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

Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#231

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #216
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HIPAA has requirements for logs and that includes logging access to data. What company is this that isn't following those regulations such that you can crack open raw logs at any time?

But what if this person has direct access to the database? I’m a developer for my local government and have direct read/write access to many system’s production data. I could not only read but also update important info about people without going through an application all while logged in as the applications SQL ID. In fact I have to do this to handle tickets that are caused by limitations in the system.

the reality is that someone, somewhere, is going to have access like this. Depending on the industry and the type of data there's typically a separation of concerns.

For example, if you can get code into production you cannot have access to production data and vice-versa.

You'll also see data in different databases where no one has access to both. You'll also see things like this with the use of encryption keys, such as KEK vs DEK where no system has access to both.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/93886/dek-kek-a....

typically speaking these compliance frameworks will have exemptions for "business need" and companies will try to drive a semi-truck through that hole. Whether they get away with it depends on multiple factors such as the size of the company and the auditor's mood.

It's almost like being "too big to fail". I have seen some absolutely heinous setups surrounding compliance related data that was allowed via "business need" because pulling that rug would cause the entire company to stop functioning. Generally when companies do things like this and they get to that size they'll spend years rectifying the problem because auditors will start giving them the stink-eye or they'll actually hire people who aren't comfortable with what they're doing.

it's all very messy, but don't assume that just because you have that kind of access that you should (and don't assume the reverse either). Without knowing more about what you do I couldn't say.

But for sure the other poster went quiet when I asked who the company was because they're fully aware they're on shaky ground. Which was my point in making that statement.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#232

Post by Der_Einzige »

greedo wrote: post #230
Der_Einzige wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See all the law changes in Oregon since 2018. Cops for example can’t pull you over for ghetto cars anymore. Cops can’t use the smell of weed as probable cause, and far far more.

Nice terminology about the cars.../s And pot is legal in Oregon, so why would the smell be probable cause? Besides, cops invent PC on a routine basis.

The smell of pot in one’s care gives probable cause in many states where it’s legal. Driving while stoned is still illegal in Oregon, but difficult to enforce since cops can’t easily search your vehicle anymore.

You’re being dense on purpose. You know I’m right but don’t want to admit it. You go for cheap shots on my language because you have no other legit arguments. Pathetic.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#233

Post by greedo »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #232
greedo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice terminology about the cars.../s And pot is legal in Oregon, so why would the smell be probable cause? Besides, cops invent PC on a routine basis.

The smell of pot in one’s care gives probable cause in many states where it’s legal. Driving while stoned is still illegal in Oregon, but difficult to enforce since cops can’t easily search your vehicle anymore. You’re being dense on purpose. You know I’m right but don’t want to admit it. You go for cheap shots on my language because you have no other legit arguments. Pathetic.

It's pathetic to call them ghetto cars, rez wagons or whatever racist term you want to use.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#234

Post by lannisterstark »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #231
lotsoweiners wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if this person has direct access to the database? I’m a developer for my local government and have direct read/write access to many system’s production data. I could not only read but also update important info about people without going through an application all while logged in as the applications SQL ID. In fact I have to do this to handle tickets that are caused by limitations in the system.

the reality is that someone, somewhere, is going to have access like this. Depending on the industry and the type of data there's typically a separation of concerns. For example, if you can get code into production you cannot have access to production data and vice-versa. You'll also see data in different databases where no one has access to both. You'll also see things like this with the use of encryption keys, such…

>But for sure the other poster went quiet when I asked who the company was because they're fully aware they're on shaky ground.

No. It had nothing to do with 'shaky grounds.' I do what my job requires me to do.

I didn't respond because I didn't want you to potentially doxx me. Why would I reveal the company name where I work?

That being said, post your passport details here. If you don't, you're obviously a criminal on shaky grounds with the law. If you weren't, you obviously would have no problems doing so.

See how that works?

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#235

Post by kkielhofner »

feoren wrote: post #211
kkielhofner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hesitant to write this comment because even though I consider my stance fairly nuanced (with my comment reflecting that) dismissive statements like "copaganda" don't make for any kind of reasonable debate. But I'll try. When I was on a ride along and I watched a guy who just brutally beat his pregnant girlfriend (who was bleeding on the ground in the front yard) charge at us and end up rolling around on the gro…

Not to discount any of your experiences, but you're countering with something different than the point being made. The question is: of your experiences, which ones would show up with footage on these YouTube channels? I'm willing to bet that every moment of someone being aggressive toward the cop would show up. Would him hitting on the girl show up? Would the questionable level of retaliatory force show up, especiall…

Very good points and this goes back to my original comment.

The problem with YT Channels is of course they're there to optimize views for their revenue. From what I can see that's why they tend to target two audiences in terms of their content:

1) Pro law enforcement - show the worst of "criminals" and the best of police.

2) Anti law enforcement - show the worst of police.

Sadly there is plenty of content available for either and a viewer needs to make sure their content consumption diet includes both for a realistic view. Of course the YT algorithm is an element in this as well - if you want more of either it's more than happy to serve that up for you to further entrench your preconceived notions.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#236

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

lannisterstark wrote: post #234
PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the reality is that someone, somewhere, is going to have access like this. Depending on the industry and the type of data there's typically a separation of concerns. For example, if you can get code into production you cannot have access to production data and vice-versa. You'll also see data in different databases where no one has access to both. You'll also see things like this with the use of encryption keys, such…

>But for sure the other poster went quiet when I asked who the company was because they're fully aware they're on shaky ground. No. It had nothing to do with 'shaky grounds.' I do what my job requires me to do. I didn't respond because I didn't want you to potentially doxx me. Why would I reveal the company name where I work? That being said, post your passport details here. If you don't, you're obviously a criminal…

that's an excuse, if you as a contractor has direct access to raw logs with that sort of data in it the company is at risk.

That is the truth regardless of your claims about why you won't reveal the company name.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#237

Post by jquery »

digging wrote: post #159
jquery wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but it's called civil forfeiture.

Yeah, I dropped my /s

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#238

Post by lannisterstark »

PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: post #236
lannisterstark wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But for sure the other poster went quiet when I asked who the company was because they're fully aware they're on shaky ground. No. It had nothing to do with 'shaky grounds.' I do what my job requires me to do. I didn't respond because I didn't want you to potentially doxx me. Why would I reveal the company name where I work? That being said, post your passport details here. If you don't, you're obviously a criminal…

that's an excuse, if you as a contractor has direct access to raw logs with that sort of data in it the company is at risk. That is the truth regardless of your claims about why you won't reveal the company name.

That's just an excuse you're using to not provide your passport details. Surely if you have nothing to hide you would not hesitate for one second to reveal your personal details. Right?

Absurd arguments all around.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#239

Post by naasking »

greedo wrote: post #124
jquery wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That becomes state property though, I think the analogy in this case is that the cops take the money themselves.

Re: Police have undermined the promise of body cameras

#240

Post by engineer_22 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #194
engineer_22 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are shocking claims, please provide sources.

> In February 2018, BuzzFeed News reported that laws in 35 states allowed police officers to claim that a person in their custody consented to sex, and that of at least 158 law enforcement officers charged with sexual assault, sexual battery, or unlawful sexual contact with somebody under their control from 2006 to 2018, at least 26 were acquitted or had charges dropped based on the consent defense. Realize that bein…

It seems the victim you referred to earlier wasn't a minor. The buzzfeed article also reports the woman's behavior before and after the assault did the prosecution no favors.

It's notable the officers in question were dismissed.

I do think it's a good idea to pass a law that sex with an officer while in custody cannot be consensual.

Post reply on HN