In most American states, you are not permitted to tape a conversation 9without informing the other party and obtaining his explicit permission). if this is not done, such a recording is inadmissable (as evidence0 in a civil or criminal trial. So why is videotaping allowable? You are 9in effect0 surrendering your 1st-Amendment Rights, if you allow yourself to be videotaped. What do legal experts say about non-consentual videotaping? 
I’ve got a better question: Why is surreptitious audiotaping illegal?
I have some speculation in this regard.
When only one party knows the conversation is being taped, he can manipulate the content and the dorection of the conversatin to his advantage. He can avoid saying anything that specifically incriminates himself, while elicting incriminating statements from the other conversation participants. The trustworthiness of a taped conversation is thus suspect: we are sure it accurately recorded what was said; we are not so sure that what was said is a fair picture of the circumstances.
That’s arguable grounds for holding such recordings inadmissible in court, but many states (including Florida) have laws making it a crime to make surreptitious recordings at all; that’s never made any sense to me.
Re: admissability - audio tape was given the bum’s rush because it is easily edited and such edits may not be noticable. I suppose video was accepted because most edits are obvious (especially a tape of a single camera where any edit would produce an obvious jump cut.) Of course, given what can now be done with computers, we probably shouldn’t trust video, either.
Ok, a practical example; you walk down to your local Quicky-mart, to buy a pack of cigarettes. You are being videotaped as you approach the cahier’s booth. all of s suddn, a criminal cuts in front, brandishing a gun-and robs the cashier. the next day, a policeman shows up at your door, with a warrant for your arrest-the (badly rattled0 cashier has confused YOU with the robber!
So, given the circumstances, is such a video recording admissable, in a criminal case against you? :eek:
But do you remember the big sting (the name of which I can’t recall) years ago when the FBI set up cameras surreptitiously in a D.C. hotel suite and brought in members of congress who happily accepted what they thought were bribes? The impression was these tapes would prove the congressmen’s guilt in court.
No, I can’t provide a cite, but I would be very surprised if you don’t recall this sting.
In the UK police forensics have to use an analogue camera to photograph fingerprints
- they are not trusted with digital images (well that was the case 2 years ago).
Interesting, as even with my lowly photoshop/Gimp skills I could do a pretty good job on a video tape or DVD from a surveillance camera.
Personally I reckon that audio tapes should be admitted as evidence, but like most things, they should be regarded as liable to manipulation or misinterpretation.
Because there aren’t laws making it illegal. So why aren’t there such laws?
My thought is that when most of these laws were passed, the technology was such that surreptitious audio recording was possible, but surreptitious video recording was not.
The equipment for video was so large and complex that it couldn’t be hidden. Unlike audio recording. (At least, this applied to the equipment available to a normal consumer.)
The legislatures passed laws to deal with something that was becoming a problem (surreptitious audio recording). They did not anticipate the later changes in video equipment (smaller size, cheaper price, better quality), so they did not write it into the laws.
It may also relate to the expectation of privacy. If you are having a private conversation in a public place, many people can observe you, so your actions have little expectation of privacy. Most of the people who can see you can’t hear you, so you have much greater expectation of privacy.
The sting was called Abscam, and seems a mirror image of today’s “Culture of Corruption” with the Dems getting nailed by the carload.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
Got to admit there’s naught in the Wiki article about video taping. But damn! I saw some congressmen taking money, at least one other almost falling down drunk, etc.
Huh?
…and beyond that, why is surreptitious audiotaping illegal?
Ask Bricker. I always thought it was legal, but he says it isn’t when one party doesn’t know it’s going on.
Maybe he mispoke. Maybe there are some situations when this applies.