New Google patent suggests automatically sending your videos and photos to law enforcement


We come across tons of interesting patents each and every day, but recently none have caused as much concern and curiosity as this one. Google recently filed a patent for a system that identifies when and where a “mob” event takes place and sends multimedia alerts to relevant parties. The patents are actually titled “Mob Source Phone Video Collaboration” and “Inferring Events Based On Mob Sourced Video“.

No… not that mob. In this case a “mob” is essentially an activity or event attracting an abnormal amount of attention in the form of video recording and picture taking. Here’s a quick blurb from the patent description:

Excerpt from US Patent #20140025755

“When there are at least a given number of video clips with similar time stamps and geolocation stamps uploaded to a repository, it is inferred that an event of interest has likely occurred, and a notification signal is transmitted (e.g., to a law enforcement agency, to a news organization, to a publisher of a periodical, to a public blog, etc.).”


The fact that “law enforcement agencies” and “news organization(s)” are the first two examples provided by Google themselves is our greatest cause for concern. Especially at a time when privacy issues seem to take center stage all too often in the worst way possible.

Much has been made about NSA snoopingprivacyFISAcivil liberties and much more over the past year, so to think Google filed this patent application with the idea of potentially and proactively feeding information to law enforcement is a bit unsettling.

We’ve already seen rudimentary examples of law enforcement using the public’s photos and videos to track down culprits. Look no further than the Boston Marathon bombing last year. The FBI used photos and video from attendees’ cell phones to help identify the parties responsible for that unfortunate event. With a system like this, they might not have had to procure the actual phones to get what they needed.


Would only photos/videos you uploaded as publicly viewable be included into this system? Could you opt out? Could Google access the private content stored on your local device for these purposes?

The exact details of this system – if put into practice – would likely be buried deep in a Terms of Service document. We’re guessing the most effective solution (for Google) would be collect aggregate and anonymous data to which you opted-in (time and location data of multimedia), extrapolating that data to identify “mob source” events, and then sharing related, publicly available multimedia to 3rd parties.

This could be used in any of the typical “nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd” scenario, from bar fights and car accidents to flash mobs and unpredictably  Arandom occurrences.

With that said, it’s important to remember that this isn’t inherently negative or invasive . Imagine heading out to see your favorite band, taking a few pictures, and Google Now alerts you that there are 100 related photos and videos from other concert goers.

The recently-held 56th annual Grammy Awards Show comes to mind as a big event at which many folks would want to snap tons of photos and videos. Google could recognize the photos are from the Grammys based on time and location information in the files, and send that information off to whatever 3rd parties they deem relevant: news agencies, nearby users, people searching Google for “Grammy Awards”, etc… you name it.

We’d even venture a guess that Michael Bay’s meltdown at CES earlier this month would have landed the appearance in the “Mob Source” category with photos and videos being taken and shared left and right:

Then there’s the stuff Google already does where this technology already be in use, such as the Party Mode feature on Google+ Events. Said feature allows party-goers to upload images and video to the event page for everyone who attended that event to check out.  We imagine Google could make that whole process automatic for bigger events so you won’t have to fiddle around with uploading multimedia while you should be having a good time.

Don’t get too alarmed just yet — whether for alerting the authorities or enhancing their own services — they’ll almost certainly have easy and obvious ways to opt-in or opt-out (though we’d definitely prefer the former over the latter) to such features.

In fact, several illustrations and descriptions within the patent (see image below) refer to a system where the person who took the photo or video is asked if they’d like to include their content in whatever repository he or she may be uploading to. Still not convinced? Well, it’s easy enough to disable geo-location features in the camera or take images in airplane mode, so there’s that.

google image repo patent

One the one hand it seems like Google is approaching this with the idea that users will know exactly what they’re getting into before they get into it. On the other hand, it’s hard to shake their own emphasis on law enforcement agencies and news organizations.

Google has been scrutinized, chastised, and criticized about privacy issues lately, so if this is an area they tread they’ll do so lightly, and we’ll continue sleeping with one eye open. Let’s hope the company that beats the “don’t be evil” drum louder than anyone else stays true to their word.

Where do you think Google is headed with these new patents and are you further concerned about your privacy after reading this article? And one more wrench to throw into the discussion… what if the data collected by law enforcement agencies was used for the purpose of holding law enforcement agencies accountable? After all, most of those “police brutality” videos are taken by innocent bystanders.

Rob Jackson contributed to this article.

Quentyn Kennemer
The "Google Phone" sounded too awesome to pass up, so I bought a G1. The rest is history. And yes, I know my name isn't Wilson.

Motorola’s Project Ara is moving to Google HQ as part of their Android team

Previous article

It’s sad that we even need a 3rd party app like My Paid Apps in order to view past purchases

Next article

You may also like


  1. That excerpt didn’t mention that your photos and videos will be sent at all. Just that a notification will be sent.

    1. ^NSA agent

    2. If a notification is being sent, I would assume it’s being sent about the mob source and related multimedia (hence the word “suggest”). More specifically:

      The exact details of this system – if put into practice – would likely be buried deep in a Terms of Service document. We’re guessing the most effective solution (for Google) would be collect aggregate and anonymous data to which you opted-in (time and location data of multimedia), extrapolating that data to identify “mob source” events, and then sharing related, publicly available multimedia to 3rd parties.

      1. we need more thought out comments like this on this website, thank you sir for your contribution

      2. *Downloads Terms of Service document*
        *Ctrl + F*

        This is a true case. I know this isn’t the most credible, but I remember a Supernatural episode where a demon dealer had this EXTRA long Terms and Services document and another monster took the time to read the entire document. Yea, he found and negotiated all (but one) the loopholes in the document.

        I’m more than sure companies do that. You never know what you’re signing away sometimes.

        1. Also, ‘Implied consent’ can’t be used as an excuse by any business to allow the illegal use and profiting of any media or copyright protected works, to be used as a tool to gain revenue by another, even fair use denies a third party of profit without consent of the owner. You can’t sign away your rights. A stranger can’t use implied consent, as nobody can prove what ‘consent’ was granted, use, profit, copying. What consent is actually implied, and to whom does it apply? This is the reason for legal contracts, laying the actual foundations for a business transaction, and why you will never find ‘implied consent’ on any legal document, it has no merit nor weight.
          Posting my pictures, writings or anything on any website, does not automatically grant fair use to another, and certainly NOT when that use is attached to a profit of the ones using said media without the written consent of the rightful owner of that media. If this were true, then i should be able to use the Google name and logo and profit from my use of it….See how far that gets you in a court battle!

      3. Well you know how the saying goes about making ASSumptions…

        The whole article seems blown out of context in relation to the wording of the patent. Just because google has slated it as notifying law enforcement, or media outlets, it doesn’t translate into them dumping your data onto them, just that an event of interest may be happening at a certain location. If this happens to result in faster police/rescue response to the scene of an accident, faster news coverage, or a google now alert on my phone notifying me that there is something awesome going on at a nearby bar then this could be quite interesting.

        Now with all that said, I’m likely one of the most privacy aware peeps I know. My geotagging is only turned on if I specifically wish to have a location of something saved for my own personal benefits (I have hangouts if I want to broadcast my location to a certain group of freinds) and I dont allow any auto uploads or public sharing of any but select photos. If your concerned at all with privacy you should be doing something similar.

        Auto uploading and indiscriminately throwing around your personal data will likely get it viewed by someone you dont wish to have seen it anyways, (look at all the idiots that get busted selling drugs, robbing banks, drininking underage or committing other crimes because they gush their personal data to social websites) whether your doing something wrong or not YOU are throwing it out there for the world to see.

        This appears rather insignificant to damaging personal privacy, and could prove to be quite useful to end users or perhaps saving your own life.

        If you dont want something out there, dont be stupid with your data.

  2. This is okay only if I can link my adsense account.

  3. I’ll just take my crimes in progress with a flip phone then

  4. I’ve just about had it with Google for today…

    1. Bit overwhelming isn’t it? Looking at the Privacy v Convenience scale can drive you mad.

      1. Yeah, this plus Google selling moto didn’t make a too good of a day for tech in general.

  5. This is not OK. This is like having a blanket warrant that covers everything. I believe we fought a revolutionary war over this. It was ruled last week that the NSA needs to be dismantled regardless if the white house agrees or not. Anyone now has the right to sue the NSA

  6. If Google wishes to BE the basis of a huge class action suit, then so be it, until they actually begin copying video and images without the owner’s consent, nothing needs to occur. Google does not have eminent domain powers to take images and use them in any manner the owner of those images has not granted possession of, simply having them is one thing, using those images in connection with a business that does not have written permission,, constitutes copyright infringement, and can be prosecuted in any court.
    Google does not own anything that is transmitted in, on or with their services.
    All copyrights are the property of their respective owners, and I am certain, Google is NOT listed as an owner. Case DISMISSED!

    1. Be careful with that. I mean, do you upload these images to Google+? You should read the fine print. I went and read the legal notices about Dropbox because I was bored. LoL!!

      The information is yours, pretty much what you’re saying right now, if you upload it to Dropbox.

      I remember Facebook saying something about images you upload to Facebook, you’re agreeing to giving them some right to use for advertisement if you upload them to Facebook. I’m not too sure on that one.

      If you really want to know, read the legal notices before you just accept them. You may be surprised what you find. Because as of now, it may say one thing, but if they’re privacy policies change, you may want to take a gander at it.

      1. Not even Google can demand you give up your ownership of pictures and media that is your rightful property, nobody can. fair use does not include profiting from the work of others. If Google takes my pictures and profits from their use, I do have the legal right to force them to pay me for that use, as well as incriminating them for copyright infringement and theft without written permission. Fair use never allowed another to directly or indirectly make a profit off the work of others, by the sale of works not rightfully theirs. You can put anything in writing, but there are laws that specifically identify what you can and can not do. Just because Google added that they can use your media for their own use, they are prohibited in profiting from that usage, which can also constitute fraud, for taking of property not theirs, and benefiting from its use. The law, as well as standard copyright law, does not make allowances for theft of materials, just as selling a DVD as your own work is fraud, so is using pictures and all other forms of media you are not the creator of, from benefiting by using said materials. If you don’t legally own them, you can’t sell or use them to make a profit from your use of them.

        1. I suspect Google’s lawyers have more than a bit of understanding of copyright law.

          If you know that Google is doing something that is an infringement of your copyright, then I suggest you engage an attorney and file a copyright lawsuit.

          What is ranting here going to achieve?

          1. Absolutely nothing…..Like all the others that add comments, it means little to nothing!

  7. Hey come on FBI, all the porn I film is legal! Be cool, be cool…

    1. Must be one hell of a gangbang to qualify as a mob…

  8. Man what’s happening at Google? We get the horrible news of them selling Motorola to Lenovo, and now this!

    1. So you’re upset that google is linking police to public videos and pictured if possible crimes?

  9. This is a terrible interpretation of the patent application text and should be amended.

    It’s about when many videos get uploaded to YouTube for example and are tagged as being from the same place during a short time period, then that would indicate an important “event” is taking place which created a mob around it that started taking videos and pictures, an accident of or someone standing of a ledge ready to jump etc, it’s not about sending videos from your phone to the police.

    Besides it’s a “patent application”, patents don’t mean actual products it’s just stuff you horde of in case someone sues you (which is unfortunate).

    Please correct your post it.

    1. Ummm law enforcement is one of the examples used in the patent application.

      1. The patent is about detecting a surge in *publicly* shared videos/photos, it’s about saying “there is something happening over there because we detected a surge in video uploads” it’s about aggregate public data not private files, and when you file a patent you make sure to cover all the bases.

        1. Maybe I should have been more clear. I agree it says nothing about sending videos or photos, but it specifically does say that a notification will be sent to pertinent organizations, including law enforcement.

      2. You’re a moron. The patent is for publicly available files. There’s no violation of privacy here. If this patent didn’t exist, law enforcement can still easily go to YouTube, search up the event name, and bam they have videos. All this patent wants to do is detect when a lot of videos are uploaded about the same place around the same time so it can figure out if something big is happening and tag it as such.

        1. You are a moron. Nowhere did I say it would share private files, I never mentioned a violation of privacy. You are assuming. It DOES however specifically say “and a notification signal is transmitted (e.g., to a law enforcement agency, to a news organization, to a publisher of a periodical, to a public blog, etc.).” which is much different than police actually searching through public videos.
          It is not just about tagging things it also sends notifications to pertinent organizations.

        2. Anything you share with the public, has no expectation of privacy.
          If your files are removed without your consent, and then used against you, that is a different story, and becomes theft at the very least.
          If Google backdoors my computer, then an added charge of computer crimes is warranted, and if they profited from the use of my private information/pictures, then a copyright violation has occurred, as well as some form of industrial espionage charges over computer system intrusion/trespass.

  10. Bad idea I will have to swear off technology if you do that google please don’t.

  11. I have to buy an old Nokia phone now and stay away from the smart phones. The hell Google?!

  12. Haha he had to mention Michael Bay!!

  13. I’m sure this is another one of their locked away patents that are used to keep other from doing it.

  14. Google is a CIA operation, don’t be fooled into thinking it’s not. Google is a play on the word Government. Trust me. I know.

    1. Are you a secret agent or something.

      1. I suspect a ‘secret squirrel’..

  15. Switch to Bing, make your first minor move to free your computer from the endless cookie trackers they put in your computer from every search.

    1. Yes, Mr Ballmer.

    2. Yes, switch to the company that cooperates with the NSA voluntarily.

      1. That our pull out the 52 book encyclopedia.

        1. Huh???

      2. proof? or proof that others don’t do the same thing? Don’t be derp.

        1. Here’s 3 (of many) articles about how Microsoft voluntarily cooperates with the NSA:




          Can I prove other companies don’t do the same? Of course not. But you can easily find these articles about Microsoft’s transgressions with a simple search, I can’t find the same about other companies.

    3. I am using Ubuntu, so I’ll see what occurs within this software to see if I am leaving a trail of crumbs. We all know Windows does this.

    4. Bing. LOL. Maybe I’ll go back to using ask Jeeves. Seriously, why use bing when they outright admitted to copying Google’s search results.

  16. Don’t be evil.

  17. “Still not convinced? Well, it’s easy enough to disable geo-location features in the camera or take images in airplane mode, so there’s that.”

    Thats exactly what Apple did anyways when the phone was on airplane mode through a “bug” in the software, they accidentally, unknowingly transfered all of one’s personal information back to their servers when the phone was on airplane mode.

    This article is written strangely, first it says everything we’re thinking before we read it. Then it starts talking about how we shouldn’t feel upset about it and that it can actually help us and blah blah blah… The reality is that no it’s not going to help us (the masses), it’s just another way of making controls for people that the rich and powerful can assume control of when they whimsically decide they must take moral or otherwise “appropriate” action.

  18. Yes, I think it about time I lose the Android smartphone, and return to the old flip-phone. They are going to keep creeping, little by little, until there’s absolutely nothing left of personal privacy.


    1. heh “nutter”

    2. The only thing left we dont have is flying cars as seen on tv

    3. Tracfone sells flip-phones with cameras for $20. If they and the subsequent time is ALWAYS purchased with cash, one can maintain a reasonable degree of anonymity, which will, over time, be whittled away by the creation of associational records.

  19. As a legal matter, I will never allow anybody to profit from my work, aside from myself, or my family. My work is forever and always my personal property!
    Use of my work is prohibited if your use includes a profit, and I am excluded, and your use of my work is not proven by my written consent. My real name is associated to all my accounts, so this PUBLIC NOTICE is a LEGAL DOCUMENT stating my legal rights, and retention of those rights, forever. In short, MY creations are my personal property and are PROHIBITED from being used, stored, copied transmitted, relayed or used, without my express, written consent!

    Okay, now that I have done my part for humanity, ON WITH THE SHOW!

    1. Your work has exactly the same protections of copyright law as everyone else’s creations. This includes the exceptions, such as Fair Use which are part of copyright law.

      You are entitled to enforce your copyright rights, like everyone else. And like anyone else, no matter what ranting you post online, you don’t have any additional rights that are not granted by copyright law. For example, people are free to make Fair Use quotations of your work for purposes that qualify as fair use, and they would be within their rights to do so.

      So I’m not sure what you are going on about?

      1. Simply this: My work CAN be used ‘fairly’ by others, but what CAN’T be done, is PROFITING from my work without benefiting me as well, and without my permission. You can quote me, post my image as a quote or information, but not sell my work and deny my right to profit from its use.
        This is all I am saying, while others assume I mean something entirely different. I can’t legally take credit for your work, by selling it as mine, the same goes in reverse, and this is what I think has occurred here, misunderstanding the application of fair use.

        1. awwww so ignorant in true legalities in the online realm.

          1. Awwww….so ignorant of the realities of the law on legal usage of original works.
            The law stats you can NOT profit from MY work!
            Fair use is legal, but you are not allowed to gain monetarily from my work, and that simple comment was all I was conveying.

          2. Perhaps you’d have more credibility if you could actually cite the law that you are referring to.

          3. Purpose And Character of Use

            Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law establishes the fair use doctrine by stating the use of a copyrighted work for comment, criticism, news reporting, teaching, research or scholarship is not considered a copyright infringement. But in determining whether the use meets that criteria, the section lists four factors that need to be considered, the first of which is the purpose and character of the copyrighted work’s use, in particular whether the use is of a commercial or nonprofit educational purpose. But that doesn’t mean simply not profiting from use of a copyright work by itself qualifies it as fair use.

            Impact on Market Value

            Copyright law not only gives the author or copyright holder an exclusive right of how a work is to be used and copied, it provides the necessary protection of the work so the holder of its rights can profit from it. So often the clinching factor in determining fair use is the effect the use has on a potential market or value of the original copyrighted work. Unauthorized free distribution of entire news articles or music recordings can substantially diminish the market for the original works. Making copies of news articles to distribute to a class clearly meets an educational purpose without an impact on the commercial market.

            Substantial Portion Used
            The other two factors the law cites when judging fair use are the nature of the copyrighted work, and the amount and “substantiality of the portion” used as it relates to the entire copyrighted work. A nonfiction book can be cited in another book or journal generally without fear of infringement unless the excerpts used are extensive. Yet even a small excerpted portion can be ruled a substantial portion of a copyrighted work. Brad Templeton, writing an article titled “10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained", cites the example of a magazine article copying 300 words from former President Gerald Ford’s 200,000 word memoir. The article was ruled a copyright infringement because in those 300 words, Ford explained why he pardoned President Richard Nixon.

            Fair use is purposely not clearly defined. The law is intended to encourage freedom of expression of the copyright holder, and works that comment upon and report from those works, using a a broad interpretation of fair uses cited in the copyright code. One certain way to avoid a claim of copyright infringement is to ask permission of the copyright holder. Using an excerpt of a copyrighted work for any purpose could improve the work’s market value by making it more known to the public, and the copyright holder will often grant permission just for that reason.

          4. That’s an abstract, not a citation.

          5. Good enough to obtain a working insight to how the copyright law can be used/applied.
            The abstract comes from the law, Important aspects noted on what creates fair use, how it is applied, and what it covers.

          6. A working insight is of zero value in a court of law, where only the black letter law constitutes persuasive authority sufficient to override the exclusionary power of the judge.

        2. Here is a realistic simple counter example of someone profiting while using someone else’s copyrighted work.

          A reporter makes a fair use quotation of your work for purposes of criticism or news reporting. The reporter’s article is sold for profit.

          Your original rant about how nobody can profit from your work is only strictly true if a lot of qualifiers are added. The plain truth is that your work has the same protections as anyone else’s. No need to say more than that. And everyone else has the same rights to make certain kinds of particular uses of your work as anyone else’s work — even for profit.

          1. Your comment is baseless, as the reporter may ‘profit’ as well as the news agency, but they did not profit because of my work, they profited using my work, BIG difference.
            To suggest their financial gain rested solely on my work, is fictitious at best. Even if the newspaper or any other media made use of my image, they did not ‘sell’ my image on its own, but as an INCLUSION within a story or article, not the image in and of itself, which is the point I was attempting to make here.
            They did not offer for sale for XX sums of money, which is the point I was actually making.

    2. awwww you are soooooo cute. You and your thoughts on your personal property. Derp.

      1. Just what does ‘Derp’ actually mean?
        Please enlighten us illiterates with your vast knowledge and experiences!

        1. Ad hominem is not a sophisticated communication skill, American Patriot.

          1. ‘Derp’ is a modern word, as it can not be found in older dictionaries of the day. But searching on new terminology and slang used in modern culture, I find it funny the word is connected to a comedic cartoon, known as: South Park. Odd, isn’t it?

    3. The vast majority of those who would benefit from the protections of fair use can’t begin to understand the meaning of the phrase.

  20. Not no, but hell no!

  21. Holy @$#%!!!!! It just keeps getting worse and worse. Why in the hell are all these big companies just lining up to totally destroy the American Constitution?? Do they realize that this will eventually include their sleazy behinds too? Well maybe they will be exempt but DAMN WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GONNA DO when we keep having entirely new battle fronts to our Constitutional and Bill of Rights to fight? When do these companies decide that as an American institution they have to harm us rather than help? When are the American public gonna WAKE THE F@#$ UP!!!!!

    1. Did you read the patent? Basically it says it’ll only notify police when several phones upload videos and pictures with a similar time stamp and Geo location. Don’t want your videos used? Don’t upload your videos to the internet. Or use drop box. Pretty simple solutions

      1. Disable geolocation, don’t enable Google’s location app, and shut that GPS OFF if you are in public and might find it ‘cute’ to post videos on the web.
        Remove the ability o track and find you, and you have taken one important step to being an internet nobody. Removing all pictures revealing your face is the second step.
        You can’t control what tower your phone is accessing, and that too, has tracking data, not of you, but your phone. Tower IDs are used to locate that particular tower in the data stream, just as the SID, NID, MCC and HDR channel information. There are more data metrics available than what I am writing about here, but you get the idea, Your phone can be located!

        1. Yes, there are lots of ways of tracking a phone. Good job listing them. The patent clearly stated that it notifies police and news stations when several videos and/or pictures with similar time stamps and location are uploaded. Simple solution, disable auto upload from your phone.

      2. So then when there is a big surprising issue, like the Arab Spring over seas, and there is a need to upload a sudden massive story or a get together that may require a group needing assistance like backup and they all start posting the Government can put a massive blackout or stomp the uploads. So the Twin Towers get hit by airplanes and everybody starts uploading the instant live truths about whats happening the Government can just put a massive kill order on the whole uploading thing and produce their own story even easier than they already do! Did YOU READ the story? You seemed to miss the entire point of this story! This is about trying to stop the Government from doing exactly this! Soon we won’t be able to upload anything till the Governmental muscle and might determine it’s ok, because that is what is next. This is the beggining and you seem to think that it’s ok because “there are pretty simple solutions” to this Amendment of Free Speech stoppage. Again did YOU read this?

  22. I wouldn’t mind auto-submitting a cop watching video live to the DOJ. It would create…problems…for the cops if they subsequently seized my phone as ‘evidence’ and ‘accidentally’ deleted the entire video.

    1. To remedy the ‘accidental’ erasure issue, you copy the video to another card, and you could take that step further by videotaping the copy process as well, time and date stamped.

      1. One problem with that: how long do you suppose the officer seizing your camera as “evidence” will wait for you to swap cards, and why do you assume he won’t seize that one too?

        1. You refuse the ‘request’ to hand over your property, they have no lawful reason to take it, they are not a court, and your property is not part of any suit, and the cops can’t force the taking of property as there is no valid warrant naming the phone/camera as the ‘thing’ to be lawfully seized. The demand is illegal and can’t be taken.
          And your property can’t be used against you as it violates the 5th amendment against self incrimination, as well as the taking of property for public use, as cops are public servants, and they are taking your property to use without your consent.

  23. “…used photos and video from attendees’ cell phones to help identify the parties responsible for that unfortunate event” Shouldn’t that read “suspects”?

  24. So its just one more organization helping the police.But what do you think happens to the buildings they are in when chaos hits America??When fighting is done in the streets in the United States there will be no need for google ever.They will be either to scared to fight or they will be dead,the buildings destroyed.We will no longer have things in place to track us.While fighting do you relally think people will be on the internet.NO.The United States will implode in itself.

  25. So much for Freedom of Association

    1. Simply store your videos and post them when you think it is appropriate.
      But when in public, and your images are posted publicly, the expectation of privacy is severely diminished. If someone takes a video in public, and your face is in that video, good luck trying to have your image removed.

  26. We need the geeks to give us a proliferation of websites and technology for video steaming police brutality onto them so that they cannot seize the images by seizing the cameras. Then we need to widely publicize everything captured on those websites so that the video gets mirrored and goes viral.

    1. If they take property without a warrant, simply because they may be seen in that video, too bad for them. A badge does not grant you powers to steal, in fact, a badge makes theft an even tougher penalty for the thief. A cop can’t seize anything without a warrant, as demanded by the 4th amendment, and he can’t take property without due process, either. And I have never known an employee to ‘be’ due process. This requires the application of far more than a single person, or action.
      A cop acting alone or in concert with another does not, in any circumstance, grant the act of due process to them alone, they are but one tiny section of the entire process, and alone, can not be considered ‘due process’ by any meaning of the definition. A cop is only a tool to enforce laws, they have no legal court powers to take property, cause theft to occur,or to injure or cause to be injured.
      Cops do not have ‘extra’ rights nor authorities, in fact, they have less rights as an employee of the people, acting on their own, they are required to obey even more laws, regulations and the rights of those they are impacting. Add their own regulations and laws of conduct they must abide by as a condition of their employment.
      A cop can not be due process, as they are not afforded the authority to act in a capacity not granted them by their employment. Cops are also not elected to their jobs, but hired, which provides an easy remedy to remove them if they cause trouble.
      Cops can not act as judge, jury or executioner (though they often do). There are legal recourses for this, and the constitution allows for this, it is called lethal self defense of self. If you film a cop in the public’s eye, that cop has no more expectation to privacy as any other citizen, they ARE paid to be placed in that situation by the very nature of their employment. They ARE the tools of the public, and shall be used according to the whims of the public, whether they like it or not. Which is why they are hired, to freely quit if the job encroaches on their lifestyles, actions or ideals, they have the free will to walk away, and should!

      1. The problem is that the cops know that if they are captured on their own systems, their qualified immunity will assure that video will never be seen in public, let alone in a court of law. We need to get the videos in front of the public where the trials are in the court of public opinion.
        They also know that if they can get possession of the camera, there is little chance that the video will get away. If the videos could be live streamed onto the Internet, where they could be mirrored and stored, the likelihood of the officers preventing the exposure of their crimes to the public would be reduced, and only the most ignorant officers would continue to reoffend.

        1. I have confronted sheriff deputies on matters such as this, and I will not hand over any evidence I have in my possession simply on their demand. I don’t have to. They can threaten all they like, but if they attack me to gain control, I will draw my gun to stop them.
          A badge does not scare me, in fact, it does the opposite.
          I do not become property, I am always free to do as I feel is right.
          A cop has no more rights than I have, and I am under no obligation to submit to any demands i know are unjust, illegal and unconstitutional. This is the way I was required to ‘operate’ in the army. Unlawful orders do not need to be followed, and they can not be forced to follow such orders.
          If a cop demands I hand over my property to them, they will have a valid warrant in possession, or they get nothing!
          We don;t trust cops any more, they have lost our trust and confidence to do their jobs in a manner consistent with the laws of the nation and of the will of the people that pay their salaries.
          There are proper procedures to utilize, and if cops refuse to follow these laws, then the people are not going to follow them either. As the law states that it can not be applied unfairly to cover one segment of a population while being allowed to be ignored by another. Justice is applied equally to all, or not at all.

          For proof of cops not knowing the law, ask them to recite the exact statute, section, subsection and paragraph, they are trying to use against you, if you are being questioned. Since they are not required to ‘know’ the laws they enforce, how can a reasonable person make an excuse that ignorance is not a valid excuse for your defense, when the law is not expected to be known by those enforcing them.

          1. Of course, there is always the possibility of a Title 42 suit, or use of the decision made by the SCOTUS in Mack and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

  27. I mean I am coming to the conclusion that capitalism is no longer conducive with a free and democratic society. It scares me how much greed is fueling the downfall of society and does not give me much hope for the future.

    1. It isn’t capitalism when the government controls the market. It’s an illusion of capitalism.

  28. This is what happens when private companies collude with government for regulatory favor to suppress competition. This is crony capitalism at best and borderline fascism at worst.

  29. So then when there is a big surprising issue, like the Arab Spring over seas, and there is a need to upload a sudden massive story or a get together that may require a group needing assistance like backup and they all start posting the Government can put a massive blackout or stomp the uploads. So the Twin Towers get hit by airplanes and everybody starts uploading the instant live truths about whats happening the Government can just put a massive kill order on the whole uploading thing and produce their own story even easier than they already do! Did YOU READ the story? You seemed to miss the entire point of this story! This is about trying to stop the Government from doing exactly this! Soon we won’t be able to upload anything till the Governmental muscle and might determine it’s ok, because that is what is next. This is the begining and you seem to think that it’s ok because “there are pretty simple solutions” to this Amendment of Free Speech stoppage. Again did YOU read this?

  30. Piss offff google.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Featured