libertyjam
06-17-2014, 07:15 PM
State Legislators Discussing Laws That Will Put Law Enforcement Surveillance Cameras Inside Private Businesses (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140530/12161627415/state-legislators-discussing-laws-that-will-put-law-enforcement-surveillance-cameras-inside-private-businesses.shtml)
from the because-no-square-footage-can-go-unsurveilled dept
The government does enjoy installing cameras pretty much everywhere it can do so with a minimum of complaints. If it thinks there might be some controversy, it just buries the details until after the fact.
Eugene Volokh has a roundup of new places state governments are planning to install cameras (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/legally-required-video-surveillance/) -- only the government won't be buying the cameras… or maintaining them… or even installing them. That's left to the private businesses these bills are pushing additional surveillance requirements on.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed an ordinance that would compel all gun dealers to video-record sales (http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2014/May/05.27.14TracingGuns.pdf) (“to discourage traffickers and buyers who use false identification”). Presumably the video recordings would have to be kept for an extended time, since future investigations that would use the video recordings could happen years after the sale. A similar New York state bill (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S00574&term=2013&Summary=Y&Text=Y) would require that the videos be kept for one year.
Likewise, two weeks ago, Minnesota enacted a law — with much less fanfare — that would require video- or photo recording of people who come to sell cellular phones (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1740&version=3&session=ls88&session_year=2014&session_number=0), with each recording to be kept for at least 30 days
And all the government asks in return for its impositions is total, at-will access.
from the because-no-square-footage-can-go-unsurveilled dept
The government does enjoy installing cameras pretty much everywhere it can do so with a minimum of complaints. If it thinks there might be some controversy, it just buries the details until after the fact.
Eugene Volokh has a roundup of new places state governments are planning to install cameras (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/29/legally-required-video-surveillance/) -- only the government won't be buying the cameras… or maintaining them… or even installing them. That's left to the private businesses these bills are pushing additional surveillance requirements on.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed an ordinance that would compel all gun dealers to video-record sales (http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2014/May/05.27.14TracingGuns.pdf) (“to discourage traffickers and buyers who use false identification”). Presumably the video recordings would have to be kept for an extended time, since future investigations that would use the video recordings could happen years after the sale. A similar New York state bill (http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S00574&term=2013&Summary=Y&Text=Y) would require that the videos be kept for one year.
Likewise, two weeks ago, Minnesota enacted a law — with much less fanfare — that would require video- or photo recording of people who come to sell cellular phones (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1740&version=3&session=ls88&session_year=2014&session_number=0), with each recording to be kept for at least 30 days
And all the government asks in return for its impositions is total, at-will access.