Translate the following English into Chinese.
More than two-thirds of Americans own digital cameras. Around one-third of adults own a smartphone. Most of these devices can record and easily transmit audio and video.
Recording police has never been easier, and thanks to social-media and activist networks such as Copwatch, which monitors police activity and posts videos to the web, neither has publicizing these recordings.
That does not always go over well. People peaceably filming police have been handcuffed, beaten, had their cameras seized, and been arrested for obstructing governmental administration, obstructing an investigation, interference, disturbing the peace, or for illegal wiretapping. In taking such action the police are on shaky legal ground. The right to photograph people, including police officers, in public places, is relatively clear.
Adding audio, however, raises a new set of legal issues. Most states have single-party consent laws concerning audio recording, meaning that as long as one party consents to being recorded, the taping is legal. In most of the 12 states in which all parties must consent to be recorded, a violation occurs only if the subjects being recorded have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Arguing that police officers carrying out their duties in public have such a right is a challenge. The attorney-general in Maryland, an all-party-consent state, wrote in 2010 that few interactions with police could be considered private.
无超过三分之二的美国人拥有数码相机，约三分之一的成年人拥有一部智能手机。这些设备大都能录音及摄像，并方便地传送音频与视频。记录警察的一举一动从未如此轻易，而由于社交媒体及Copwatch（此网密切关注警察的活动并将有关视频上传至网络）这种积极分子网络的存在，公开这些视频记录也比从前任何时候都要容易。
但要记录警察的行为并上传至网络并不总是那么容易的。那些安分守己地拍摄警察的人，却被警察戴上手铐、殴打、没收相机及逮捕，理由如下：妨碍政府管理、妨碍调查及警方介入、扰乱秩序或非法窃听。警察采取这些行动并没有可靠的法律依据。而在公共场所拍摄他人（包括警察及官员）的权利却是相对比较明确的。
不过，若在拍摄的同时进行录音便会引起一系列新的法律问题。大部分的州实行关于音频记录的单方同意法，这意味着只要单方同意，录音就是合法的。而在大部分须经所有当事人同意才能录音的12个州中，只有被录音的内容具有合理的隐私预期，录音才是违法的。但要证明在公共场所履行职责的警察有这种权利相当困难。马里兰州是须征得所有当事人同意才能录音的州，该州司法部长在2010年时写道：民众与警察的接触几乎都不会被视为隐私。