alt Hacker NewsMy local county is currently in a dispute with the local bar association because they want to upgrade the courthouse security cameras and the sheriff wants to add audio capabilities. This includes to parts of the building just outside the courtroom that counsel will frequently use for brief asides with their clients (due to lack of other private rooms). The county seems to favor adding the microphones and pinky swearing they won't use them and that public records requests won't be used to listen in on privileged communication, but it's obvious how difficult that would be to trust. They keep putting off a decision because they don't want to piss off the lawyers.
Replies
Even if what they hear is inadmissible in court, parallel construction is a real thing and they will find a way to work backwards.
What's the security reason they need this? How many times has a security camera failed to do its job because it didn't have audio? What crimes do they thing they are going to solve? Are people breaking into the courthouse wearing masks but screaming their own names?
Surely as a compromise the police dept can put cameras with audio livestreaming from every room in police dept ?
Yeah, "we promise not to use it" is about the weakest possible control in a situation like that
I assume the sheriff would be totally fine with putting up signs in that area saying "audio and video recording in progress" then right? That would somewhat address the issue, and should be entirely uncontroversial to both sides.
Are you in Iowa, by chance? A neighboring county where I live wants to do this exact thing. Last I read they had voted to go forward with it.
CCTV with audio is a line that should not be crossed, but as there tech is there, they just can't resist
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-judg...
There's no leadership to curtail asinine behavior. Instead of forces of nature to strengthen the status quo of freedom, we get lowly politicians. Judges end up having to do all the work.
There should be no safety reason to require audio. The only reason for audio is later use for prosecution.
It's not just that they don't want to piss off the lawyers. If they don't provide a private location, then they may be forced to take continuances and recesses so those conversations can happen elsewhere as a condition of not infringing on the constitutional right to effective counsel.