3 ms·

It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such controlled dest

It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such controlled destruction would inevitably destroy evidence. Additionally, unless there was some guaranteed way to permanently prevent the destruction of video marked “of interest”, the video could be destroyed simply through delaying tactics by the force under investigation. [1] https://www.innocenceproject.org https://www.innocenceproject.org

koolba 9y ago
> It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such controlled destruction would inevitably destroy evidence. I'm not sure what the duration answer is, hence the guesses as examples. I don't think it should be indefinite either. Again, the problem we're solving is providing evidence of what occurred at a specific incident, not retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved police. IMHO, working in law enforcement requires you give up some of your privacy rights in exchange for a local monopoly on the use of force. It shouldn't mean you lose all of them permanently. > Additionally, unless there was some guaranteed way to permanently prevent the destruction of video marked “of interest”, the video could be destroyed simply through delaying tactics by the force under investigation. That's why I specifically call out having an entirely separate entity control the storage and dissemination. The video can't be public by default for a host of reasons (for starters, the privacy of both the police and non-police that are recorded) but it also shouldn't be able to be held hostage by the law enforcement bodies that may be held accountable by it.
- benchaney 9y ago
  > not retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved police. I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant.
  - koolba 9y ago
    > I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant. Do you expect every recording, video, audio, and statement made by a police officer involved in a case, at any point in his service, and unrelated to the crime at hand, to be provided to the defense? Going through someone's history to find dirt is the definition of a fishing expedition. With enough footage, speech, and actions, you could find incriminating evidence on anybody. If there's accusations that a police officer is dishonest, lying under oath, planting evidence, or really anything else illegal, then internal affairs should be investigating them. They'd require a warrant just like anybody else to get access to the historical records (and I think they should get it). But not just any random person that wants to dig dirt on Officer Joe because he busted him for public urination.

koolba 9y ago

> It needs to be a lot longer than 5 years; The Innocence Project[1]’s fairly regular overturning of convictions that are decades old suggest such controlled destruction would inevitably destroy evidence. I'm not sure what the duration answer is, hence the guesses as examples. I don't think it should be indefinite either. Again, the problem we're solving is providing evidence of what occurred at a specific incident, not retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved police. IMHO, working in law enforcement requires you give up some of your privacy rights in exchange for a local monopoly on the use of force. It shouldn't mean you lose all of them permanently. > Additionally, unless there was some guaranteed way to permanently prevent the destruction of video marked “of interest”, the video could be destroyed simply through delaying tactics by the force under investigation. That's why I specifically call out having an entirely separate entity control the storage and dissemination. The video can't be public by default for a host of reasons (for starters, the privacy of both the police and non-police that are recorded) but it also shouldn't be able to be held hostage by the law enforcement bodies that may be held accountable by it.

benchaney 9y ago
> not retroactively creating a Truman Show out of the lives of any involved police. I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant.
- koolba 9y ago
  > I don't understand this objection. Police officers are generally presumed to be honest by jurors. If there is evidence that this presumption is unreasonable, then it is definitely relevant. Do you expect every recording, video, audio, and statement made by a police officer involved in a case, at any point in his service, and unrelated to the crime at hand, to be provided to the defense? Going through someone's history to find dirt is the definition of a fishing expedition. With enough footage, speech, and actions, you could find incriminating evidence on anybody. If there's accusations that a police officer is dishonest, lying under oath, planting evidence, or really anything else illegal, then internal affairs should be investigating them. They'd require a warrant just like anybody else to get access to the historical records (and I think they should get it). But not just any random person that wants to dig dirt on Officer Joe because he busted him for public urination.