legally than an actual officer following you around. Same with a camera in public places, etc... it's an extension of the senses and not a violation of privacy.

Another difference is that the tracker will follow the car wherever it goes, while the police are not allowed to do so. For example, if someone drives onto private property (a ranch maybe?) that would otherwise require a warrant to keep following the car.

Current legal theory being the GPS tracker only has a resolution of about 10m and gives no more data than the location of the tracker - no audio, no video. If you drive into your garage where you might expect privacy, it's a moot point unless your garage is bigger than 30m.

Driving the car onto a really big ranch, etc... is not material. You might "expect" privacy in the middle of a pasture on a cattle ranch but (for example) a helicopter flying overhead would see everything you are doing out in the open. Check the legal definition of "curtilage."