Monday, July 4, 2011

Is it OK to Video Record a KPFK LSB meeting and not share ?

To clarify one more opinion about the videotaping of all attending a KPFK LSB meeting, here is one by Terry Goodman [not an attorney]:

"The law requires that recording be allowed at public meetings so long as this does not interfere with the proceedings. The law does not require that those recording identify themselves or make their recordings publicly available.
A meeting can have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so by their attendance I think there is a legal presumption that they have waived any right not to be filmed or recorded.

The conflict I referred to in passing is created by a section of the Pacifica Bylaws that says that persons cannot be required to identify themselves to qualify to address Pacifica boards during the mandated public comment periods.

That the Pacifica Bylaws specifically provide a protection for public anonymity at meetings suggests that Pacifica should take measures to protect the public's anonymity at meetings if it can, such as by discouraging the filming of persons who don't want to be filmed -- but the public meeting laws suggest that any such limitation imposed upon recordists might be a violation of their rights, so Pacifica must be careful and get a legal opinion on this before acting."

Yet the concerns of those who attend a meeting and are recorded by those who do not appear to represent a media organization makes some uncomfortable. Then to not have access to the results recorded at all - by having no identification visible from or on the Recorder - makes some of us nervous.

Yes, we have all heard it repeated: "when you are in a public space, you can be photoed, recorded, copied, [ your invaded private space is taken, and taken for granted] and the results should not be used for commercial purposes."

But who knows if they are ?

Who is ever asked "can we record you and your speech ?" but recorders not on telephone just assume they CAN because they purchased the equipment [or borrowed it]. Many photographers act as if the world is theirs for the taking - of any pictures of you or yours, any time, any where - free images to just take.

In fact, the camera acts as the badge of authority proving they can 'take you' because they OWN the machine and are directly in front of you or zooming subvertly from afar. The invasion of personal space and what was once considered politely as our "privacy" of person no longer exists. Maybe it never existed before either.

But the more cheap gadgets available that record and then transfer our personal images and words [or which we assume is limited to one pubic event] make anything expressed open to any use- makes us vulnerable.

And so much easy software that then changes reality into any propaganda or slant or demeanment desired is making this proliferation of 'us' pretty scary too. We have no more control or even knowledge of how 'we' are being portrayed or being used, nor even by whom. No one is required to ask or identify themselves or disclose their purposes either.

Does this prevent some speakers from voicing opinions or suggestions in public?

Can there be rules or requests for recorders to state where their results can be reviewed or accessed ?

Is there any social responsibility by those with gadgets, obvious or hidden, to inform those whom they are 'using' for their own purposes?

Is all interpersonal trust and accountability lost and long gone ?


(c) akpfker 2011