News organizations in Seattle have been ordered by a judge to hand over photographs and videos to the Seattle Police Department to aid investigations into alleged arson of police vehicles and theft of police weapons.
The judge set what some regard as a dangerous precedent that threatens to bring the free press into the domain of a surveillance state.
As reported by the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department successfully subpoenaed five Seattle-based news outlets whose reporters were covering events at a protest that took place on May 30th. Typically, unpublished material is protected and not available to law enforcement. King County Superior Court Judge Nelson Lee decided that the Police Department were justified in their request to access the photographs and footage, but must demonstrate that they have exhausted all other means of inquiry. The police will not have access to material captured on reporters’ mobile phones.
The five news outlets — Seattle Times and TV stations KIRO 7, KING 5, KOMO 4 and KCPQ 13 — are expected to appeal the decision.
News organizations may now fear that in the future judges will be able to decide which information their reporters will be forced to turn over to authorities. Furthermore, as observed by Seattle Times Executive Editor Michele Matassa Flores, such a move undermines the independence of the press and might put journalists at risk while reporting.
Lead image by Damien Conway, used under Creative Commons.
Euhm there are 73% white people in the US and 12,7% blacks in the US, so alot more black people %-wise get killed, it means that black people are 3 times more likely to get killed by police than white people!
For 1 second think about this from their view, if they get pulled over they are 3 times more likely to be killed than a white guy (that is 1,3x more likely to have a gun btw)!
Koen Miseur: you totally dont know how to read statistics and you missing context. Of coure lower chance to be killed by the police have a people who do not commit crime =) that easy is it.
I see you're still playing the numbers game to suit your narrative and just parroting the media. Does your little numbers and percentages show how likely they are to resist arrest? Fight with officers? About 3 times more likely? lol
You didn't read Koen Miseur's chart carefully. It IS NOT about total numbers. It about the percentage of people who died from police contact by race. It shows that the number of deaths per million is more than twice that for whites. If you were equalize the size of the populations for whites and blacks, then the total numbers of black people killed in police incidents would be greater than whites killed.
I'm not for destruction, but things will be repaired, rebuild, cops paid over time, insurances will kick in and rebuild will employ many local industries... You are talking about millions of $.
Stolen PPP money comes in billions not millions and 0% is coming back to rebuild the economy. Zero coming back, zero job created.
What is your preferred riot? Total loss of billions or job creation after millions in destruction?
After 2 hours, no comments but three votes down, I must conclude that every one approve either they like it or not. Closed
Since you insist on a comment. Will you still support riots if YOUR business was looted ans set on fire and YOUR insurance company told you that you are not covered for riots and acts of terrorism? You know why they don't have riots and destruction of property in Texas? Because store owners are allowed to use deadly force to protect their property by Texas penal code 9.42.
Again, and I hope you can understand it this time, I don't support destruction. Next step for you is to - actually - search and you will find out that destruction from riots is a standard type of coverage from all insurances. Please don't make up stories about not being covered if the business is insured. Back to topic, if a strong business took 2 million from PPP when they should have not qualify for it, that WAS the insurance that some small local businesses should have received to stay afloat.
Are you trying to justify the destruction by saying that eventually, insurance will kick in and things will be rebuilt? That is a twisted way to look at an illegal activity. And because some big business took money that they shouldn't have, how does this, in any way, make the destruction of other's property a ho hum?
Protesters don't destroy property, criminals do. Pretty simple.
You did it above and here again: The deliberate misinterpretation of the statement of the other. If there are 10.000 people protesting peacefully and a dozen idiots burn up cars then this will be in the news. This is twisted as are your statements.
Then those dozen should be in jail. Now, if your statement were correct and it was only a "dozen idiots", there wouldn't be a problem because a "dozen idiots" would be easy to gather up and put away. The thing is, it's WAY more than a dozen.
I stated that protests are part of a free society, but I'll forgive you since you missed that part. And if you didn't miss that part, I'll forgive you anyway. You see, I was a business owner at one time. I can feel the pain of people watching their lives go up in smoke and for what?
Yes, there is pain and yes it is a crime. But they are two different levels. On the one hand, a broad and urgent social concern and, on the other hand, crimes committed by a comparatively very small group that takes advantage of the temporal vacuum that has arisen. Populists play one off against the other. And racists benefit from it, because it "legitimizes" their attitude. Deescalation is urgently needed. The state needs to take the lead here. I see in your country a leadership that does not lead in this manner.
Another one who turns his back to reality. Good job!
The reality is that property owners have been handed a ration of crap from their city leaders. They expect their property to be protected, but these city's leaders have made a conscious decision to allow anarchy to step on the rule of law.
It's real easy to see this destruction and have a ho hum attitude.....until it happens to you. This is just another sign that Western Civilization is consuming itself.
So you support job creation after millions in destruction but do not support destruction. Make your mind please. And read small print in your insurance policy. But for a sake of argument let's assume your studio policy covers destruction by riots. It will create jobs to rebuild it but you will lose your management job for forceable future. You still don't want police to have pictures of people who did it so rioters could come back and destroy Starbucks next door? It is civil duty of every citizen to do what they can to help police to fight crime. Of course if you don't see looting and destruction of property as a crime, then you should be just fine with rioter destroying YOUR livelihood.
You cannot be more off. The police has all the power to take videos and photos as they want and have all the money for this. No one has stopped the police from taking pictures videos or helicopter surveillance. I would assume and suggest they do for their own safety. I have at least 10 cops who live in my neighborhood and we all sure appreciate their presence around here. You are really beating on the wrong person here by assuming I am supporting rioters. I'm loving it.
No word regarding PPP, sure you wouldn't have an opinion... Lol. Well over 100k small businesses have shut down for good while you turned your back on them and watched the riots on your favorite channel. That totally crushes the number of destroyed businesses during riots, but would you care? Clearly not.
Just another strike against our constitutional rights.
Read the 5th Amendment. It deals with property rights. I guess that one isn't important. While I was looking at the 5th Amendment, I was looking for the part of the Constitution that states that it's alright to destroy other's property. Couldn't find it.
The 5th Amendment only affords the individual protection from the action of the government.
If a company's surveillance cameras catch a crime, unrelated to their store, they regularly provide it to law enforcement. How is this different?
Because that is BY CHOICE, being ordered to provide images IS a violation of civil rights, it is called compelled speech and IS a violation of the 1st amendment. Anyone who tries to violate my rights like that is playing a dangerous game with their health.
No. They are legally bound to do so if provided a warrant which, in effect, is what the judge in this case did. I'm sure you're a tough guy but only a fool assumes the outcome of any encounter.
A warrant has to be specific. The judge did NOT grant a warrant, this is a blanket order. But you also aren't a combat veteran who has served this nation for over 23 years, so your opinion isn't worth anything to me.
That's why I wrote, "in effect".
You may be a veteran but I seriously doubt you've been in combat. Everyone I've ever known who's fought in the military is fairly humble, realizing through experience, what I gave you for free. Maybe you were a corpsman or something!?
Actually, I suspect if police make a request to news agencies specific enough, news agencies will provide the information as well. What they don't want to do is to be hit with a blanket request for everything they've got without specification.
That makes sense but I didn't find anything relating the scope of the order.
Are you saying the news photographers purpose is to provide surveillance? Because that's what surveillance cameras main purpose is. It would be a very tragic way to interpret photography. I have to consider you do not understand photography at all. Have a good day.
No, not at all. I'm saying the store's video cameras purpose is to provide surveillance for THEIR use, not anyone else's. I'm comparing usage/ownership. But then, I suspect you knew that.
Thanks, I'm trying to have a good day but it's too hot to go out and I'm tired of staying in.
Not at all what you say, not even close. The judge want all the images and videos, not a specific section showing one specific scene. I suspect you ignore the difference or don't know the difference.
I don't really understand your reply but will assume it was well reasoned and based on facts. :-)
LOL
In Belgium not much different than the us please read this don’t want to bore anyone with other references...
https://www.registercitizen.com/news/article/Man-dies-in-Belgian-port-of...
By the way Federal agents not only have the right to arrest anyone destroying federal property but are commanded by our constitutional laws, Peaceful protesting is not what’s going on here right now!
Dude I live in Belgium, there have been about ten people killed by cops in Belgium since 2005! In 2020 only 24 times a cop shot at someone, 10x on people and 14x on cars! Here cops don't like to shoot at people, I think in the US they love it!
A few years ago (2017?) the LAPD shot 92 bullets at the end of a police chase a guy who was running from his car with cell phone, police said it was a gun. 7 cops unloaded, hit him enough times to kill him.
The same year 87 bullets were fired by all the police departments in Germany combined.
Agree or disagree with the article and/or comments, you don't appear to know anything about Nazis or tyrants.
Actually, I think I'll write whatever I like, whenever I like, but thanks for the suggestion. As for knowing you, I wrote, "you don't appear to know...", which you don't. That's not an analysis of you or your knowledge but, rather, your comment, provided in full so that no additional knowledge is required. I can't comment on your last sentence, not understanding how anyone's comments regarding this subject could be construed as relating to their sexual preferences, but feel free to indulge your own predilections, assuming your partner(s) acquiesce and that such assistance is required.
The events in cities such as Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, et. al. have nothing in common with the Reichstag building fire. Unless, and until, we can get to the bottom of Federal Law Officer's actions in Portland, which the Federal Government (unlike Hitler's government) is investigating, we won't know any details supporting your presumed claims of similarity. In either case, Nazis and tyrants are defined by their extreme behavior and not merely objectionable, albeit lamentable, behavior. It's a matter of degrees.
Are you suggesting the Federal government should ignore damage to property and behavior, far in excess of merely being disorderly? Please understand, I'm not saying anyone is completely innocent here, although that may be the case, I'm merely taking exception with your comparison of individuals, both here and within the government, to Nazis and tyrants. That's not even touching on those individuals and groups performing all manor of criminal behavior. Within the law, there is the concept of Proportional Response. In dealing with these Anarchists (no, I don't include lawful protesters), I've heard no evidence to suggest anything close to proportional response, much less excessive force.
I always try to look at the story behind the story and so, yeah, I've noticed you trying to get banned, as you have before. What I don't understand is, why? What a person does, to me at least, isn't nearly as important as why, which unfortunately is never clear.
Are you referring to Churchill's quote about Russia's actions, from 1939?
I thought perhaps, due to the similarity, that was the case and you've already shown an interest in history.
I'm working on it.
The only way to fail is to stop trying. I haven't.
I try not to respond to foolishness and have already made too many exceptions in your case.
fuck that...i’d be going to jail before i would comply with that order...this is what a police state looks like!
I wouldn't worry. Having looked at your photos, I don't think they expose any criminal behavior. :-D
you’re hilarious Abe, and your photos are....
Did you take offense at that? I assure you, that was not my intention at all. My photos are on a series of hard drives at my home and occasionally shared, by email or Google Drive, with friends and relatives. :-)
Funny how I said earlier that you don't show the characteristics of a photographer and now I find you bullying other photographers about their work.
"Bullying"? I didn't say anything negative about his photos. It was intended to be a light-hearted comment to bring down the tension of his rather intense comment. I think you guys are way too invested in your biases.