Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

storymaps.arcgis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 178 posts

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#101

Post by davidf560 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #97
davidf560 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not buffer 5 hours by default? Because then you end up with recordings of things that you shouldn't have, like the officer using the restroom or a victim who has asked not to be recorded. Also, several minutes of buffer fits nicely in RAM. 5 hours would require a lot more RAM (making devices more expensive and thus harder to get deployed) or would require it to be written to flash disk which introduces new tech…

> Do the math sometime on what kind of bandwidth and storage capacity a large agency like NYPD 40,000 officers (rounded up) 8 hours of full HD video can be stored in 10 gigs of storage do this 365 days a year for every officer S3 standard costs less than 3 cents per gigabyte to store per month result: about 50 million dollars to store 8 hours of FHD video of every officer every day for a year The NYPD anual budget is…

Now calculate how big of a data pipe you need to AWS to upload 400 terabytes of video each day and how much does that cost?

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#102

Post by triceratops »

gcc_programmer wrote: post #95

my 2 cents: anyone who even thinks of defunding the police should visit a country with no police (for example a favella in Rio at night) and report back their results. The experiment will likely not be very repeatable.

You're saying that if the police in Rio had more money, the favelas would be safer? Why?

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#103

Post by tenebrisalietum »

hvdfhbj wrote: post #80
ahoy wrote: post #3

The police in america generally have too much responsibility and consume too many of our resources. When you combine that with the privileged status that comes with law enforcement you get a real mess. The problem is, as in so many cases, fundamentally about power. Until police have less power (that is, less funding, fewer numbers, and a smaller scope of responsibilites), i fear these kinds of abuses are almost unavo…

Why is it that the same people who think that the solution to bad public schools is more funding also think that the solution to bad police departments is less funding? If the police are substandard it means we need to pay them more to get better quality applicants into the system. We also need a better funded prison/drug rehab system so that police don't have to waste their time dealing with the sort of habitual off…

My theory: I'm betting in these communities where people tend to say this, schools are falling into disrepair, classes are overcrowded, and a substantial number of students rely on school free lunch and breakfast for their nutrition.

So it's natural such communities would want less money to go to police, which they probably see as victimizing a community, putting people in jail for low-level drug crimes and messing with people's jobs and livelihood through bail/fines, and more money to go to schools, which they see as helping a community and providing beneficial services.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#104

Post by Shivetya »

wombatpm wrote: post #5

If we really want body cameras to work, there needs to be penalties for nonuse. For example lack of body camera removes qualified immunity protections for the officer(s) in question. My personal philosophy is that if called to be on a criminal jury, if the case relies on the officer's testimony and there is no camera, I will return a verdict of not guilty under the justification that the state has failed to prove its…

No, the fastest way to fix it is to invalidate any and all arrests and ticketing the officer performs while the camera is not functioning. Then publish when it occurs. Suddenly cameras will be everywhere.

While you cannot remove QI you can probably get away with unpaid leave when an officer is under investigation but I expect that to eventually get overturned by union activity.

Politically its radioactive, note the choices made on both sides for candidates and who got to speak at their relative conventions. If anything we will see increased funding for police with the typical wording to make it sound like we asked for it.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#105

Post by davidf560 »

kbenson wrote: post #67
davidf560 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not buffer 5 hours by default? Because then you end up with recordings of things that you shouldn't have, like the officer using the restroom or a victim who has asked not to be recorded. Also, several minutes of buffer fits nicely in RAM. 5 hours would require a lot more RAM (making devices more expensive and thus harder to get deployed) or would require it to be written to flash disk which introduces new tech…

> a victim who has asked not to be recorded That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure this specific case matters? Are there things a person speaking to a police officer has any expectation that the officer may not relay as said to them? I would rather have it always recorded and strong laws about it's accessed. > Do the math sometime on what kind of bandwidth and storage capacity a large agency like NYPD, LAPD, C…

> That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure this specific case matters? Are there things a person speaking to a police officer has any expectation that the officer may not relay as said to them? I would rather have it always recorded and strong laws about it's accessed.

If you watch the Jussie Smollet video he requested that officers turn off the cameras and they did so. I have no idea what the laws around this are, but as I understand it people have that right. That may not apply out in public but it seems to in private homes at least.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#106

Post by hvdfhbj »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #103
hvdfhbj wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that the same people who think that the solution to bad public schools is more funding also think that the solution to bad police departments is less funding? If the police are substandard it means we need to pay them more to get better quality applicants into the system. We also need a better funded prison/drug rehab system so that police don't have to waste their time dealing with the sort of habitual off…

My theory: I'm betting in these communities where people tend to say this, schools are falling into disrepair, classes are overcrowded, and a substantial number of students rely on school free lunch and breakfast for their nutrition. So it's natural such communities would want less money to go to police, which they probably see as victimizing a community, putting people in jail for low-level drug crimes and messing w…

It would seem such communities would be the ones with most to gain from a better funded police force and justice system, one that could permanently remove the criminals from their midst.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#107

Post by AnimalMuppet »

stevesearer wrote: post #28
sneak wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juries, historically, uncritically accept unsubstantiated cop testimony at face value. It’s a huge problem.

I was on a jury a number of years ago on a suspected DUI case where the police officer for the case failed to complete the proper paperwork and record of events at the time of arrest. As a jury we ended up deciding that the defendant was Not Guilty because without that filed paperwork, it was just two people's recollection of the events and we didn't feel the officer was more trustworthy. I wouldn't have thought much…

> I wouldn't have thought much about it after the fact, except that the prosecution was visibly upset at the decision which made me realize that that was likely not what normally would have happened.

I'm cynical enough about lawyers (having seen a few in action) that I wonder if "visibly upset" wasn't trying to manipulate someone - either the judge, or the jury members in case they serve on a jury again some day.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#108

Post by msla »

triceratops wrote: post #25
msla wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be contrary to the whole spirit of Federalism. It would be like every EU country having a separate department of internal affairs which reports directly to Brussels, except, perhaps, even more politically inflammatory. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, just noting that there's a big wall in the path of implementing the concept.

GP said internal affairs could report to state governors.

I think they edited their post.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#109

Post by leetcrew »

stuntcoder wrote: post #12

it's a common sort of outcome for most attempts at police reform in the USA - buying the police bodycams are one of many "obvious" fixes that somehow don't work This is educational if you are interested in leveling up your thinking on it https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59ead8f9692ebee25b72f...

your link is just condensed talking points for people who already support the abolish position. I don't see how it could "level up" anyone's thinking, particularly someone who is wondering whether they should support abolition to begin with.

Re: Lax oversight allows Chicago police to avoid turning on their body cams

#110

Post by Buttons840 »

davidf560 wrote: post #101
Buttons840 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do the math sometime on what kind of bandwidth and storage capacity a large agency like NYPD 40,000 officers (rounded up) 8 hours of full HD video can be stored in 10 gigs of storage do this 365 days a year for every officer S3 standard costs less than 3 cents per gigabyte to store per month result: about 50 million dollars to store 8 hours of FHD video of every officer every day for a year The NYPD anual budget is…

Now calculate how big of a data pipe you need to AWS to upload 400 terabytes of video each day and how much does that cost?

I'm not proposing you store it on S3, but I used the price of S3 standard as a cost estimate. In reality I expect you could get the cost to be much less (I mean, even S3 standard is closer to 2 cents than the 3 cents I quoted) with on-premises storage. You also wouldn't need every minute of every video instantly available like you would get with S3 standard, further reducing costs.

I had a hard time finding the bandwidth costs, but since you've done the math already, I'd like to hear what you came up with.

Post reply on HN