4 ms·
You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.
by joshkpeterson 11y ago
You're literally describing body cams, which people are activists are actively working towards making ubiquitous.
- ta_donk_gt 11y agoNot really, though, right? The body cams video would almost certainly be treated the same as dashcam video, would it not? Generally, dashcam video is extremely difficult to get released if it incriminates or disagrees with the reporting of the police in any way. That's not really surveillance by any meaningful definition.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoThat seems to be the case, for example the number of "broken microphones" in the Chicago PD[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...
- fucking_tragedy 11y agoCan they be turned off or conveniently covered, malfunction, repositioned, break, run out of power, stop recording, corrupt data or have the recorded data be 'just not in the system' when an officer is alleged to have committed a crime? All of those things will happen because it happens all the time with video evidence from dash cams and audio from body mics when it's subpoenaed.
- maerF0x0 11y agoIMO if any of those things happens, then either the Officer or the IT staff need to be fired. If a piece of equipment fails its either the provisioner or users fault. One of them must be accountable.