Police have undermined the promise of body cameras • Hacker News Board

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#121

Post by bjornsing » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

Aachen wrote: post #100

lsy wrote: post #50

Body cams were always a band-aid solution on top of over-arming police and granting them almost total immunity from charges of misconduct. The resulting mentality of us-vs-them and mafioso, bullying behavior from police is all down to feeling a cut above “civilians” and being confident in their power to legally murder anyone who’s too resistant. This behavior also discourages any thoughtful people with integrity from…

> being confident in their power to legally murder anyone who’s too resistant. * in a few select countries around the world. This is a rather narrow view of police(wo)men as a blanket statement.

Is it? I think Sweden is probably recognized as one of the most civilized countries in world in this regard, but here too the police can murder anyone who’s too resistant and very likely get away with it. I know of several cases that ended up in bizarre acquittals, and none that ended in a conviction.

They are sometimes sentenced in the court of public opinion though, as with Osmo Vallo [1].

1. https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmo_Vallo

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#122

Post by greedo » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #16

tjoff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can be completely automated though. Noone has to watch any footage unless the system feels like something is wrong with it. And that could be in conjunction with the involved party.

Seems like good policy to randomly pull bodycam footage on a continuous basis for performance evaluation purposes.

The article talks about how New Orleans (under Federal consent decree) would evaluate the constitutionality of police stops.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#123

Post by jquery » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #109

danaris wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's put this in perspective. Something like that might happen once or twice every few decades . In the country . Meanwhile, the abuses the police are perpetrating, in many cities, are happening on a monthly basis (or more often). Even if we stipulate that we need someone capable of dealing with the looter horde, we don't need that capability to be in the same hands as the people who are handing out traffic tickets…

your statement is easily proven to be total BS by a single press release: https://corporate.target.com/press/statement/2023/09/target-...

Umm, I'm familiar with one of those locations that closed. It had very little parking, was extremely understaffed (1 active cashier working slowly...), and didn't have much foot traffic. There weren't any bags to put my stuff in when I checked out. It was such a poor experience I never went back there, despite it being the Target nearest to me. I was zero percent surprised when I heard it closed for good. Businesses and business franchises fail all the time in cities, Target is no exception.

In other words the press release is just dodging responsibility.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#124

Post by greedo » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #112

FireBeyond wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. However, in 35 states, and this blows my mind, an officer can have "consensual" sex with a detainee. Even if they are in handcuffs at the time. 35 states have decided that this is not improper from an "authority" p…

35 states allow for that? I would've assumed 0 states allow for it, because, well, come on. Might as well let officers consent to taking bags of money from detainees.

Most states allow for "taking bags of money from detainees" under civil asset forfeiture.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#125

Post by greedo » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:33 PM UTC

kemayo wrote: post #66

engineer_22 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a jury would be very sympathetic to this argument.

You'd think so, but the average jury is extremely deferential to police. In part because a lot of places include some questions about how you feel about the police in the standard jury screening interview, and expressing any negative opinion about police-reliability is likely to get you struck. e.g. check out the NYC standard set of questions: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/8-Colloquies/Voir%20Dire... -- note th…

It's not just the average jury, but prosecutors, judges, mayors, city councils. Police get a pass for so much misconduct on an individual and institutional level it boggles the mind.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#126

Post by greedo » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #47

btbuildem wrote: post #22

> And so as policymakers rushed to equip the police with cameras, they often failed to grapple with a fundamental question: Who would control the footage? Instead, they defaulted to leaving police departments [..] with the power to decide what is recorded, who can see it and when. I think it's incredibly naive to portray this as a "defaulting" or "failing to grapple with a fundamental question". I am 100% certain "wh…

If you don't believe Management Confidential down at the department is worthy of the public trust, you have a bigger problem on your hands. In my locale those folks are elected or appointed, so if you cant trust them, yea, you've got a problem.

There's a group that both funds office seekers, as well as votes consistently. Police unions...

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#127

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #60

WillAdams wrote: post #5

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…

No, the solution there is appropriate security of footage, appropriate access control, and appropriate vetting of footage before release.

But there should be little to no discretion.

There are security cameras in hospital ERs (I'm a paramedic) where I absolutely assure you even outside rooms, in the open areas, people in states of undress (from MVA/trauma, etc., and us working on them) and people in behavioral crisis are a daily occurrence. Those cameras are not turned off then.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#128

Post by greedo » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

waihtis wrote: post #82

meepmorp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the conversation, the interpretation of "give police what they want," is clearly something like, "defer to the departments about how they handle bodycam footage, policies about recording, and discipline for officers that don't conform to related laws and policies." The fact that you chose an unrelated topic couched in deliberately inflammatory language only shows bad faith on your part.

true and I apologize. But I also think it can be tied to the larger picture where the police is both forced into better accountability (good) and stripped down of the ability to do their job (bad), for which "organizational resistance" is a completely valid countermeasure.

Can you list some of the ways police have been stripped of their ability to do their job?

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#129

Post by korse » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

WillAdams wrote: post #5

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…

We need the police. I guarantee the alternative power structures that would develop in their absence would be worse.

This said, if we want people to sign up for the role, there needs to be some protection and privacy in place for them. They are also people, with families and in some cases organized and dedicated opposition.

In pursuit of these goals, zero expectation of privacy seems like an unrealistically high bar.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#130

Post by rich_sasha » Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

Are all the responses below from US? I mean, I get it, TFA is US-specific.

I'm glad to live in a country where the police, for sure not perfect, are not an enemy of the people / above-the-law racket which can do as it pleases. And I believe they don't wear body cams.