4 ms·

There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In ma

by rocqua 9y ago

There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive. You gotta remember that body cams can't just be used against corrupt police, they can just as easily be used against the public. Consider how a closeted gay person reacts when caught drunk with a boyfriend and how the presence of a camera effects that.

comicjk 9y ago
This seems obvious to me, but maybe it isn't based on the implementations of body cameras I'm hearing about: the police should not have access to the videos! A camera should automatically upload its contents to off-site encrypted servers, with the courts having sole access to the decryption keys. No one should be able to access the data without a court order. It's strange to me that, when faced with problems of official power vs privacy, people never seem to remember the idea of warrants, which are baked into our legal system and have been used to address privacy problems for centuries.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Why shouldn't the public have access at least to the videos filmed in public?
  - comicjk 9y ago
    Practically, that would require court-sanctioned employees to go through all the videos and edit out the non-public content before release (automation probably doesn't cut it legally). It would require a significant labor force and cost, substantially reduce the overall privacy of the system, and occasionally release private info by mistake. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Fair point, have an up vote.
literallycancer 9y ago
>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive. Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?
- mulmen 9y ago
  I think the privacy argument is about the members of the public the police are interacting with.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Public officials go to the toilet. Public officials get calls about private matters during the day. Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough. There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion. In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.

by rocqua 9y ago

comicjk 9y ago

This seems obvious to me, but maybe it isn't based on the implementations of body cameras I'm hearing about: the police should not have access to the videos! A camera should automatically upload its contents to off-site encrypted servers, with the courts having sole access to the decryption keys. No one should be able to access the data without a court order. It's strange to me that, when faced with problems of official power vs privacy, people never seem to remember the idea of warrants, which are baked into our legal system and have been used to address privacy problems for centuries.

weberc2 9y ago
Why shouldn't the public have access at least to the videos filmed in public?
- comicjk 9y ago
  Practically, that would require court-sanctioned employees to go through all the videos and edit out the non-public content before release (automation probably doesn't cut it legally). It would require a significant labor force and cost, substantially reduce the overall privacy of the system, and occasionally release private info by mistake. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Fair point, have an up vote.

literallycancer 9y ago

>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive. Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?

mulmen 9y ago
I think the privacy argument is about the members of the public the police are interacting with.
rocqua 9y ago
Public officials go to the toilet. Public officials get calls about private matters during the day. Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough. There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion. In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.