Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Governer Signs Bill into Law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 3564978" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>Yeah, because that's not designed specifically to get people to not record police. For instance, look here in the section that defines personally identifiable information that is illegal to publish:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>4. "Personally identifiable information" means information which can identify an individual including, but not limited to, name, birth date, place of birth, mother's maiden name, biometric records, Social Security number, official state-or government-issued driver license or identification number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number or any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial or employment information;</em></p><p></p><p>There's a couple questions I instantly have:</p><p>1. Name - so if an officer is being record and he just casually drops something like "i'm officer John Smith" then a recording would then be illegal to publish?</p><p>2. Biometric records - this could be the same as likeness since facial recognition is so widely used for biometrics right now. (sidebar, but never ever give that away --- it's the absolute worst thing you could do).</p><p>3. State-or-goverment-issues ... identification number --- what, like a badge number?</p><p>4. Any other information linked to an individual such as ...employment information - like if an individual was noted as being with TPD rather than OKCPD for instance?</p><p></p><p>Even if one was going to argue intent, this bill seems designed to allow what I call "harassment power". Meaning that someone could be arrested first, and released later after getting the person a record + legal fees, etc. It's 100% designed to have a chilling effect.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>A. Whoever, with the <strong>intent </strong>to threaten, intimidate or harass, or facilitate another to threaten, intimidate or harass, uses an electronic communication device to knowingly publish, postor otherwise make publicly available personally identifiable information of a peace officer or public official, and as a result places that peace officer or public official in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury</em></p><p></p><p>Everything comes down to intent up there (emphasis added by me) because it's a harassment power. It's a "see all those people with phones out, go grab them" power. It's setting a stage for LEO's to be able to sweep stuff under the rug. Much like how there was a case out of New York where the cops took a guy in, then got caught trying to decide what charges to make up for him. And in the meantime they did a warrant-less search and destroy mission on his memory cards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 3564978, member: 5800"] Yeah, because that's not designed specifically to get people to not record police. For instance, look here in the section that defines personally identifiable information that is illegal to publish: [INDENT][I]4. "Personally identifiable information" means information which can identify an individual including, but not limited to, name, birth date, place of birth, mother's maiden name, biometric records, Social Security number, official state-or government-issued driver license or identification number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number or any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial or employment information;[/I][/INDENT] There's a couple questions I instantly have: 1. Name - so if an officer is being record and he just casually drops something like "i'm officer John Smith" then a recording would then be illegal to publish? 2. Biometric records - this could be the same as likeness since facial recognition is so widely used for biometrics right now. (sidebar, but never ever give that away --- it's the absolute worst thing you could do). 3. State-or-goverment-issues ... identification number --- what, like a badge number? 4. Any other information linked to an individual such as ...employment information - like if an individual was noted as being with TPD rather than OKCPD for instance? Even if one was going to argue intent, this bill seems designed to allow what I call "harassment power". Meaning that someone could be arrested first, and released later after getting the person a record + legal fees, etc. It's 100% designed to have a chilling effect. [INDENT][I]A. Whoever, with the [B]intent [/B]to threaten, intimidate or harass, or facilitate another to threaten, intimidate or harass, uses an electronic communication device to knowingly publish, postor otherwise make publicly available personally identifiable information of a peace officer or public official, and as a result places that peace officer or public official in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury[/I][/INDENT] Everything comes down to intent up there (emphasis added by me) because it's a harassment power. It's a "see all those people with phones out, go grab them" power. It's setting a stage for LEO's to be able to sweep stuff under the rug. Much like how there was a case out of New York where the cops took a guy in, then got caught trying to decide what charges to make up for him. And in the meantime they did a warrant-less search and destroy mission on his memory cards. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Governer Signs Bill into Law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom