good morning. your rights, when you and your technology are challenged by the police. who are the bad boys in these arrest videos? the courts have said they may be in some cases the cops, for arresting people who videotape them. >> where is the victim? >> this homeowner in vallejo, california, used his iphone from inside his house to tape the arrest of someone down the block. the cops showed up and demanded his video. >> i'm going to take the phone, because that's doing to be evidence. >> get off the motorcycle. state police. >> one of the best known cases, a motorcyclist pulled over by an off duty state trooper in maryland. the driver was doing a wheelie but charged with wiretap for

recording his own traffic stop with his helmet. can a police officer demand you turn over your cell phone, read your text messages? should taking a picture of mass transit lead police to think you're a terrorist? >> well, it's not necessarily illegal. >> i'm not committing a crime? >> to answer questions, you need a good lawyer. fortunately we know a good lawyer. author of snowe know your digital rights" joining us with our two other guests. welcome back. a woman on trial, they think there's evidence on a laptop but it's encrypted. can the courts force her to give up the password. >> well, eff has argued no.

in that case, the u.s. attorney is in possession of approximately five laptops -- five computers they have seized from this defendant. three of them had no encryption on them and police were able to search them as the search warrant allowed them to do. two of the computers were encrypted. one the government was able to unencrypt the computer. the last one, the computer at issue now, the government has been unable to unencrypt the computer and they want her to basically put in the password and unencrypt it for them. >> she's arguing the fifth amendment right saying the password is in my head and i shouldn't be forced to say what it is because i'm testifying against myself. >> basically not the fact the password could potentially be in her head. it's a bit removed from that. the fact if she puts in the password, not only she's testifying the password but

implicitly she has possession and ownership of this computer, which is a fact that hasn't really been all that established by the government. >> i see. if she says what the password is, she's also indicating it's her computer. >> exactly. moreover, what the government has promised her in terms of what's called immunity, a promise not to use the fact she put the password in the computer against her. they have not promised her any immunity that basically anything they find on that computer will not be used against her. so effectively the government wants her to turn over the damaging evidence to the government directly. >> courts are having to deal with that. >> when they confiscate the video, has there been cases where the video has been used as evidence? >> some of the videos? >> yeah, just arrests. >> yeah, a guy in vallejo, why not hand it over if it can help with the case. >> well, i think there's a difference between the police trying to marshall evidence and

say, hey, you may have evidence on your phone. we would like a chance to look at it if you would like to give it to us, which any reasonable person would say, sure, that's not a problem. >> how is that different than a witness to the crime without a camera. aren't they going to ask you to be a witness regardless? >> again, i think it goes back to the point police can ask you to be a witness but they can't drag you into court in handcuffs. >> simply because you saw something. >> or because you decide you don't want to be a witness or testify. >> there are probably thousands of cases police politely say can we get some of that video later. the examples we saw were hand over your camera, we need it. and most people do. you see a police officer ask you to do something, you kind of assume they know what the law is and this they are going to follow it. >> or you might just feel intimidated. >> i think that's the real problem. in all of the video examples we

just saw, all of them involve hostile confrontations between the police and person videotaping. the vallejo example is a great one. a guy is sitting in his house. >> let me also throw in, by the way, we contacted the city of vallejo, knowing we would use this example. we heard nothing back from them. they were investigating it some months ago. we contacted them but heard nothing from them. continue on. i'm sorry. >> as i was saying. the encounter is one-sided. it's the police officer demanding the camera be handed over and cell phone, whatever it may be. they really don't have a right to prevent anybody from videotaping, particularly if that person is in his own private property. nor do they have a good argument that is evidence that needs to be obtained forcibly. i think many times if people are witnesses tonight counters with law enforcement, it's more likely that they are going to turn it over themselves

directly. i think the b.a.r.t. shooting a couple years back where that video became available. it was part of what got people very upset about the whole situation. so there's a public interest in having these types of evidence turned over but it doesn't have to be a confrontation. it doesn't have to be a physical forceful seizure of that electronic device. >> a third of americans owning smart phones, shouldn't there be training or enlightenment on the part of law enforcement for these situations when they occur, when something like this is filmed? shouldn't they take this into account? >> i would absolutely agree with that. there's a tendency to not know what to do in these types of situations. a lot of times they may be responding to stressful conditions and making decisions on the side. that doesn't mean they can do what they want, take what they want. they have to think about the

potential, do they have a right to this camera or cell phone. >> how much of this law is established or eff view. is it clear-cut a cop can't muscle me out of that video, he can't take it, or is that yet to be proven, a gray area, because this is so new. >> i would say it's not as much of a gray area as the police want it to be. stated differently, it's not necessarily eff's opinion on this. we think this is the way for the law to be interpreted. in the maryland case ultimately the judge through out the wiretap charges, all charges associated with that case but for the speeding violations or reckless driving. there's an understanding the way police interact with the public, meaning people they have arrested, is public. any attempt by law enforcement to claim that there's some sort of wiretapping violation is just

simply inaccurate. wiretapping laws are designed to only cover private communications between two individuals. >> let me jump in for people going, wiretap. it's because of sound. particularly in california video is fairly easy to shoot and establish it's taking place in a public place, et cetera. it's when you record sound, that sometimes falls under wiretap laws, even though you're not tapping into anything. >> to give a little bit of background. >> please. >> the way the wiretap law was envisioned, it's not the act of talking into a telephone that triggers the wiretapping law. if i'm having a conversation on my cell phone and you overhear the conversation because i'm talking on the cell phone, that's not a wiretap. the wiretap occurs when someone listens in on the transmission through the wireline. >> nothing to do with what we saw in the motorcycle case.

>> exactly. the whole point of that is wiretapping laws are designed to protect individuals engaging in private conversations in which they have manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy that their conversation -- >> like a phone call. >> like a phone call to your spouse in the office behind closed doors. law enforcement encounters are almost always in the public sphere. whether it's somebody who is videotaping vallejo police arresting someone on a public street, i think the video footage showed there were a number of cars there. this was a public event. there really is no wiretap event. the law is clear on the wiretap. john, hold that for a . we'll take a quick break and be back in just a second.

welcome back. >> i have a question of the individual delay of filming within his house. is that in a sense, does he have a choice whether he turns that

over to police? is this an extension of free speech in that he's in his house? this sounds like a dumb question. i'm wondering, he's kind of in this predicament in a sense he hasn't interacted with the crime yet he's viewing it from his home. i'm not sure where he stands. >> the general public really don't have an obligation to turn over, you know, evidence of a crime. it's difficult for law enforcement personnel. a police officer has to turn over evidence they gather. they are going to get in trouble if they don't turn it over. a public person taking video in his house really has no legal obligation or responsibility to turn over that evidence. he may have a moral feeling that that's the right thing to do. >> even if it were definitive evidence? >> what if they got a warrant? would that make a difference? >> a warrant would authorize

police to search the electronic device they have shown to a judge, they believe there's probable cause of a crime. a search warrant would allow them to do that. >> let's stay away from warrants, because that seems reasonable. let's say i'm pulled over and a police officer wants to see my phone for whatever reason. can he look at my phone, take my phone? an ipad or zoom. >> you and two others, three others. >> generally, no. there are always exceptions. generally if -- let's say you are pulled over for speeding. the police don't really have any right to look through your phone, because they have suspected you of speeding. >> sure. >> if they believe, however, there's probable cause there's evidence of a crime on the cell phone at the time they pull you over, then they are entitled to look through it without a warrant. obviously if they get a certainly warrant, they are

going to have the right to on it. >> now a passkey on it, one, two, three, four. >> you have no obligation to turn over a passkey to the police. a judge may order you to do that. but the police officer himself, if he pulls you over and says i want to search your cell phone, you can say, no, thank you. if you say, sure, take a look at the cell phone and he comes across the password, you are under no obligation to turn over the password. >> what do you do? there's the legal rights, intimidation factor, the cultural factor here. how do you recommend people handle that. if i have one of those cops in the videos screaming at me, i might be intimidated to turn it over. >> i think most people would be intimidated, i know i would. i think the best thing to do is say, no, thank you. come back with a warrant. or i'd really prefer my lawyer was present before you engage in

that sort of thing. >> all sorts of people consent to things. you watch cop shows. you know the guy has cocaine in the back of the car. is it okay to look in your car? no, it's not. you think, why did you just say yes. that seems in sane. lots of people immediately give consent when at the probably shouldn't. >> absolutely. that's why police officers ask, it almost always works. >> very casually, too. >> again, i think law enforcement officers in this country, they have a tough job to do. most of them are professional and polite. >> in case you are just joining us, i want to get that across. we showed video of police officers overstepping their bounds. there's no such thing of video of not overstepping their bounds because people don't film that. >> is it smart to do that, or is that throwing gasoline on a flame? >> about a minute left. >> i think it's -- that's a

tough question to answer. i certainly don't want to say eff advocates one thing or another. i think if people are interested in ensuring that there's open government, then videotaping isn't a bad option. just understand that as those examples show, you may get yourself into some trouble. you may get yourself into a heated situation. that's got to be something you're willing to stomach if you decide to do that. but you should take comfort in the fact that if you do videotape such an encounter, legally you're not -- you haven't done anything wrong. if the government or police try to accuse you of doing something wrong, you should absolutely speak to a lawyer because you're probably thought in violation of the law and you probably have legal recourse. >> go to eff.org and know your digital rights because a darn good lawyer wrote it. >> thank you have i much. >> thank you for having me.

>> hard to define but she helped write the dictionary. stay tuned for a lexicoographerer.

here." chances are you haven't met a lexicographer, a person who writes and he had it's a dictionary. even if you know nothing about them, it's pretty safe to assume lexicographers are not the rebellious type. take this guy, james murray, one of the original lexicographers who compiled the oxford english dictionary. he decided what words are and are not in the queen's english. he was most certainly not a rebel. >> deciding what words are good and what words are bad is actually not very easy and it's not very fun. >> erin is also a lexicographer,

former editor in chief of american dictionaries. she has radical ideas bow how dictionaries should work. they should include all words, any words, from the street forecasts science, from sports. and in the rather quiet world of dictionaries that makes her a rebel. >> if you love a word, use it. that makes it real. >> erin loves words, one of her favorites is higgeldy, piggeldy. my favorite -- >> what does it mean? >> like a hedgehog. >> i can't imagine i've gone my whole life without using that. >> bovine.

>> also looking for a word for hedgehog. >> i assume -- >> makes no sense whatsoever. >> work it in like a cameo. >> sure you can describe a ceo as hedgehog like. >> because the word erin. >> part of the latin name of hedgehog has erin. >> i'll never look at erin in the same way. any word in the dictionary? that doesn't make sense because dictionary proves what are words. >> well, does the phone book prove to you who has a telephone? >> no, some people are not listed. okay. who is going to be the authority about what is and what is not a proper word. >> people should decide for themselves. they should really use their critical thinking skills. they should look at all the evidence around the use of a word and say, no, not just a binary choice good word, bad

news, is this the right word for the audience i'm trying to reach. >> you mention good words and bad words. what's a good word and tell me why and what's a bad word and tell me why. >> keep in mind this is a broadcast. >> yeah, i've gotten in trouble for that before. it really depends on the perception of the audience you're trying to reach. for example, a lot of people hate the word irregardless. >> is that a word? i thought it was regardless? >> everything is a word. >> but not all words are good all places. >> john hated that word. >> i have a friend that used that word often and i hated that word. >> it's okay hating words. >> i felt badly, though. >> it's okay to tell people you have word control not to use those words in your presence, say your children. >> hate it when my children say irregardless. young man, you go right to your room. >> i feel out of step with these

old school media guys. to me a dictionary is a service for me to find out what a word means. for me a dictionary isn't a moral judgment on this is a word or this isn't a word. if i overhear kids skateboarding on my street and they say something, why can't i go to the dictionary -- >> let's say it's something like a skateboarding term, it's probably not going to be in most dictionaries, even though it's a word in common use. >> to me the point we're at with the web, we want to make old things on paper relevant or they go away because we don't need them. if other things on the web are doing the basic job that i used to go to my parents oed on the stand and look up something in, if someone is doing it better and including everything doesn't that inherently make dictionaries irrelevant the same

way tech usa makes them irrelevant. >> not that part. the dictionary is a tool. being online and taking in every word and giving you as much information about every word you need makes it a better tool. in the same way your gps is a better tool than a paper atlas. >> most dictionaries when they went online, who has a dictionary on your desk. >> it's great for pressing flowers. >> i'm sure it is. in the newsroom we had to hunt to find one. >> i like reading dictionaries, looking up words and say i'm going to use that. >> that's not what they were built for, an off label use. >> can i ask you a question about slang? when does slang get in the dictionary? what inertia does it take? >> in a traditional print dictionary? if the marketing people push hard enough.

dictionaries on paper are so small now, they are really -- the pressure to get a word in is, okay, is it something everybody needs to know, like the word blog, perhaps. or is it cool and fun enough that it's going to get us press in. >> the list. >> they release the list. it really has very little to do with patterns of usage. if they went strictly by usage they wouldn't fit between paper covers anymore. >> sarah plugged her site so tell us more. >> wordnik is the biggest language dictionary ever. >> crowd source. >> it's unconsciously crowd source. we take usa today, "wall street journal," sentences alongside when we have them. comments from wordniks. people can put words on lists,

more than 25,000 lists on site. >> people love words. that's like a hobby. we write words. >> we should all, though. it's such a fundamental thing in life. >> i have a list of words i haven't used in a story yet. >> you should keep it on wordnik. >> how long is that list? >> thousands of words. i'm always looking for an excuse to use them. >> it is fair to say if you took a big stack of newspapers, you would find something in there that isn't in the dictionary. >> every day. every day. >> which makes dictionaries hard to update. >> "new york times" book review called me out for using an architect in my first book. >> architect has been a verb for a long time. >> said the lady that wrote the dictionary. >> take that. >> i've been on the show a while, i'm eight months pregnant. i'm going to get it out now. >> that's one of the great things about english, you can

verb anything. >> friend, google has been another one. >> is the younger generation probably more open to that? we invented words like, i don't know, groovy or something. >> "new york times" -- can i ask another question? >> no, 30 seconds. >> beatnik or "sputnik." >> fair enough. back in a second.

that's our show for this week. before we go, the word that needs to be used more often. >> i'm fond of the word this means yawning and stretching at the same time. >> we have two words here. pandiculation. word of the week. we'll look for it on the internet. thank you, erin. that's our show for the week.

find your guide to digital rights we discussed earlier eff and words of the day add wordnik.com. i'm scott mcgrew. thank you for making us part of your sunday morning.