技术与公民自由

　　Don’t shoot

　　不要拍摄！

　　Police may not like being filmed, but they had better get used to it

　　警察可能不喜欢被人拍摄，不过他们最好习惯之

　　WHAT is the most striking image to emerge from this autumn’s Occupy protests? Was it the campus police officer in Davis, California, casually pepper-spraying a line of seated protesters? Or the white-shirted cop in New York, doing the same to a pair of unarmed, penned-in women? Perhaps it was a street in Oakland, deserted except for protesters and a line of black-helmeted riot police, the silence broken when one of the cops fires a rubber bullet at a protester filming him. Protesters have complained, as ever, about police infiltration, but as these videos make clear, protesters and other citizens are keeping their eyes on police, too.

　　今秋的“占领”抗议中哪个场面最引人注目？是加利福尼亚州戴维思的校园警察随意地往一排坐在地上的抗议者喷洒胡椒喷雾剂？还是纽约身穿白衬衣的警察以同样的手段对待两位手无寸铁、被关着的女士？或许是在只有抗议者和一排戴着黑色头盔的防暴警察的奥克兰街头，其中一个警察向一位拍摄他的抗议者射出的一枚橡胶子弹将沉默瞬间打破。一如往常，抗议者抱怨他们时刻处在警察的监视之下，但这些视频清楚地表明，抗议者与其他市民同样在密切关注警察的一举一动。

　　More than two-thirds of Americans own digital cameras. Around one-third of adults own a smartphone. Most of these devices can record and easily transmit audio and video. Recording police has never been easier, and thanks to social-media and activist networks such as Copwatch, which monitors police activity and posts videos to the web, neither has publicising these recordings.

　　在美国，超过三分之二的人拥有数码相机，约有三分之一的成年人拥有一部智能手机。这些设备大都能录音及摄像，并方便地传送音频与视频。记录警察的一举一动从未如此轻易，而由于社交媒体及Copwatch（此网密切关注警察的活动并将有关视频上传至网络）这种积极分子网络的存在，公开这些视频记录也比从前任何时候都要容易。

　　That does not always go over well. People peaceably filming police have been handcuffed, beaten, had their cameras seized, and been arrested for obstructing governmental administration, obstructing an investigation, interference, disturbing the peace, or for illegal wiretapping. In taking such action the police are on shaky legal ground. The right to photograph people, including police officers, in public places, is relatively clear.

　　但要记录警察的行为并上传至网络并不总是那么容易的。那些安分守己地拍摄警察的人，却被警察戴上手铐、殴打、没收相机及逮捕，理由如下：妨碍政府管理、妨碍调查及警方介入、扰乱秩序或非法窃听。警察采取这些行动并没有可靠的法律依据。而在公共场所拍摄他人（包括警察及官员）的权利却是相对比较明确的。

　　Adding audio, however, raises a new set of legal issues. Most states have single-party consent laws concerning audio recording, meaning that as long as one party consents to being recorded, the taping is legal. In most of the 12 states in which all parties must consent to be recorded, a violation occurs only if the subjects being recorded have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Arguing that police officers carrying out their duties in public have such a right is a challenge. The attorney-general in Maryland, an all-party-consent state, wrote in 2010 that few interactions with police could be considered private.

　　不过，若在拍摄的同时进行录音便会引起一系列新的法律问题。大部分的州实行关于音频记录的单方同意法，这意味着只要单方同意，录音就是合法的。而在大部分须经所有当事人同意才能录音的12个州中，只有被录音的内容具有合理的隐私预期，录音才是违法的。但要证明在公共场所履行职责的警察有这种权利相当困难。马里兰州是须征得所有当事人同意才能录音的州，该州司法部长在2010年时写道：民众与警察的接触几乎都不会被视为隐私。

　　And challenges are mounting in two of the states—Illinois and Massachusetts—without expectation-of-privacy clauses. In Massachusetts last August, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that a citizen’s right to film police in public is protected by the first and fourth amendments.

　　而且，在伊利诺州和马萨诸塞州这两个没有隐私预期条款的州中，人们的质疑越来越多。去年八月在马萨诸塞州，一地方法院作了以下判决：公民在公共场所拍摄警察的权利是受到宪法第一及第四修正案保护的。一个联邦上诉法庭对此判决表示支持。

　　During oral arguments, one of the judges hearing the challenges to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act worried that allowing recording might hinder the ability of the police to do their jobs. He gave the example of a policeman talking to a confidential informant. Police have also expressed concern about recording, and hence exposing, undercover officers. But of course police can still speak in private. Given the actions of some police officers when confronted with a camera, filming cops may not be prudent. But neither should it be illegal.

　　在口头辩论时，其中一个对人们质疑伊利诺州窃听法案进行听证的法官担心，允许民众记录警察的言行可能会妨碍警察工作。他举了一个警察与秘密线人交谈的例子。警方也对此表示关注，担心一些卧底警察的身份会因此曝光。不过，警察当然仍可以私下交谈。有些警察在遭人拍摄时行为恶劣，所以拍摄警察可能并非明智之举。话虽如此，此举也不应是违法的。