71–80 of 240 posts
Unfortunately, I don't even think improved state oversight will help until the underlying issue of qualified immunity is addressed. The current legal framework in the US literally rewards police officers for being ignorant of the law.
A police officer in performance of his duties should have zero expectation of privacy, and has a legal obligation to fill out an accurate duty log, which is such that it may be used as evidence in court. Body camera footage should be viewed as an extension of that, and when missing or unavailable, that absence should be viewed in the same light as a failure to properly document something in a duty log --- it is a der…
The problem is that most people don't consider how much of that footage has privacy implications. They deal with people very single day, they need to be able to turn those cameras off in the case of, a nude minor, a detailing of psychiatric history of a minor, etc. The problem is that giving them that ability also opens the door for them to abuse it. There is no easy/good answer here. And I'm not making excuses for t…
Not sure why you're calling out children specifically: they can't give consent but, if asked, I expect that adults would rarely give consent for being filmed by the police either, even when dressed as well as one can be!
Police should wear two body cameras, maybe even one worn on the back to show the entire scene. Why not make them wireless as well and send back to central to ensure they are getting recorded.
The battery requirements for constant streaming on LTE/5G would most likely be a constraint here. I do think your point makes a lot of sense however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are we negotiating with police for this anyway? Because if you don't, you get election ads with scary looking footage and a voice-over that says something like: "Mayor/Governor/whatever Smith's anti-police crusade is putting you and your family in danger. This November, send a message by voting out the pro-crime politicians." You could argue that politicians should make a principled stand against this and do th…
> give the police what they want Like the ability to actually do something when a looter horde raids a department store?
The fact that you chose an unrelated topic couched in deliberately inflammatory language only shows bad faith on your part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are we negotiating with police for this anyway? Because if you don't, you get election ads with scary looking footage and a voice-over that says something like: "Mayor/Governor/whatever Smith's anti-police crusade is putting you and your family in danger. This November, send a message by voting out the pro-crime politicians." You could argue that politicians should make a principled stand against this and do th…
> give the police what they want Like the ability to actually do something when a looter horde raids a department store?
Watching police body camera footage has given me much more appreciation for the tough job police have. I can't imagine having people actively try to kill me in my day-to-day job as a software engineer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are literally closed door legislative sessions that are not transparent. Plus the adage “business is done on the golf course”.
So you want all elected officials to wear a camera 24x7? Because hey, they could be doing business while taking a shit? Better keep it on at night as well, because we want to see the face of whoever they're screwing. Here's a better idea – elect people who can be trusted.
We need effective rules of ethics (with teeth) and oversight procedures. I don't think that forcing every politician to wear a camera 24/7 is really the best solution, but it's hopelessly naïve to think that some of them aren't literally going to bed with the people who are trying to get favorable legislation passed.
A society like the US is just too diverse—not so much in heritage, but in cultural values (or at least subcultural values) to be able to "just elect people who can be trusted."
I want elected officials to wear body cameras too
"Transparency" in Congress has lead to grandstanding and posturing to cameras, at the expense of the necessary compromises and deals that could otherwise happen.
What transparency in Congress? Congress lacks even the transparency requirements many state legislatures have and is essentially completely opaque, with virtually everything substantive happening out of the public eye. The absence of compromise has to do with certain factions preferring to scheme for achieving total government control and preferring to making things worse in the short term if it can be leveraged to help advance that cause, not to transparency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most people don't consider how much of that footage has privacy implications. They deal with people very single day, they need to be able to turn those cameras off in the case of, a nude minor, a detailing of psychiatric history of a minor, etc. The problem is that giving them that ability also opens the door for them to abuse it. There is no easy/good answer here. And I'm not making excuses for t…
Filming nude adults is fine and not a privacy issue for those involved? If anything, most societies accept nude children (especially around bodies of water) much more readily than adults. Not sure why you're calling out children specifically: they can't give consent but, if asked, I expect that adults would rarely give consent for being filmed by the police either, even when dressed as well as one can be!