Big Brother Is Listening

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:31:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

For several months, a police supervisor in Portsmouth, New Hampshire used a bugging device to listen to civilian employees in the police records office as they conversed with each other and with visitors. The device was apparently installed to help supervisors investigate complaints about the employees' rudeness when interacting with the public. Although a sign in the police department warns visitors that their conversations in the lobby might be recorded, no notice was given to the employees that a recording device had been installed inside their office.

Why police supervisors thought it was necessary to eavesdrop instead of telling the employees that they were being recorded is unclear. Perhaps it was simply their nature to seek to "catch the bad guys" who violated work rules rather than giving the employees information that would probably have prevented the violations. [more ...]

After the employees discovered the electronic eavesdropping, the county attorney cautiously concluded that "the system raises the question of whether the employees consented to the recordings." Since the employees weren't told their internal office conversations were being recorded, consent doesn't seem to be much of a question. In any event, the county attorney concluded that the state's wiretapping law wasn't violated because "the recordings were made with the belief that they were lawful." Police officers in Portsmouth evidently aren't expected to know what conduct is prohibited by state law. The state Attorney General’s office has agreed to review the county attorney's conclusion.

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | Video Thwarts Officer's Attempt to Blame Victim Of His Own Brutality >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Big Brother Is Listening | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

All they had to do (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Jen M on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 08:05:10 AM EST

Was put up another sign. In fact, all you need is one sign at the entrance, like they do at the entrance of military posts.

I've worked in several places where (none / 0) (#9)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:35:36 AM EST

hidden cameras exist all over the workplace (executive offices of a huge county jail, mobile telephone company headquarters, etc.). The jail told us cameras existed, mobile phone company did not. Some big box retail has cameras at the cash registers and in the shelves to catch thieves. Casinos have hidden cameras all over, and people monitor them in a back room looking for cheaters.


If only it would improve (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:09:32 PM EST

the attitudes of some of the civilians who work at the Lyster Army clinic :)


: heh (none / 0) (#12)
by Jen M on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:15:37 PM EST

good luck with THAT!
Oh wait, I'm an army civilian.
Thank goodness I don't interact with the public! Just the lab stuff.

But (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:34:12 AM EST

The fact that there is little expectation of privacy at work comes into play. Employers can listen to your phone conversations (on their phones), they can read your email, and they can see what internet sites you vist - because it's all on their property. This $ucks for these employees, but why should the city be any different than any other employer when it comes to doing quality control, customer service checks, and checking employee productivity?

Well, ummm....how smart do you (4.75 / 4) (#1)
by oldpro on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:52:40 PM EST

have to be to conclude that the sign on the wall might just possibly include YOU if you are in the room? So, maybe the sign was really an employee IQ test.

OK. That was mean...

It's a funny thing, though. It's my experience that even when people know they are being recorded or filmed (or both), they rather quickly forget the device and revert to type. I think the many reality shows on television bear this out over time.

: The sign was in the lobby, (none / 0) (#2)
by TChris on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:58:18 AM EST

not in the records office.

Maybe For Good Reason (none / 0) (#3)
by BeAware on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:04:13 AM EST

Lets try and think objectively here. Is there any reason you can think of why police would want to clandestinely eavesdrop on civilian employees working where sensitive police records are kept? I can think of many reasons all of them perfectly sane and legitimate, and if you will excuse me while I explain as I am not a very gifted literary talent, you might soon think likewise. basically I think it is more than reasonable to make sure that nothing is being communicated verbally that shouldn't be. If you want the peace of mind of complete security than you have to make sure that nothing is being communicated that might jeopardize your department. We have to keep in mind that there are people who want to do us harm, and we have to assume that infiltration of state and federal agencies on all levels is part of their mission. With that in mind, them making sure their suspicions were just that and nothing more is completely justifiable. I think ultimately what we are seeing is how deep the War On Terror has permeated our society, and that yes there is a war going on right under our feet.

In a 2005 documentary titled "Who is The American Connection",two former DEA agents describe what its like working in a clandestine capacity for the United States government. Their accounts will surely be shocking to most, I certainly responded with a jolt of realization, if not much suprise. Eavesdropping on American civilians according to them has become so wide spread and accepted among high level government officials, that they were actually having new buildings built with intelligence gathering devices already in them. The government conrolled companies were essentially producing pre-bugged buildings, making intelligence gathering that much easier. And another shocking yet not surprising thing is that all this started happening in the 60's, so this is really old news.

What is most important to realize is that this is not an isolated incident, and that this and other types of spying are being carried out on all the people of the world. The technology at the disposal of our leaders is so vast that I doubt we will ever know how deep their covert programs go. Even though it may be a futile pursuit, we have to try and learn the big picture. We have to try and become aware of the actual state of the world, the reality of which our leaders are fully aware of, and currently trying to "protect" us from.

Um, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by TChris on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 02:40:48 AM EST

assuring that "sensitive police records" aren't disclosed isn't the justification that the officers gave, but in any event that wouldn't be an excuse to violate a law that prohibits recording people without their consent. Telling the employees they're being recorded wouldn't jeopardize the goal of assuring "that nothing is being communicated verbally that shouldn't be." Of course, if all the devious bad guys who want to do us harm are actually infiltrating our local police departments, they just have to read the "sensitive police reports" and report to their handlers after they've left the building. But hey, nice try.


All I'd like protection from... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 08:07:50 AM EST

is the leaders...and their spies, agents, and mercenaries.

Free people in no place of authority don't scare me one bit.


They aren't in places of no authority (none / 0) (#7)
by Jen M on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:01:49 AM EST

they are underpaid, overworked, and in charge of some pretty confidential information. Sometimes (aka medical records) very private information.

What controls do you want on people who only work for and have access to Big Brother's knowledge?


: I'd file them under agents... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 09:44:01 AM EST

of the state and would like some controls on the info they can access, and controls on the info the state is allowed to collect in the first place.