[conspire] Idiot waiver demands

[Rick Moen]

Correcting my homonym typo:

> [1] It is lawful to observe police actions from 'a reasonable distance',
> but the criteria applied by courts are situation-dependent.  See also:
> http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=202
> You want to be not readily seen since many police officers will cease
> independent footage first and worry about legality later.       ^^^^^
 
'seize'.

There has been a lot of recent rhetoric, much of it overblown, among the
usual suspects of those who 'blog' concerning political trivia du jour:
It is said that something like seven US states require two-party consent
to surveillance, even in public, and it's said that a number of police
departments have recently abused anti-wiretapping laws to punish
citizens who videotaped embarrassing police activity and published it,
e.g., on Google's YouTube service.  However, it's also been rather more
common for police on the scene to simply grab cameras (/cellular cameras
with cameras) and 'disappear' the film or digital media before yielding
back the equipment.

So, if people feel compelled to photograph police actions, you're well
advised to be unnoticed.  If you happen to capture something
interesting, e.g., what you believe to be police misconduct, see a
lawyer before taking it to anyone, duplicate it, then take it to the
press, and only _then_ take it to the authorities.