9 ms·
> Requests can be denied to protect a person’s safety or reputation, or if the recording is part of an active investigation. As soon as there's a single subjec
by 1_2__3 10y ago
> Requests can be denied to protect a person’s safety or reputation, or if the recording is part of an active investigation.
As soon as there's a single subjective criteria by which footage can be denied, virtually all footage will be, period, the end. The "reputation" and "active investigation" parts make any concessions to the public completely and utterly worthless.
- kbenson 10y agoThat's a strong statement, mostly because there's things implied in what you said that are not necessary to held true. For example, there's no reason we can't have a distinction between public release of a video, and allowing charged/affected parties (or their next of kin!) and their counsel to view the video privately at the police station for free (but restricted from recording). I think that would clear up the vast majority of problems, as the police could no longer falsely claim the footage needed to be preserved for some reason. If it was requested to be made public after that, and they refused, at least you then know what you're fighting for if you need to take it to court.
- ende 10y agoThe police cannnot and should not be trusted to be the ones who decide matters of access. All video should be collected and dispersed by an independent citizen run board.