A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

Post by mcguire » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 12:51 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #12

eric_h wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be footage recorded by those cameras that will drastically impinge on the privacy of civilians should it be shared publicly. It's a nice idea, but I think it has some pretty significant potential for downsides.

I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere, then that place and the goings-on that were witnessed are a matter of public record. If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition. In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state suppo…

Post by weberc2 » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #138

jandrese wrote: post #3

It probably shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Police officers are almost entirely decent people that shouldn't feel the need to change their behavior just because they're being recorded. Regular citizens would already be on their best behavior around cops, the camera doesn't change much. I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents. Counte…

> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents. What is this statement based on? Can you provide any data? What about people - whole communities in many places, over generations - who claim to be persecuted continuously by police. Are those people making it up? The people protesting in St Louis - what are they spending all that time and energ…

Post by weberc2 » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 1:07 AM UTC

comicjk wrote: post #126

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…

This seems obvious to me, but maybe it isn't based on the implementations of body cameras I'm hearing about: the police should not have access to the videos! A camera should automatically upload its contents to off-site encrypted servers, with the courts having sole access to the decryption keys. No one should be able to access the data without a court order. It's strange to me that, when faced with problems of offic…

Post by CyberDildonics » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #170

EliRivers wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. I hear this every time someone with a difficult job has it pointed out to them that they're doing it badly. They don't even pretend that somehow makes it acceptable to do the job badly; I honestly don't know what effect saying it is supposed to have.

It's a recognition that there are complications beyond the simplistic picture one can get without personal experience. This often includes time, budget, and policy constraints the individual has no control over.

Post by mulmen » Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 1:15 AM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #143

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…

How about firing anyone who tampers with the evidence? And I mean actually let them go, not give them indefinite paid vacation.