How Live Streaming Citizen Journalists Can Help Protect Your Freedom

Op-Ed by PM Beers
June 17, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) This is a response to an article called Live Streamers Make Great Informants written by WeCopwatch. I’m writing this because there have been wide generalizations about live streamers and some accusations made without any examples given that all live streaming of all protests is bad. As with most binary thinking, a middle ground is usually the better path. WeCopWatch expressed many valid concerns and most of those concerns can be addressed with giving security culture training to new live streamers. There are ways to stream that keep people safe. Many activists believe that live-streaming protects them. I am coming from that perspective, with safety being my main concern.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

I’ve been doing activism live-streaming for over three and a half years and I’ve been invited many times by many activists groups to live-stream their actions and events. This is because they want the truth broadcasted and many activists feel safer when they have a streamer with them. Live streamers should always be sensitive to the needs and wishes of the group they are streaming for and the stream should be about the action—not about the streamer.

Security culture should always be a major component to new streamer training. It is the job of the streamer to protect the activists and not their job to help the cops. In most cases, protests are nonviolent and laws are not being broken. It is as important to document the calm peacefulness as it is to document when police get violent. My live stream footage has been used in court to attain not guilty verdicts. Without my footage, it would be the cop’s word against the protesters words and juries tend to side with police. Most activist groups welcome live streaming and don’t ask that faces not be shown.

What is security culture?

Every activist group has different concerns and needs for varying levels of privacy. Some groups want everything to be open and transparent and some groups want to be completely private. The same is true of individuals within groups. These needs should be respected by live streamers. Consent must be respected by streamers.

Many of the concerns expressed about live streamers by WeCopwatch are valid and apply to some streamers and not all streamers. It is unfair and irresponsible to say that all live streamers are the same. The actions of an irresponsible streamer should not be blamed on all streamers.

Live streamers must always be mindful that the police are watching at all times and the mute button should be used for all private conversations and planning huddles. Also, live stream footage is often used in court as a defense for activists. This should also be kept in mind while streaming. I am not aware of any cases where a person was convicted of anything based on a live stream footage—but it can happen. In most cases, activists are following the law. Any action which may lead to arrest like chalking should never be live-streamed unless the activists have requested the civil disobedience to be streamed. A streamer can simply point the camera in another direction and or use the mute button.

It is rare for a protest to not be followed by uniformed police officers. When cops are present, it is helpful for possible future court cases to announce each intersection. When there are no obvious cops around, a streamer should not announce the location of a march unless the organizers wish for that information to be known. The camera can be pointed at the ground to avoid showing landmarks or the lens can be covered by a hand. Not every action has the same security protocols.

Never film anyone’s face without consent and don’t call anyone by name who wishes to keep their identity private. If someone asks not to be streamed at all, do not stream them.

How is live streaming different from regular video?

With regular video, police can confiscate phones, break equipment, and destroy videos. Live stream video is automatically uploaded to the internet and can’t be destroyed by police. Sometimes people watching at other locations will film a backup copy of the live stream and when a stream is mirrored by other stream channels, backup copies are also archived.

According to WeCopwatch, “There’s no reason why you can’t go home after a protest and produce some content.” Actually there are many reasons. Not everyone can afford a video camera and very large SD cards that are needed to store large amounts of video. Regular video must be backed up and the uploaded manually to the internet. Even without editing, that takes a great deal of time and resources that many people simply don’t have. You only need a phone and an internet connection to live stream. You need a computer and ideally an external hard drive to backup and edit video. Using regular video takes a lot more time, effort, energy, money, and skills that not everyone has.

Why is live streaming important?

While watching activism live stream, other journalists can catch mainstream media in lies in real time. For example, during the massive Trayvon Martin march from Leimert Park to Hollywood, a CBS helicopter live stream reporter alleged that property was being damaged in the W Hotel parking lot. I was streaming in that parking garage at the time and clearly showed that no property damage had occurred. People saw the two streams side by side in real time. This juxtaposition of real-time reality next to mainstream lies is vital in helping people new to activism see what is real—and how corporate media is manipulating their thinking by reinforcing police lies and the political narrative imposed by those in power.

During one of the protests in front of the Ferguson police department, someone opened fire on the cops and footage of that was captured by someone mirroring a live stream. That footage would have never been caught if a streamer was not continuously live-streaming even when things got boring.

Before I became involved with on-the-ground activism, a man I went to high school with— who is now a cop—commented on police brutality videos that I would post on Facebook. He would tell me those videos were edited and it was impossible to know what happened before the cops took violent action. It’s important to have continuous, unedited documentation of an entire protest and keep the camera going at all times. One cannot predict when police will suddenly become violent. These videos showing calm protesters growing agitated by the actions of police are valuable in court when cops make unjustified arrests with false charges.

Do streamers keep activists safe?

It was my experience that in downtown Los Angeles, where cops know who I am, they were less likely to get violent with protesters when they knew I was present. The CCA sleepful protest is a good example. This was a four-month-long sidewalk camp where protesters slept in tents on a sidewalk in solidarity with unhoused people. There was no live streamer present for the first month and there were several violent arrests. People took out their cell phones and began filming after the police violence began. Having regular video did not prevent the violence or stop the police violence once it had begun. When I began staying there most nights of the week, there were no more violent arrest for the following months. I’ve also live streamed situations where cops suddenly calmed down and began to behave more professionally when I announced, “This is streaming live and LAPD watches my stream.” I’ve said this to prevent people from being unjustly arrested when cops have made threats to arrest people who were filming them. Seeing several cell phones pointed at cops doesn’t get the same reaction from them as their realization that the bosses are watching live.

According to WeCopwatch, Oakland police increased their use of undercover cops because the protesters were not allowing live streamers.

Are cops using live stream footage to Identify activists?

We don’t know. If they are, then they are getting really poor images as live stream quality is usually significantly worse than HD footage or photography. Cops have lots of ways to gather images of people. Live stream footage is not the best choice of gathering images.

Are live streamers giving cops information that they don’t already have?

The answer is that we really don’t know. Large cities like Los Angeles have live video cameras on major intersections and LAPD has a control room where they can watch this video.They are able to keep tabs on protests that way. It is a well-known fact that police departments use undercover agents to infiltrate activist organizations and actions to gather information for police. Police are going to get information. As pointed out by WeCopwatch, fewer streamers mean more plainclothes cops. Each activist group has to decide if they want live stream coverage of their actions and if so, what the parameters for streaming are. Ideally, each group will have their own live streamer as part of their own media team.

Not everything should be streamed. There are times when the camera should be pointed in another direction. There are times when the mute button should be used. There are times when using the mute button and filming the ground is a good idea. There is no need to film faces during a protest unless people want their faces to be shown. I hope the good folks at WeCopwatch will realize there are times when live streaming is a good idea and there are good streamers who want to keep everyone safe by respecting the security culture of each group they stream for.

Follow me on Twitter @PMbeers and follow the official AntiMedia Twitter @TheAntiMedia1


This article (How Live Streaming Citizen Journalists Can Help Protect Your Freedom) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and theAntiMedia.org. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos:edits@theantimedia.org.   

    0