Surveillance cameras violate the First Amendment

Exactly four years ago (in the wake of anti-terrorist activity), the New York court and judge Charles Height jr. (Charles S. Haight Jr.) allowed the police to use round-the-clock surveillance cameras to photograph public places. However, a few days ago, the same judge delivered the exact opposite of the verdict and banned baseless video filming in public places (a copy of the court decision , an article in NYTimes ).

The ban on video filming by law enforcement agencies does not apply to bridges, tunnels, airports, subways and other important objects. The court decision deals only with public places and mass events, that is, when the First Amendment to the US Constitution is applicable, which prohibits the restriction of freedom of speech.

According to the judge, the police exceeded their authority when filming a demonstration in Harlem and the march of the homeless, because during these actions it was impossible to assume the presence of any illegal or terrorist activity. Thus, police filming of these public events obstructed freedom of speech. The recording of individuals and the behavior of citizens during protests could in no way help to identify illegal activity.

The judge stressed that ordinary citizens have the right to videotape such events, and the police do not have it, if it does not have a special permit.
')
This decision of the New York court somewhat contradicts the entire logic of technical progress, according to which surveillance cameras are installed everywhere and will soon cover 100% of the urban area in developed countries . It is assumed that these cameras should work around the clock and be monitored by the police in real time. First, every step of each person will be recorded, this should reduce the crime rate by an order of magnitude. Secondly, the police will be able to quickly intervene in the development of events through the megaphones built into such cameras.