Federal judge strikes down Idaho law banning documentation of animal abuse

[ronburgundy]

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

So, what, if they show slaughterhouse employees kicking a cow in the head before stunning it, they have to make the footage available to show how the employees were justified in kicking the cow in the head?

IF that is the only "context" then it will have no effect on the message conveyed. But if they are presenting accidents as intentional cruelty and rare events as standard practice, then the context will expose this and that is nothing but good.

Is that how the laws are written? You can't kick an animal in the head UNLESS you can prove you had a good reason to do so? And for that, you have a right to force someone else's film to include more film in the hopes they filmed your alibi?

There is no need to change "their film" (which btw is film of not-their property taken while on not-their property without consent of the people whose property it is).
Why is their ownership of "their film" so important while invasion of the owner's privacy on their property is of no value?
Regardless, they can show whatever version they want. They would just have to give a digital copy all the film the took on other people's property to the property owners and explicitly cite any alternate version of the owners choosing.

There's no telling when the undercover operator is going to turn the camera on.

True, but with digital film these days and the seconds that the "juicy" (non-representative) stuff comes and goes, the camera is probably rolling most of the time they are in there.

And right now, if they feel that someone illicitly caught their excuse on camera, and has tapes to prove that the abuse was out of context, can't they just subpoena the records of the whole day's filming for their defense?

No. They likely must already have independent evidence to get a judge to issue a subpoena, which unless they are always filming themselves they won't have. Also, that only applies situations where a judge is going to find that the missing context makes the edited version meet the very high bar of slander, and this is about avoiding manipulative misrepresentation that is likely to create false impressions and emotional reactions without being provable as slander in a court. It is a kind of rule that guards against misrepresentation and slander, but has no real effect on speech or truth or anything else worth preserving.

If written correctly, the regulation would just be an addendum to "release" forms that require blurring of faces. It wouldn't have any impact on any honest documentary, and doesn't make it a crime to make dishonest ones either. It just makes it a crime to make one without giving the property owner full access to everything you filmed on their property.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

We have a way of dealing with stuff presented out of context. It's called free speech.

That doesn't deal at all with the effects of misrepresentation via edited film. Verbal claims about unseen cut-out footage are not going to do anything to counter the psychological impact of the edited parts that are shown. If the film is made of other people who don't consent on private property owned by people that don't consent, then an argument can be made that those people have equal ownership of the contents of the recording. Thus they should be given a complete copy of it to show or edit as they see fit. Speech is in no way infringed by giving the property owner a copy, yet it protects against a person's privacy and property being invaded for the purpose of telling lies about them (which cannot be effectively countered via any other means without access to the recordings).

Should I be able to secretly film you in your own house against your wishes and show any edited version I want? Why not? What about you in the shower? Why not? On what non-puritanical basis is showing your junk more an invasion of your privacy than showing other things you do in your house? Do I need to blur your face? Why?

If there is no basis to require that property owners be allowed to demand a copy of what is recorded on their property, then their is no basis (other than national security) for any laws about anything recorded anywhere about anyone or any part of them. Such a minor requirement poses far less of a threat to free speech (i.e. none) than existing laws that restrict recordings based on privacy concerns.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Out of context? You must be referring to ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

Are you really pretending that political activists do not edit their "evidence" to paint the worst (and often inaccurate) picture possible of their enemies?

The bill was to criminalize secretly videotaping on agricultural properties, regardless what they were recording.

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

While perhaps impractical...

I think that was my point.

Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context).

As per ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists.

Not according to the dairy industry.

The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

 

[dismal]

Should I be able to secretly film you in your own house against your wishes and show any edited version I want? Why not? What about you in the shower? Why not? On what non-puritanical basis is showing your junk more an invasion of your privacy than showing other things you do in your house? Do I need to blur your face? Why?

These are not free speech issues. There are other reasons why they are wrongs.

 

[SimpleDon]

No surprise, the corporations are more concerned with the threat to their business from public outrage than the cruelty their employees are perpetrating.

Similar laws have been passed in many other states against "terrorists" interfering with business with revelations about how it's conducted.

The lies are more effective when you censor the truth. Republican 101.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Out of context? You must be referring to ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

Are you really pretending that political activists do not edit their "evidence" to paint the worst (and often inaccurate) picture possible of their enemies?

The bill was to criminalize secretly videotaping on agricultural properties, regardless what they were recording.

That is irrelevant to you statement implying that eco-activists never delete context to create false inferences and misinformation. Loren was not supporting the existing bill but was positing a rationale for why a different type of regulation might make sense. Thus, you objected to something that was not about the actual bill struck down.

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

While perhaps impractical...

I think that was my point.

Then you made it quite poorly, because you implied it was a bad idea in general, and yet now claim you only objected to the pragmatic implementation which since no one has tried to craft an implementation cannot be rationally evaluated.

Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context).

As per ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

And as per eco-activists.

That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists.

Not according to the dairy industry.

Who cares what they say? Do you think that? do I? Does Loren? Does anyone here? Is is presumed by Loren's or my proposal for some other form of regulation? The answer to all these is "NO", thus making your observation a meaningless irrelevance to to what you are responding to, likely because you have no thoughtful response to what was actually said.

The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

No, as per usual, a fundamental failure to understand anything that was said. Anyone could video tape any crime (or even just something they don't like as in this case) on private property and show it. They just could not show it without giving the property owner a full copy so they could show any part of it they want. Also, in the case of actual crimes (which almost nothing these eco-activists show are), the tapes could be given to prosecutors without any such "release" because they are not being shown to the general public. The proposed "release" rule has no effect on limiting any person from filming anything or showing any edited version of it. Only showing an edited version without making the full recordings available to the property owner would be illegal. No one but dishonest "documentarians" lying via editing would be at all negatively impacted by it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Should I be able to secretly film you in your own house against your wishes and show any edited version I want? Why not? What about you in the shower? Why not? On what non-puritanical basis is showing your junk more an invasion of your privacy than showing other things you do in your house? Do I need to blur your face? Why?

These are not free speech issues. There are other reasons why they are wrongs.

Oh, then I'll just blindly take your word those are good reasons that have zero application to the present issue.

Oh wait, no I won't. Any such reasons that are valid apply to why recording people's actions on private property should be subject to regulation that protects them without doing anything that limits free speech.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are already laws against trespassing.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Out of context? You must be referring to ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

We've seen such editing with animal videos also.

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

The point is to require them to show the context in which the material actually existed.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see the point of the laws but they certainly go too far.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

In what context would brutalizing an animal be OK, and how would hours of boring routine obviate an incident of cruelty caught on video?

Because it might not really be what it purports to be.

You don't really need the whole video, just enough to establish context. Rather than try to define it, though, just require the whole thing. The cost to the producers is trivial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

While perhaps impractical, it isn't a bad idea in principle. Removal of context is the most common way to misrepresent the facts and engage in slander. But it is almost impossible to prove that form of slander under current law. This would remove the need for subjective judgment about the effect of the context on the message by forcing the context to be readily available when requested by the property owner or person being recorded (regardless of whether their face is blurred). Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context). That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists. The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.
Such a requirement does nothing to curb free speech or the exposing of actually evil immoral practices, but it does protect against attempts to create objectively false impressions. What is the downside?

I didn't say anything about private property, merely undercover. While your comments about releases come close to what I was thinking it's not quite enough--not everything they film would require a release in the first place because there's no person in it in the first place.

We are both looking at the same basic idea, though.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

We have a way of dealing with stuff presented out of context. It's called free speech.

Rebutting a misleading edit can be hard. I'm simply trying to make it much easier by providing the original also. What's the downside? (I would consider something like a You-Tube link adequate.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Out of context? You must be referring to ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

Are you really pretending that political activists do not edit their "evidence" to paint the worst (and often inaccurate) picture possible of their enemies?

The bill was to criminalize secretly videotaping on agricultural properties, regardless what they were recording.

That is irrelevant to you statement implying that eco-activists never delete context to create false inferences and misinformation.

Seeing I never implied that, I don't see the relevance. I was referring to large scale video fraud that has had substantial influence in political policies.

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

While perhaps impractical...

I think that was my point.

Then you made it quite poorly, because you implied it was a bad idea in general.

I didn't imply anything other than mock the idea of a Footnote law.

...and yet now claim you only objected to the pragmatic implementation which since no one has tried to craft an implementation cannot be rationally evaluated.

If you can't enforce it, it isn't a worthwhile law.

Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context).

As per ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

And as per eco-activists.

Who? Are these the people that destroyed big agriculture?

That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists.

Not according to the dairy industry.

Who cares what they say?

The Idaho legislature did. They didn't care what the eco-activists had to say.

Do you think that? do I? Does Loren? Does anyone here? Is is presumed by Loren's or my proposal for some other form of regulation? The answer to all these is "NO", thus making your observation a meaningless irrelevance to to what you are responding to, likely because you have no thoughtful response to what was actually said.

It is only relevant in the real world. Where big agriculture was able to convince a legislature to pass a law making it against the law to secretly document the goings on private property.

The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

No, as per usual, a fundamental failure to understand anything that was said. Anyone could video tape any crime (or even just something they don't like as in this case) on private property and show it. They just could not show it without giving the property owner a full copy so they could show any part of it they want. Also, in the case of actual crimes (which almost nothing these eco-activists show are), the tapes could be given to prosecutors without any such "release" because they are not being shown to the general public. The proposed "release" rule has no effect on limiting any person from filming anything or showing any edited version of it. Only showing an edited version without making the full recordings available to the property owner would be illegal. No one but dishonest "documentarians" lying via editing would be at all negatively impacted by it.

I misread what you had said there.

 

[ronburgundy]

Perhaps what is needed is a law saying that you can't use undercover audio/video without releasing the whole thing--you can use what you want in your documentary but you must at that time (on screen if video, immediately before/after if audio only) provide a URL to the original.

Yeah, brilliant idea. Just make a law that requires footnotes.

While perhaps impractical, it isn't a bad idea in principle. Removal of context is the most common way to misrepresent the facts and engage in slander. But it is almost impossible to prove that form of slander under current law. This would remove the need for subjective judgment about the effect of the context on the message by forcing the context to be readily available when requested by the property owner or person being recorded (regardless of whether their face is blurred). Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context). That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists. The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.
Such a requirement does nothing to curb free speech or the exposing of actually evil immoral practices, but it does protect against attempts to create objectively false impressions. What is the downside?

I didn't say anything about private property, merely undercover.
While your comments about releases come close to what I was thinking it's not quite enough--not everything they film would require a release in the first place because there's no person in it in the first place.

You could argue that it could apply to any stealth recording even on public property, but that is a much bigger hurdle. Stealth recordings on private property mean that the person gained legal non-trespassing access only by deceit that they knew would have prevented access and made them trespassers.
Also, the whole point is modifying existing law, so the fact that current "release" laws only deal with images of people is not a problem. The "release" reference is an analogy. A new law would say that property owners must "release" any footage shot on (not merely of) their property, unless they are given full copies of the recordings prior to the person's leaving that property.

We are both looking at the same basic idea, though.

Agreed. Maybe the pragmatics are unworkable, but I can't find anyone else willing to honestly discuss those without just rejecting the idea in principle without justification, or without creating a strawman of the idea.
Property law in general is based upon the extension of rights over one's person to rights over one's property. That makes extension of "release" regulations to recordings of while on the property itself not a far reach at all. Property is and extension of person.

 

[bilby]

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm having a hard time thinking of a middle ground that protects freedom of speech and yet addresses stuff taken out of context to paint a false picture.

Out of context? You must be referring to ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

Are you really pretending that political activists do not edit their "evidence" to paint the worst (and often inaccurate) picture possible of their enemies?

The bill was to criminalize secretly videotaping on agricultural properties, regardless what they were recording.

That is irrelevant to you statement implying that eco-activists never delete context to create false inferences and misinformation.

Seeing I never implied that, I don't see the relevance.

You absolutely did imply it. Loren merely said that prevent distortion of truth via out of context editing is important, and you responded that "you must mean ACORN....", which he only "must mean" that if you deny that those actions apply to any political activists other than ACORN.

I was referring to large scale video fraud that has had substantial influence in political policies

Why would you refer to specifically that when Loren's post was not about that and neither is the thread? The issue is misinformation about companies, persons, and their actions that can have personal damage to them, which is just as important to ward against as impact on political policy in general. Also, it is quite plausible that the dishonest portrayals of farms could be leading to policy impacts. Since we don't have access to the full recordings, we have no idea how large scale the fraud behind any and all films of animal cruelty.

Current tech makes this extremely easy to do (in fact it is cheaper than editing out the context).

As per ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

And as per eco-activists.

Who? Are these the people that destroyed big agriculture?

Did ACORN destroy Planned Parenthood? And again, succeeding in destroying an entire industry is not a rational criteria as to whether one is telling harmful untruths via editing. Most videos out there using stealth recording to show animal cruelty is the result of dishonest efforts to mislead the audience. IF they were not, then they would show representative events including a proportional amount of non-cruel treatment and killings. Unrealistic? Yes, it is unrealistic to expect ideologues whose goal to the end animal farming to be honest and show the reality of it and how it is often done right to contrast against when its done wrong. Honest people seeking only to reduce cruelty but not killing itself and not animal consumption would show those non-cruel scenes because that would serve that goal better than cherry picking only the cruelest and most gruesome scenes.

That said, there is no basis to single out eco-activists.

Not according to the dairy industry.

Who cares what they say?

The Idaho legislature did. They didn't care what the eco-activists had to say.

Again, the Idaho legislature is not participating in this discussion, so why are you replying to Loren and me as though we are or agree with them?

I know it is hard but try to make your replies to people in any way relevant to what those people said.

The law would have to apply to any and all video and audio recordings collected on private property without consent of the property owners. In fact, the more I think about it, it isn't that impractical because it only applies to those private property situations, and only to situations where the owner voices objection to the video shown. Wet already have legal "release" forms. This would just part of that. Without an owner signing a "release" for the person to show any version of the recording they choose, the person would have to at least link the whole recording within the edited one.

So all one would need to be allowed to videotape a crime or unethical behavior on private property is to get the permission of the person committing the unethical or illegal act. Understood.

No, as per usual, a fundamental failure to understand anything that was said. Anyone could video tape any crime (or even just something they don't like as in this case) on private property and show it. They just could not show it without giving the property owner a full copy so they could show any part of it they want. Also, in the case of actual crimes (which almost nothing these eco-activists show are), the tapes could be given to prosecutors without any such "release" because they are not being shown to the general public. The proposed "release" rule has no effect on limiting any person from filming anything or showing any edited version of it. Only showing an edited version without making the full recordings available to the property owner would be illegal. No one but dishonest "documentarians" lying via editing would be at all negatively impacted by it.

I misread what you had said there.

Clearly you were too busy attacking strawmen. None of your replies relate to the point of my post (and also Loren's). The point is that dishonest "documentaries" are lies and often more fiction than completely made up stories, and they have real harmful effects on the people portrayed and on society in general. We should have something to guard against it, if it can be done without undue harm to free speech that is not trying to deceive. We both are merely suggesting ideas of types of regulation (not the struck down bill) that might be able do this.

 

[ronburgundy]

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Sincere congrats on being the first responder to myself or Loren to at least try to address our posts, rather than blindly dismiss any problems with such "documentary" style slander or any need to avoid it.

However, your conclusion ignores details of my actual proposal.
I am proposing that the filmakers cannot show the recording unless, at the time of the recordings and prior to leaving the premises, they give a full copy of the recordings to the property owners, including allowing them to look at the equipment to verify they were given everything. Any claims that this gives the owners too much access to the filmers "private property" is absurd given the lies used to gain access to private property that are inherent to stealth filming. This process could be aided by a requirement that any stealth filming without prior consent must be saved in real time to a "cloud" that no one accesses until the property owner downloads it.

All laws can be cheated, so claiming it could be cheated is irrelevant. It would make any cheaters instantly criminals no matter what they edit and show, which is good because only people trying to slander would have a motive to cheat that system. And efforts to cheat leave evidence and traces that could be prosecuted, not limited to stealth whistleblowers who infiltrate organizations to expose such cheating efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You could argue that it could apply to any stealth recording even on public property, but that is a much bigger hurdle. Stealth recordings on private property mean that the person gained legal non-trespassing access only by deceit that they knew would have prevented access and made them trespassers.

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.

Also, the whole point is modifying existing law, so the fact that current "release" laws only deal with images of people is not a problem. The "release" reference is an analogy. A new law would say that property owners must "release" any footage shot on (not merely of) their property, unless they are given full copies of the recordings prior to the person's leaving that property.

That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

 

[bilby]

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.

Also, the whole point is modifying existing law, so the fact that current "release" laws only deal with images of people is not a problem. The "release" reference is an analogy. A new law would say that property owners must "release" any footage shot on (not merely of) their property, unless they are given full copies of the recordings prior to the person's leaving that property.

That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

Well just as soon as 'Loren says it's obvious' becomes the standard of evidence in a court of law, you will have a point.

If I say that I just got my camera out in time - gosh, I am so lucky - and that I only managed to get ten seconds of damning footage, how are you going to prove that I am lying?

Bear in mind that saying 'obviously the witness is simply lying' in a court of law, with no evidence to support that claim, will not be a career enhancing move for any lawyer.

 

[Underseer]

This is good IMO. I'm all for eating animals, but I don't think they should be abused. What is the argument of the other side? These videos are gross exaggerations? Chicken will cost another 25 cents a pound?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/us-usa-idaho-animals-idUSKCN0Q901I20150804

This is an attack on our freedom!

Don't you see? If human being-persons are allowed to know what corporation-persons do, then this will destroy our freedoms and cause us all to plunge into a socialist dictatorship!

Why do you hate our freedoms?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.



That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

Well just as soon as 'Loren says it's obvious' becomes the standard of evidence in a court of law, you will have a point.

If I say that I just got my camera out in time - gosh, I am so lucky - and that I only managed to get ten seconds of damning footage, how are you going to prove that I am lying?

Bear in mind that saying 'obviously the witness is simply lying' in a court of law, with no evidence to support that claim, will not be a career enhancing move for any lawyer.

That doesn't work when it's a hidden camera. You didn't just get that out!

 

[bilby]

Deceitful editing of recordings on public property are still possible. I see no need to restrict it: You don't have permission, you have to release the whole recording.



That I definitely disagree with--that would not permit making the recordings over time. I think there is a very valid place for undercover recordings (and in fact I favor permitting some that are not currently permitted--outside the bedroom I would say one-party rules should be the law of the land), I just want to keep them from getting away with deceitful edits. Posting the unedited material and providing a link accomplishes that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not getting it. No release is needed. It's just that if you don't have permission of the owner/those depicted in it then you must make available the original also.

He's saying to provide it to the opposing side, I'm saying to post it.

And you are both incredibly naive.

Given that there is no way to tell the difference between a five minute video clipped from a three hour recording, and a five minute video that is all that was recorded, you are recommending an unenforceable law. Such laws are utterly futile and achieve nothing.

Very often it's obvious they only are showing part of the thing. They're not switching on their hidden camera just before something interesting happened, it's been running.

Well just as soon as 'Loren says it's obvious' becomes the standard of evidence in a court of law, you will have a point.

If I say that I just got my camera out in time - gosh, I am so lucky - and that I only managed to get ten seconds of damning footage, how are you going to prove that I am lying?

Bear in mind that saying 'obviously the witness is simply lying' in a court of law, with no evidence to support that claim, will not be a career enhancing move for any lawyer.

That doesn't work when it's a hidden camera. You didn't just get that out!

Prove it.

I say I only got ten seconds of footage. If you can't prove that I got more, then you've not got a leg to stand on. How, exactly, can your PROVE your allegation that I have more footage than I am admitting to?