A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations • Hacker News Board

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#271

Post by BlackFly » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:00 AM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #231

steamer25 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.

This seems to abolish the right to be "innocent until proven guilty". It's always possible to allege a crime that no one can prove didn't happen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ), so without a presumption of innocence, the system essentially puts the accused at the mercy of the accuser.

Not really, there isn't a presumption of guilt because first you must establish spoliation. Once it has been established that the video record is incomplete, it must be the duty of the police to provide evidence of the technical failing that allowed it to happen to clear them of wrongdoing. After all, the evidence was in their care. Even if it was simply negligence and not malice.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#272

Post by jopsen » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:06 AM UTC

aryehof wrote: post #246

katastic wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local PD recently sent a guy home for 10 days WITHOUT pay for merely getting mad at his son's football game and throwing a helmet. It was unbecoming of their professional standards (even off-duty) and he's representing the community. It even made the news (how I heard about it). So remember, there are plenty of good cops and good forces out there. It's just the shit ones never get held accountable.

At issue is that the public at large have lost faith that "good" cops and forces will do anything about "bad" cops, that don't "make the news".

to be fair it only takes one bad Apple to ruin a bunch..

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#273

Post by datenwolf » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:06 AM UTC

The article starts with this:

> "According to decades of research, the presence of other people, cameras or even just a picture of eyes seems to nudge us toward civility"

I don't remember where exactly I've read it (I think it might have been the Slate Star Codex), anyway, I recently came across a blog posting (with sources) which highlighted these as one of the examples of "well established" psychological research results which consistently fail to reproduce (I wish I had bookmarked that posting).

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#274

Post by rocqua » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:26 AM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #146

rocqua wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive. You gotta remember that body cams can't just be used against corrupt police, they can just as easily be used against the p…

>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive. Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?

Public officials go to the toilet. Public officials get calls about private matters during the day.

Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough.

There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion.

In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#275

Post by jopsen » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:28 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #34

mistermann wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Police officers are almost entirely decent people should perhaps be > Police officers are almost entirely almost decent people The fact that the "few" (so we're told) bad apples aren't rooted out by their fellow honest, law-abiding officers suggests they're not as squeaky clean as some might think.

I can't claim to be more than an almost decent person myself. If you require the police to be angels, well, those are in short supply down here... Note well: I am not saying that we should lower the standard of behavior that we expect police to abide by. I am merely saying that, in the real world, almost decent is probably the best we can actually find.

Yet in the UK unarmed officers will happily trap a man with a knife behind a shopping cart until he gets tired.

In the US people get shot for carrying a tiny razor blade...

You can train people to deescalate rather than shooting; to use minimal force; to remain calm while exercising force; to ask someone if they doing fine, while forcefully holding them to the ground. Or calmly explain to a hysterical individual being held down that things are going to be okay.

It takes training though.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#276

Post by stupidcar » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:28 AM UTC

bobbinsbob wrote: post #266

steamer25 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.

I know this won't be a popular comment but it never surprises me that this attitude that police should be guilty until proven innocent arrises. It seems to be the default setting. Just like the way everyone hates the police until they need them. Everything is at some point the fault of the police. It seems like everyone wants the police to do only what they want them to and to be punished if the police do something d…

I can't really believe there's a straight up choice between non-corrupt police and bankrupt police departments. It is true that US police seem to funded in ways that create incentives to corruption. An ideological commitment to low taxes means institutions like the police need to find other sources of revenue. This leads to a proliferation of regulations and drug and driving laws that can be used to impose fines, systems like civil forfeiture, and reliance on private "donations".

In the long term, this leads to a fundamentally adversarial and extractive relationship between the police and the populace, and the situation right now where police are widely hated, or at least distrusted, by significant sections of the population.

The solution to all of this is to break this extractive relationship: To prevent the police from profiting from the enforcement of some laws over others, or from seizing property only to sell it for their own gain. And, yes, to accept a rate of general taxation and redistribution that can be used to fund the institutions of a modern state. So long as the US continues to pursue the current tax model, the same shortfalls and perverse incentives to find alternative sources of revenue with exist, leading to the same poor outcomes in so many areas of government.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#277

Post by eeZah7Ux » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:29 AM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #231

steamer25 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need to establish a legal precept that if the body cam footage isn't there to corroborate the cops' story, we assume the worst and they get held accountable for anything a plaintiff is able to plausibly allege. Under that scenario, most cops would become the biggest advocates for e.g., redundancies, backups and transparency.

This seems to abolish the right to be "innocent until proven guilty". It's always possible to allege a crime that no one can prove didn't happen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ), so without a presumption of innocence, the system essentially puts the accused at the mercy of the accuser.

You are misapplying the right. That principle was devised explicitly to protect citizens from powerful entities.

That principle is not in contradiction with the principle that power must be held accountable.

Historically, that's why public figures are called "public" in opposition to "private".

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#278

Post by zo1 » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:30 AM UTC

danenania wrote: post #226

emmelaich wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistics are deceiving. No one has it in for grounds maintenance workers and taxi drivers and they typically don't go looking for trouble. For policeman it's their job to go to dangerous places.

What about these particular statistics is deceiving? You can't just dismiss hard data without explanation. Why would your subjective impression of danger be more accurate than these numbers?

I would say it's misleading because it makes people think it's "not that dangerous" to be a policeman. While at the same time not presenting the obvious existence of things that "downplay" that statistic. I.e. That policemen are more often than not armed and able to protect themselves. We at least need to have additional data to make any conclusions about it. Not just the plain "deaths per profession" statistic.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#279

Post by eeZah7Ux » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:40 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #87

will_brown wrote: post #60

I was recently the victim of an armed kidnapping, escaping only by jumping out of my own car from the driver seat while in gear with the gunman in the passenger seat. By the time the police arrived, my attacker escaped in my car and the first words out of the sergeants mouth was “cut the crap, quit jerking us around, what really happened?” Sure enough I was in a jurisdiction that only two months prior was equipped wi…

Fixing this will have to be the next step. The first step was getting the body cams. Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.

> The first step was getting the body cams

Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether.

You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#280

Post by bobbinsbob » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 11:43 AM UTC

stupidcar wrote: post #276

bobbinsbob wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this won't be a popular comment but it never surprises me that this attitude that police should be guilty until proven innocent arrises. It seems to be the default setting. Just like the way everyone hates the police until they need them. Everything is at some point the fault of the police. It seems like everyone wants the police to do only what they want them to and to be punished if the police do something d…

I can't really believe there's a straight up choice between non-corrupt police and bankrupt police departments. It is true that US police seem to funded in ways that create incentives to corruption. An ideological commitment to low taxes means institutions like the police need to find other sources of revenue. This leads to a proliferation of regulations and drug and driving laws that can be used to impose fines, sys…

Like I say I can't comment on the US system regards it's policing practices, from the outside looking in it all seems open to abuse. Where I come from the government funds the police, they don't make any profit from the likes of tickets etc.

Currently the police are savagely being under funded as are all public sectors and crime is on the rise but the difference between the police and other public services is that people seem to understand why the other public services are not performing as good as they were, but it's the fault to the police they aren't performing as good.

Like I said I would love to see bodycams on all police but as with every public body ICT project it will be mismanaged and cost way more than it needs to. Currently the police where I am can't afford it.