Undercover videos - good, bad, or ugly?

Are undercover video "stings" acceptable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 50.0%
  • Yes, as long as they don't violate the law

    Votes: 5 50.0%
  • Yes, but only by news organizations

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but only by law enforcement

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoping to avoid the whole discussion about whether the 'sting' was legal, moral, etc in the acorn thread, and bring it here...

-Adam
 
What is the law on that sort of thing? I imagine it must be different in regards to who does it and what constitutes "evidence".
 
What is the law on that sort of thing? I imagine it must be different in regards to who does it and what constitutes "evidence".
Wiretapping, eavesdropping, and recording all fall into this debate. Each state varies, usually depending on how many corrupt politicians were caught with various methods.

In most states you can record audio of any conversation you are part of in person (not over the phone) with few limitations.

Video is something that's not very well protected - there have been cases of people installing video cameras in other houses (no audio) and not getting prosecuted when caught because the law did not protect that privacy. (though they are usually successfully prosecuted for other things in connection with the video taping)

Those are changing and evolving over time, though.

Acorn operates these offices as public buildings (like a supermarket) so they can't sue for privacy. It'll very much depend on the local laws in each case.

Of course, in the USA acorn can sue them without good reason, and simply draw the case out so the people who did the film go bankrupt.

-Adam
 
I have no problems with undercover videos, as long as the whole video is put up unedited and that the person in the video gets a chance to respond.
 
S

Soliloquy

I have no problems with undercover videos, as long as the whole video is put up unedited and that the person in the video gets a chance to respond.
Ditto. While it's possible to manipulate anything/take anything out of context, I think that undercover videos are a pretty good way to show people what is really going on in the world.
 
L

Le Quack

I'm very against entrapment, but I voted "stings" are fine if they dont violate the law.
 
Basically any evidence is admissible in court, as long as it's not the cops who were violating the law or putting someone up to violating it. The person who did something illegal may still get in trouble for the measures they went to to get it though.
 
In most states you can record audio of any conversation you are part of in person (not over the phone) with few limitations.
m
Over phone, too, in many states.

The federal wiretap law says that if you're a party to the conversation you can record it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
Texas has a similar law. You don't have to inform the other party before-hand.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm#16.02
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that:
4) a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:
(A) the person is a party to the communication; or
(B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top