Simon Glik, man who recorded police in public, headed to trial

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
SandEagle

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
BeauJangles said:
The statute applies broadly. Anyone recording audio must obtain the consent of everyone being recorded. The police claim that Glick is in violation of the statute is wrong, not because Glick wasn't party to the conversation, but because Glick made no effort to conceal his act of recording. He did not physically hide himself from view, he did not obscure his recording device, nor did he make any effort to conceal the fact he was recording them (by holding the phone to his ear like he was making a call or something).




Except that using a device like that in public would be in violation of the wiretapping act unless you informed the person who you were recording or unless you only recorded video (which the statute does not cover).
Click to expand...

i have cameras in my car that record 24/7. is that illegal? do i need to put a surveillance sticker on my car?
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
mcmilljb said:
Every wiretapping law has an exception for police. It just needs to made simpler and more specific. You don't need to make a bunch of exceptions or specific cases. Just be honest and say you have no right to privacy in public, and some might record you if you're in public. People will just have to get over it.
Click to expand...

I thought wiretapping laws were written mostly for police/law enforcement. I understand why they would apply to everyone else but who else had the ability to tap phones back then, especially in states where only one party consent is required.
 
M

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Good. Hope we get some reasonable law changes to protect people from the police's attempt to suppress information.
 
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
BeauJangles said:
The statute applies broadly. Anyone recording audio must obtain the consent of everyone being recorded. The police claim that Glick is in violation of the statute is wrong, not because Glick wasn't party to the conversation, but because Glick made no effort to conceal his act of recording. He did not physically hide himself from view, he did not obscure his recording device, nor did he make any effort to conceal the fact he was recording them (by holding the phone to his ear like he was making a call or something).




Except that using a device like that in public would be in violation of the wiretapping act unless you informed the person who you were recording or unless you only recorded video (which the statute does not cover).
Click to expand...

This is pretty much spot on. Here is the full text of the statute:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99

It's too lengthy to quote even the relevant portions. Basically, this law applies whether the setting is public or private. Whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether the recording is "secret" or not, and the secrecy must be "willful." In other words, it doesn't matter that the person being recorded did not realize it. The circumstances must suggest that the person recording it intentionally did so in secret. In this particular case, clearly he was not guilty under this statute as he made no attempt to conceal the fact that he was recording.

However, the civil suit probably carries with it the requirement that the plaintiff proves the cops actions' were wholly and totally unreasonable. The police can make bad arrests without being subject to suit. If this wasn't the case, law enforcement couldn't be terribly effective.
 
Last edited:
davmat787

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Is Simon Glik Jiminy's long lost brother?

a55f99ce9367217b10b853beed6d_grande.jpg
 
BeauJangles

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
wuliheron said:
The Boston PD can argue till the crows fly home. The law will either be changed or amended or people will resort to surreptitiously recording whatever they want just as they do in North Korea.
Click to expand...

To stay relevant to the case at hand, however, Glik was not using a device like the one you highlighted and he made no effort to conceal the fact he was recording the police. What you're talking about is important, but only material to what is going on with Glik if Glik wins. And, truthfully, even if he wins I doubt the wiretapping laws are going to change very much. As read right now Glik did no wrong, and you or I would do no wrong if we openly filmed police in a public area. What matters isn't the text of the law, but if there are any distorted interpretations of the law or any implicit exceptions given.

woolfe9999 said:
However, the civil suit probably carries with it the requirement that the plaintiff proves the cops actions' were wholly and totally unreasonable. The police can make bad arrests without being subject to suit. If this wasn't the case, law enforcement couldn't be terribly effective.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the burden of proof will make this case interesting, but I think the police have a few things going against them:

1) Initially charging Glik with interfering with an arrest, which he clearly was not doing.
2) Confiscating Glik's cell phone.

If Glik had quoted the statute to the police or made reference to it directly, I think the BPD would really be up poop creek, but as it stands there are still ways they could wrangle themselves out of this case, mostly by claiming that it wasn't clear that they were being filmed by Glik (ie holding a cell phone in front of you pointed at another party isn't a clear sign you're recording them) or claiming that they may have been aware that he was filming video but not audio. The statute only covers audio recording, I believe.
 
M

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
woolfe9999 said:
This is pretty much spot on. Here is the full text of the statute:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99

It's too lengthy to quote even the relevant portions. Basically, this law applies whether the setting is public or private. Whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether the recording is "secret" or not, and the secrecy must be "willful." In other words, it doesn't matter that the person being recorded did not realize it. The circumstances must suggest that the person recording it intentionally did so in secret. In this particular case, clearly he was not guilty under this statute as he made no attempt to conceal the fact that he was recording.

However, the civil suit probably carries with it the requirement that the plaintiff proves the cops actions' were wholly and totally unreasonable. The police can make bad arrests without being subject to suit. If this wasn't the case, law enforcement couldn't be terribly effective.
Click to expand...

Fromy our link's Preamble.
The general court further finds that the uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices pose grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth. Therefore, the secret use of such devices by private individuals must be prohibited. The use of such devices by law enforcement officials must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and should be limited to the investigation of organized crime.
Click to expand...

The term “intercepting device” means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component thereof, (a) furnished to a subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business under its tariff and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business.
Click to expand...

Danger to privacy? People in the public have no privacy. Me holding my iphone up to record a police officer whether I'm hiding or not is not invading his privacy. An iphone would classify as a intercepting device because it can record sound. He is a public employee, he lost his privacy when he willingly signed up for the job and left his house or department's building. They are intentionally trying to curtail a known right to record the world around us. It follows the maxim "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to be seen or heard." If he doesn't want me to hear his conversation, then he shouldn't be talking loud enough for me to hear him. Plus he can ask me to stand a certain distance away from them so they can perform his duties. If I can still hear, too fucking bad. The scope of the law is overly broad and does not provide protections for citizens from abuses such as the one done by the cops. This act is silly and definitely something a police state would want.
 
Last edited:
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
mcmilljb said:
Fromy our link's Preamble.




Danger to privacy? People in the public have no privacy. Me holding my iphone up to record a police officer whether I'm hiding or not is not invading his privacy. An iphone would classify as a intercepting device because it can record sound. He is a public employee, he lost his privacy when he willingly signed up for the job and left his house or department's building. They are intentionally trying to curtail a known right to record the world around us. It follows the maxim "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to be seen or heard." If he doesn't want me to hear his conversation, then he shouldn't be talking loud enough for me to hear him. Plus he can ask me to stand a certain distance away from them so they can perform his duties. If I can still hear, too fucking bad. The scope of the law is overly broad and does not provide protections for citizens from abuses such as the one done by the cops. This act is silly and definitely something a police state would want.
Click to expand...

You'd have to argue that case to the Mass legislature to get the law changed. The way this law is written, the circumstances of the person being recorded are irrelevant. This law has one test: did the person doing the recording do it in secret or openly?

Other portions of the law restrict and limit law enforcement's ability to use wiretaps. In that regard, the Mass law is actually above average in protecting citizens rights as IIRC most state wire tapping laws allow more.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
How does the police argue that it was not obvious to them he was recording in light of the fact that they arrested him for recording them?
 
BeauJangles

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
senseamp said:
How does the police argue that it was not obvious to them he was recording in light of the fact that they arrested him for recording them?
Click to expand...

According to the testimony, they did not know he was recording immediately. One of the officers approached Glik when they saw him with the phone and asked, "are you recording this?" to which Glik replied, "yes." That's when he got arrested.

Hence the police argument is, partly, that the officers were unaware they were initially being recorded.
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If you are not recording video and sound, it is not wiretapping. I think some of these states and their wiretapping laws are going too far. Maybe it is a law designed to protect criminals, and not victims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom