Why does the FBI try to prevent folks from having a video record of an interview with them?
Should they have a problem with a video record? After all, if they follow the law, what issue
could there be with filming the meeting?
I'm not sure. I think there should at least be some mechanism that makes it possible to verify the accuracy of what has been said. Maybe video recording isn't necessary. Recording the audio should suffice. If they don't want any recording they should at least let the interviewed person read and sign the protocol, and if he doesn't sign it should have no legal value.
I didn't know they draw up that form at first, but that would work as well possibly. Still, I think I'd rather record the entire event to capture the tone and body language of the interviewers.
I think it should not be the citizen to require it, but I think it should be a law for every interview to be recorded. Not doing it allows agents and interviewees to do under-the-table illegal deals and other forms of corruption that could be avoided if every important interaction were recorded.
Ah yeah but video provides lil' tells: body language etc that are very useful for determining how accurate the statement is to the truth.
It's a hard one this, a lot of the time the 'national security' classified stuff gets abused but there are times where you don't want people to know due to the safety of everyone involved. Very difficult one to draw conclusions on, I voted unsure
Ok...I understand you are saying it could be a security issue...but then again, they themselves supposedly document, in writing, what is said by both parties. If they are concerned about leaking classified info (say about a stolen wmd or something crazy) during a use of the video as evidence, they could simply allow the judge to view it behind closed doors. However, in a simple case of interviewing a POTENTIAL THREAT, what harm could there be in recording it, unless the rumors of agents trying to twist peoples arms is true?
I get your point, maybe they could d the same internally but just with video and not be allowed to switch it off and go 'off record'.
In the UK nearly all of the process from arrest to checking in at police stations, interviews and even cells are usually filmed as well as audio. Some police cars only have digital audio recording, and CCTV is not mandatory in stations but is growing due to the effect it has on claims of police brutality.
I was arrested last year and was surprised to see the interview recorded on 2 audio tapes. I expressed this to the interviewing officers and they explained that the police are now the main purchasers of audio tapes in the UK! The cop I spoke to explained that the sealing of the cassette cases with a signed signature by the defendent on the sticker makes it very difficult to modify after use (the defendants lawyer also keeps one copy)
My interview was also filmed digitally (with audio) so there are not many opportunities for police officers to beat people up these days and I think it's a good thing.
For the record, I was released with no further action or caution or penalty of any kind after a physical incident between myself and a bully security guard who picked the wrong guy.
I actually taunted the interviewing officers to refer my case to the Crown Prosecution Service and see how quickly they throw it out due to the lack of evidence to support a prosecution. The officers chose not to.
It was comforting to see all the recording equipment, from the police car to every point in the police station because I knew it made it more difficult for bad apple cops - I was beaten many times by police in my youth and complaining made no difference because the officers fabricated statements of denial were always believed by the legal system.
I support all forms of recording in interviews, cells, police cars, and wherever I may be held against my will by authority. It helps to keep me safe...but I can understand why some people in authority would like there to be more opportunities free of surveillance to, shall we say... "chat privately" with the accused.
Heh, yeah, last time I was arrested they had a huge old tape machine like they used to have in schools. You can ask for a copy of the tape, I did but never got it so last time I was interviewed by the police I recorded it myself.
Same big old tape deck in use for me last year
I'm assuming you were interviewed while you were not formally under arrest then?
First thing the police will take off you when arrested is your mobile phone to check your texts, address book for known associates etc and to prevent you sharing information with anyone else.
I've recorded informal discussions with police a few times but as soon as the words "You're under arrest on suspicion of..." are said you can kiss goodbye to your phone straight away.
The last time it was a statement, I was not under arrest therefore I recorded it within a place that was not a police station. Time before that it was already arrested as 'suspicion of...' but they didn't check anything phone related because there was no reason to. Careful about giving interviews, always check with your solicitor about those 'unofficial' interviews, sometimes its not in your best interest. Just for the record I have never been charged with a crime, I have been particularly unlucky with wrong place wrong time type situations.
It's not so paranoic say that can be used against us. They could manipulate our words and be misinterpretated intentionally. If we can record, we can confirmate it, it's better be very careful.