The recent rise of photographic technologies implemented in cell phones has created a firestorm of implications in the legal system. The sheer number of citizens with the power of a camera in their hands at all times has sky-rocked in recent years; every one these camera wielding citizens poses a massive amount of responsibility that many are not aware of. Not only does recent cell phone photographic technology allow for immediate and accessible capturing, it also allows for immediate sharing across the world. Cell phones have hit fast-forward on the desire for immediacy and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down anytime soon. This technology is a constant reminder to society that there actions could be documented at any time, as well as a reminder that they themselves can be vigilante journalists and hold law enforcement accountable. As Susan Sontag, a New York Times writer, wrote in her article Have Camera, Will Shoot, and Shoot, “Advances in technology have made it so easy to snap photos and to e-mail them, instantly, to anyone anywhere that it has become customary to document every minor, mundane detail of life.” It is this desire for immediacy that it is being documented and shared across all platforms that has left policy makers turning in their sleep. The legal system has yet to fully grasp how to handle the incredible speed in which photographic technologies are evolving. It has been a continuous evolving door between prohibiting and embracing the technology.
The above is a remediation of the news coverage regarding the arrest of a Mr. Michael Robertson who was arrested in August 2010 for using his cellphone to take pictures up women’s skirts on a subway in Massachusetts. His arrest was recently overturned by the Supreme Court when the court decided that there was no law in place that allowed them to reprimanded this man using his access to photographic technology to become a ‘peeping tom.’ The court was quoted saying that state law, "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA." The state law is evolving at a slower pace than the rise of photographic technologies and there are very real consequences for this; this is just one of those instances. The public and officials were outraged at the decision of the court. The court itself admitted to being upset that such a hideous action was approved of by the law. Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crises Center, said such photos are a serious invasion of privacy. She said the law needs to catch up to technology. The legal system has a long uphill battle ahead of itself in order to accommodate the rise in cell phone photographic technologies.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/211087/how-the-ap-verified-photo-of-boston-bombing-suspect-leaving-scene/
The above photo was circulated by the FBI and the Associated Press following the bombing of the Boston Marathon in hopes of catching the suspect; he was captured days later. The image was captured from a bystander’s cell phone and later turned over to the FBI. This photograph acts as proof that we, cell phone photographers, are acting everyday as criminal investigators and detectives. The photographic technology we have access to within our cell phones allows for us to capture digital photographic evidence that is proving to be just as valuable as DNA, ballistics, and eyewitness testimony. We, vigilante cell phone journalists, are contributing the legal system more than ever with our access to cell phone photographic technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment