4 ms·

I want two more important steps: 4. The video is archived for at least 90 days, with 360 being preferable. 5. The video is immediately encrypted when it is

I want two more important steps: 4. The video is archived for at least 90 days, with 360 being preferable. 5. The video is immediately encrypted when it is stored and should only be accessible by the district attorneys office.

jussij 9y ago
> should only be accessible by the district attorneys office. Why the need for such a high level of secrecy? From outside of the US, the picture I get of the police force and the bodies that control them is they have a tendency to try and keep things secret. I would have though a more open system would instil a much higher level of public confidence in that policing system.
- akira2501 9y ago
  Okay.. if you really do want them to have access to the data, then you can amend that to 'Strong cryptographic message signing applied on storage.' There really is a case to be made in keeping the video private; however, police often have to process your private information and the officers have privacy considerations themselves. I really wrote that with this in mind, as I think it's a strong hedge against the "officer privacy" argument. You _will_ constantly record on duty, and that information _will_ be kept private hopefully giving us the best of both worlds. There's also an evidentiary and performance monitoring considerations. I don't want police to have access to their own video when making sworn statements, research has shown that this can bias and alter these statements which are incredibly important when establishing frame of mind in a courtroom. I also don't want police captains to have the ability to spy on their staff and use the cameras as a backdoor way to monitor the performance or judgement of officers on the street. To that final point, you _want_ officers to be able to look the other way in certain circumstances.. they aren't a group that should be blindly applying the letter of the law, in my opinion, by keeping the video private you serve to protect this important discretionary relationship between officers and the public.
  - jussij 9y ago
    I'm not suggesting the videos should be available to just anyone for public view. On the contrary they need to be kept very securely, not only to stop unauthorised access but to stop unauthorised tampering or deletion. However, I don't think access to the video should be controlled by the district attorney or by the state, instead it needs to be more transperant. For example, lets assume someone in the public has a run in with the law and that results in charges being laid. At that point, the accused should be able to appoint an attorney who then arranges for immediate access to video from the arresting officer(s) camera. That process should be quick and fast, not slow and obstructed as it currently appears to be.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I completely disagree with #5, mostly because I think transparency is lost if you restrict video access to district attorney's offices. Videos that are restricted too much aren't any better than no video at all. First things first, one should always be able to view video of their own police interactions, as should their attorney. They should feel free to show it to family and friends. The district attorney is often viewed as part of the police and working with them closely... and they are political because they are an elected position. If we can't have more public access, it is easy to abuse such power. If the public can show family and friends their interactions, it can lead to change in the way folks are treated. And so on, in the same sorts of thinking. That said, I don't think they should be made absolutely public without some sort of control and balance. I think it would be wrong for domestic violence calls to be made to the public. I fully support keeping folks' identities private unless they are found guilty in court. I'm going to guess there are prudent exceptions to this, mostly with public figures and safety.

jussij 9y ago

> should only be accessible by the district attorneys office. Why the need for such a high level of secrecy? From outside of the US, the picture I get of the police force and the bodies that control them is they have a tendency to try and keep things secret. I would have though a more open system would instil a much higher level of public confidence in that policing system.

akira2501 9y ago
Okay.. if you really do want them to have access to the data, then you can amend that to 'Strong cryptographic message signing applied on storage.' There really is a case to be made in keeping the video private; however, police often have to process your private information and the officers have privacy considerations themselves. I really wrote that with this in mind, as I think it's a strong hedge against the "officer privacy" argument. You _will_ constantly record on duty, and that information _will_ be kept private hopefully giving us the best of both worlds. There's also an evidentiary and performance monitoring considerations. I don't want police to have access to their own video when making sworn statements, research has shown that this can bias and alter these statements which are incredibly important when establishing frame of mind in a courtroom. I also don't want police captains to have the ability to spy on their staff and use the cameras as a backdoor way to monitor the performance or judgement of officers on the street. To that final point, you _want_ officers to be able to look the other way in certain circumstances.. they aren't a group that should be blindly applying the letter of the law, in my opinion, by keeping the video private you serve to protect this important discretionary relationship between officers and the public.
- jussij 9y ago
  I'm not suggesting the videos should be available to just anyone for public view. On the contrary they need to be kept very securely, not only to stop unauthorised access but to stop unauthorised tampering or deletion. However, I don't think access to the video should be controlled by the district attorney or by the state, instead it needs to be more transperant. For example, lets assume someone in the public has a run in with the law and that results in charges being laid. At that point, the accused should be able to appoint an attorney who then arranges for immediate access to video from the arresting officer(s) camera. That process should be quick and fast, not slow and obstructed as it currently appears to be.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

I completely disagree with #5, mostly because I think transparency is lost if you restrict video access to district attorney's offices. Videos that are restricted too much aren't any better than no video at all. First things first, one should always be able to view video of their own police interactions, as should their attorney. They should feel free to show it to family and friends. The district attorney is often viewed as part of the police and working with them closely... and they are political because they are an elected position. If we can't have more public access, it is easy to abuse such power. If the public can show family and friends their interactions, it can lead to change in the way folks are treated. And so on, in the same sorts of thinking. That said, I don't think they should be made absolutely public without some sort of control and balance. I think it would be wrong for domestic violence calls to be made to the public. I fully support keeping folks' identities private unless they are found guilty in court. I'm going to guess there are prudent exceptions to this, mostly with public figures and safety.