Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
I think we need a state-by-state constitution amendment drive to affirm it a protected civil right to record anything you can see or hear in a public space or on your own property where there is no expectation of privacy.
You're right. Hear about the Maryland motorcyclist that the cops arrested because he recorded the stop with the camera mounted on his helmet? Numerous incidents of cops and agents arresting people for filming and photographing them in public.
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
When you apply some of these "video taping prosecution" theories to other situations, you run into some serious logical inconsistancies.
Right again! As you know, they change the rules whenever they want.

Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
For example, if you have a security camera continuously recording on your property and it captures a police officer making an arrest, does that make you a criminal? According to some prosecutor's legal theories, it does! Does erasing the recording "cure" that? (Even though that would technically constitute destruction of evidence!) Since you did not willfully make that recording, would it be legal to keep it? Or would mere possession of such a recording be illegal?
They do what they want to do. For example, I had a SAO refuse to reply to a FL Public Records Request. Reluctantly they finally did supply a copy of a VHS tape that I sent as evidence- I suspect on the advice of the then AG, but tampered with the copy that they sent me. They didn't send any records of any investigation of my charges. The FBI refused to even acknowledge some FOIAs that I filed and returned one of my letters, including the copy of the same VHS tape that I sent to the SAO, charging the cops and others with illegal surveillance and harassment. However, the FBI didn't return the same tape that I sent to them as evidence. They sent me a copy of my copy, but otherwise didn't appear to tamper with the actual copy of my copy that they returned to me. However, the SAO did tamper with the copy that they sent to me. Now is the SAO guilty of tampering with evidence? I don't know, but I'll bet that they still have the original copy that I sent to them. In the unlikely event that someone in authority questioned them regarding the evidence that I sent to them, would they maybe might perhaps accidentally show them an altered copy of the copy that I sent to them as evidence?
Originally Posted by pondering_it_all
All preposterous ideas, because they are based on the preposterous idea that it is illegal to make such a recording to begin with.
They do what they want and change and/or ignore the rules as they please. Star Chambers are well and alive in this country. We're a Banana Republic minus the spiffy uniforms, shinny black boots, swagger sticks, and accents.