John Edwards Thinks We're Stupid

A tiny device through a pinhole in the wall or use of some other nanny-camn type devise makes sense. What intrigues me about that is this: the legalities. The National Enquirer has sufficient experience with the courts to know the exact location of the micron that marks the boundary between criminality and fair game.

California has the strongest and most specific laws addressing the use of hidden cameras or recording equip. With the exception of law enforcement efforts, for which there is a court order permitting the use of surveillance cam, the installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or eavesdropping in a private place, where there is reasonable expectation of privacy, without the consent of those being observed or listened to is a crime. And not just punishable by fine. Jail time. And then there are the multi-million dollar civil suits. Nuh-uh. The National Enquirer wouldn’t be playing that kind of Russian roulette. They’d have had their i’s dotted and t’s crossed, imho.

A hotel room certainly falls in the category where one would have reasonable expectation of privacy. Renting a hotel room is a contract. Therefore, imho, the NE could not have gotten the necessary permission from the hotel. They’d need consent for camera placement from the person who rented the room. It’s been variously reported that Hunter booked the room and McGovern booked the room. Regardless, imho, the intent of the law and the expectation of privacy belongs to the primary occupant.

Because of that, I now strongly suspect that Ms. Hunter herself is the Enquirer’s informant, and McGovern may be in on it too.

Because of that, I now strongly suspect that Ms. Hunter herself is the Enquirer’s informant, and McGovern may be in on it too.

I am inclined to agree, but may I ask one question? Would a nanny-cam be allowed if Ms.Hunter allowed it to be placed there? If only 1 party gives consent, in California, can photos and surveillance equipment be employed? If she is, in fact, the campaign source, why would she care? She may be a woman scorned.

My understanding is that placement has to be consented to by the parties being photographed or recorded. So yes, Hunter would be able to give valid permission. BUT, Edwards, presumably, was not aware of the camera and therefore did not give permission. So that could be a sticky wicket. On the other hand, the National Enquirer could be betting that Edwards would not file suit or complaint, as that would draw further attention to the mess he wants to go away.

As to why Hunter would do it...dunno. The legalities of it just occurred to me, so posted without further speculation. But one possibility might be that she got a gander at Elliot Spitzer’s mistress’s cash-in on being outed and figured she was getting shorted at $15K/month. She’s thinking books, photo spreads, etc., plus who knows how much the Enquirer might have paid her? Plus, maybe she figured that by keeping Edwards convinced of her loyalty (refuse to subnit the child for DNA), she might land up as Mrs. Multi-millionaire someday too, when his wife kicks the bucket.

Another possibility—less probable—is that the law enforcement exemption kicked in. What if there was a federal investigation into the misude of campaign funds for hush money? No one would have to consent to the canera. Or, perhaps they got her to cooperate with promise of immunity. What makes that unlikely is the inefficiency, understaffing, and general lack of will at the FEC. If history is any indication, they simply would not move that fast.

All speculation, of course, but the legality of the surreptious photograph is a significant factor that I’d not seen addressed elsewhere.

Thanks for your insights; they are very interesting and provocative. I'm afraid I kind of ran out of gas, rhetorically speaking, in my earlier missive, and left it kind of unfinished. Where I was going was this: It is possible to actually estimate the size of the optical system, or at least of that system's "objective lens," by means of a mathematical formula. The analysis involves the wavelength of light and the resolving power of the system; if you know any two of those, you can calculate the third. In this case, we can estimate the resolving power as an angle; if we assume that the camera is, say, about six feet away from Mr. Edwards and child, and, by eye, estimate that the resolving power is something on the order of 1/2 inch, that gives us an angular resolution of:

(1/2 inch) / (2 * pi * 6 feet * 12 inches per foot) = approx. 0.0011 radian

If we plug this into the formula, along with the (often used) wavelength approximation of 550 nanometers (the wavelength at which the human eye is most sensitive), we get D (diameter of the camera lens) as follows:

D = 1.22 * 550nM / 0.0011(radians) = ~607000 nM,

which is ~0.6 mm. This is a very small lens indeed; one (as I mentioned earlier) that is approximately the diameter of a needle.

Bush Democrat, in a note posted a few minutes after mine, spoke of "one of those spy-cams that have the fish lens on the end of a flexible wire, that you see the police on tv use." I haven't seen those shows on TV; this is one of those times that my refusal to watch TV or have TV in my home is a disadvantage, because I wish I had seen this type of camera system.

I can tell you this: such a system would be quite expensive, it seems to me. Quite exotic.

The formula I used, by the way, is easily available on the web. I hope I've done the calculation correctly; it's way past my bedtime.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.