General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat are the rules for weaponized phone cameras?
Here's a scenario. An old man is approaching a time when he should perhaps be thinking about surrendering his driver's license. He accidentally pulls out in front of a carful of young men. It's not a seriously dangerous move. The driver of the other car simply has to brake and slow down. But he's irritated that his legal right of way was infringed upon. The other young men in the car are pissed too. One of them spilled his coffee.
The young men start to yell at and curse the old man. They give him the one-finger salute from all four windows. Then, one of the young men decides to take it farther. He grabs the side of the open window and pulls his whole upper body through it. He shouts insults at the old man and gives him the finger.
The old man is now afraid. He sees his phone next to him on the car seat. The only thing he can think to do is point it at the young men and take a video of them, or at least pretend to. So, he does that.
Instantly, the young man whose upper body was outside the car sees the camera and pulls himself back into the car. The one-finger salutes disappear. The driver is now freaking out, because he was in a car with a bunch of young men who were arguably threatening an old man. He doesn't have video of the old man's stupid driving move, and, anyway, threatening an old man is not a good look.
The young men turn at the next signal and speed off. At a minimum, their time together was spoiled for a while. The driver is now worried, possibly for days, that his license plate will be turned over to the cops or the whole video could go viral.
Everyone knows that cameras are now weaponized. The old man was "in the wrong" in pulling in front of the young men. They were "in the right" until they decided to hassle and frighten the old man. The old man pulled a camera on them. Was he in the wrong?
What are the rules for weaponized cameras?
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's just a camera. Nothing more. You can use it to document events. Weapons imply violence. Cameras are not weapons in any way. They are simply recording devices.
The rules are simple. If you have a camera, you can take photos and videos with it. The camera can't harm anyone.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)And, by harm, I'm talking about harm in the general sense. People can be harmed, even destroyed without physical violence. The camera can be used to defend against harm and to cause it. Cameras cause fear.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Give me an example.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)Easy, and I'm essentially certain it would be easy for you too, but the burden's on me.
Suppose the old man in my scenario started to take video of the car with the young men in it. He posts it. It goes viral. The driver's employer sees it and fires him.
The young man has taken harm from the camera. QED
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)No harm came to anyone that can be connected to the camera.
It wasn't used as a weapon, so it hasn't been weaponized.
Wrong word choice.
LuckyCharms
(17,287 posts)unless you throw it at someone.
vanlassie
(5,637 posts)So I think you should use cameras if you think you need to document, but use discretion.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,150 posts)gulliver
(13,142 posts)The old man pulls the camera in self-defense. The young men are (justifiably, I would say) afraid of the camera. Why? (Or is my scenario BS?)
madinmaryland
(64,920 posts)Taking the law into their own hands. At this point it has nothing to do with the older gentleman. End of story. There is no reason for these douchebags to attack him.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)I'm just saying the camera is a weapon. You're saying it's use is just in this case. I happen to agree.
But the justness is a separate question. If we don't like weapons, paradoxically, we can refuse to call something a weapon when it is used against someone we don't like. Then it's a tool.
I go back to the idea that if something can be used to attack or defend, it's a weapon.
FreeState
(10,553 posts)The video, had it been recorded, could have been weaponized. Video can be recorded and weaponized regardless of what does the recording.
That being said an adult person driving the car in this scenario has responsibility for its minor occupants behavior. In this case the driver would have broken the law because his under age occupants were not in their seatbelts (depends on where but this is the law in my state).
iemanja
(53,003 posts)That's why they were frightened.
Red Mountain
(1,705 posts)Kill, stun and 'make them behave like society is watching'.
Not all together bad IMHO though it might serve to escalate some situations in a negative way.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)But what are the rules? How do we know we're seeing the whole story? And also, it's important to ask "who" is seeing the story and what they're thinking.
If I don't like the way you're behaving, can I just take a video of you and post in SnapChat where everyone who likes me agrees with me and judges you?
It strikes me as seriously odd that we don't seem to realize the potential for unjust uses of the camera as a weapon. It's a weapon. It can cause harm. It needs rules and ethics just like any other weapon.
ret5hd
(20,435 posts)gulliver
(13,142 posts)Even if we are really sure we're right, it doesn't free us from the responsibility to be sure we are avoiding attacking others as much as we can, even if they are in the wrong.
That's just one anyway.
ret5hd
(20,435 posts)You gave a scenario, and am interested in where you are heading with this.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)Here in Illinois, the old man would at least be ticketed for using a cell phone while driving. And no video would go viral if the old man didn't upload it.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)he followed her driving erratically on the highway. He pulled in front of her and slammed on his brakes. She had called 911 at this point, they told her to get a pic of his license plate...which she did. Next, she tried to get off the highway and the guy went around her and turned sideways blocking her at the end of the exit. He got out of the car and she raised her phone so he could see it...he continued to walk towards her shouting but eventually heard the sirens and left. He is damn lucky had it been me when he came towards my car, I would have run his sorry ass over. So yeah, a phone can be a weapon one uses for self-defense. Almost forgot, thanks to the pics and the calls, My daughter had his picture too when he was walking towards the car, he pleaded guilty to a road rage charge and a reckless driving charge. There were more charges but I can't remember. I think one of them was assault. She has no idea what she did to annoy him.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)I'm talking from first hand experience. I got stopped for taking a picture of a building while driving my car. So yes, it's a ticketable offense here in Illinois.
Edit: And I was stopped at a red light to boot.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)after 9-11...so while they used cell phone laws which vary from state to state I expect the fact you were taking pictures of a building piqued their interest and they used cellphone law. Also, many cars are now equipped with cameras. My car has a dash camera and a back camera. If I slam on my breaks it takes a picture. If there is an accident pictures are taken...I think it runs most of the time and if something happens you can retrieve the pictures. A guy who hit me and tried to say I did it, got caught that way.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)Dash cams are perfectly legal as they operate automatically. And no, taking a picture of a building in rural Illinois is not suspicious whatsoever. Here is the indisputable fact. It is illegal to operate a cellphone unless it is not handheld while operating a motor vehicle in the state of Illinois.
https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/distracted.html#:~:text=Illinois%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use,driving%20and%20can%20be%20dangerous.
The above scenario the OP made up does not demonstrate an emergency situation. If they tried to ram him or actually threatened his life then that would be an emergency.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)And thanks to Mom, who placed an app on her phone that recorded and sent out the GPS info, she could send the cops her GPS information so they could reach her quickly
ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)Illinoisan here, too.
The law specifically states one cannot use the phone, unless hands free, in a moving vehicle.
If you were at at stop light, you weren't moving. You could have contested it and likely would have won.
My friend did. Very similar scenario.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)and can use blue tooth or iPod connections. My daughter certainly wasn't in trouble the guy who's picture she got is in prison.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)Here is the Illinois law:
https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/distracted.html#:~:text=Illinois%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use,driving%20and%20can%20be%20dangerous.
The only time Illinois drivers can use a cell phone that is not hands free is:
To report an emergency situation.
While parked on the shoulder of a roadway.
While stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the vehicle is in neutral or park.
ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)My friend got ticketed for answering a call at a stop sign.
Judge dismissed it in about 3 seconds.
There are several counties around here that have told cops not to bother ticketing for talking on phone, only texting.
A literal reading of the law provides no benefit to public safety.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)Why would you insult me? I broke the law, I paid the ticket. I don't go crying to a judge like a trump.
ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)...of insult.
There was no insult given.
I just don't care for literalism. Public safety was not enhanced by your ticket or fine.
Hence, I think you should have fought against a stupid law.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)inadvertently.
BeerBarrelPolka
(1,202 posts)No worries. Thanks for letting me know.
I don't mind paying the ticket because I was wrong and broke the law.
SYFROYH
(34,127 posts)In your example, a camera wasn't weaponized, the camera was used to film video that could be shared.
Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)My Dad taught each of his daughters (he worried about us) that a car is a weapon and never forget that if you get into some sort of trouble on the road. Don't leave your car and use it if you must. He was military.
Kaleva
(36,147 posts)People use it because that's what the cool kids in school are saying.
"Tool" would be, in this case, a better term.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)My point is that it's very dangerous, a phone camera. And there should be an ethics for wielding it against a non-consenting subject.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)They wouldn't have been worried if they hadn't been acting like jerks.
Maybe they'll learn to behave themselves.
gulliver
(13,142 posts)They might be treated with restraint, learn, and become wiser. They might, on the other hand, be electronically cornered by a social media viral mob of stone casters and have their lives ruined. That would be out of proportion, imo.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)anything could happen. Only it didn't. The old man isn't responsible for whatever you or the young men might dream up.
Response to gulliver (Original post)
TheBeam19 This message was self-deleted by its author.