5 ms·

> and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored Easier said than done. Police officers are often seeing people on the worst day of their life. It would

by throwaway2016a 9y ago

> and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored Easier said than done. Police officers are often seeing people on the worst day of their life. It would be an incredible decrease in privacy and general dignity if all footage was just published uncensored. If someone assaulted you and stole your cloths would you want a video online of you being interviewed about the experience with just a towel on (and probably a few scenes where you are completely naked before they get you the towel)? That is potentially an extreme example, but ever day police officers interact with innocent people and victims that don't deserve to have that experience made public domain. In short, the police need some way to make sure some video is kept private. Police abuse of power is a terrible thing. I have no doubt they are literally getting away with murder and framing people in many cases. But we have to remember that a vast majority of what officers do is to protect us and help us in our time of need.

encrystation 9y ago
Perhaps "publish" is the wrong word. Control over the camera and its contents should be in the hands of an independent body like eg the IPCC. The cameras should not be able to be turned off by the user for obvious reasons of incentive.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
The video should be able to be presented in court, unaltered and verified for both parties involved, whenever the need comes up. Or if anything, they should not be tampered with and disabling them should weigh heavily against the police in the courts - it's one of the few ways they can disprove excess violence and such.
jamesrcole 9y ago
In principle, it ought to be possible to ensure an encrypted version of all the video is always uploaded to some governmental servers that the police can not tamper with, where the video can only be accessed under appropriate circumstances by an appropriate authority.
- tylerhou 9y ago
  You're abstracting a lot of your argument away. When are "appropriate circumstances?" Who is an "appropriate authority?" Surely not the police department? Or the DA? Those questions are the crux of the issue, not the medium on which the recordings are stored.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    An appropriate authority is a judge, and appropriate circumstances are if and when it passes the requirements to be shown in court or accessed with a warrant.
  - DomreiRoam 9y ago
    You can create a system with authorization, ACL and an audit trail with justifications. It is less complicated to implement and can be audited after the fact. When you need access to an information, the system ask a reason (a procedure number or something) the system can grant it or not and all is logged. You can have a third party or authority notified and they could grant access to more sensible information.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    > Those questions are the crux of the issue, not the medium on which the recordings are stored. They are definitely important, but remember that I was replying to a comment that implied the only option was for the video to be made publicly available, and my comment was primarily trying to say that was not the only option. I'm not sure exactly what the appropriate circumstances/authority are -- not my area of expertise -- but I think ones must exist. I don't know if you're arguing against the idea that there is some appropriate circumstances/authority.
ufmace 9y ago
The related argument against this that I've seen from a few cops is that this also removes their ability to use discretion and not charge people. If somebody reports a crime and happens to have some drugs in their pocket and the police find them, they could have just ignored them or confiscated them and not charge the guy in pursuit of the greater good, but with the whole thing on tape, they essentially have to charge everything they see/find.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Is that an issue though? It's my understanding that police are allowed a lot of discretion as to whether or not they should charge someone with a crime. ianal, so genuinely asking
- BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  This argument makes no sense to me. Are police allowed to use discretion? If Yes - then doing something they're already allowed to do on tape makes no difference. If No - then either they shouldn't be doing it and tape stops them from doing something wrong. Or they should and laws can be updated to allow it. Having things float in a legal grey area is terrible for society. If it isn't legal, make it fully legal and cops are now fully covered.

encrystation 9y ago

Perhaps "publish" is the wrong word. Control over the camera and its contents should be in the hands of an independent body like eg the IPCC. The cameras should not be able to be turned off by the user for obvious reasons of incentive.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

The video should be able to be presented in court, unaltered and verified for both parties involved, whenever the need comes up. Or if anything, they should not be tampered with and disabling them should weigh heavily against the police in the courts - it's one of the few ways they can disprove excess violence and such.

jamesrcole 9y ago

In principle, it ought to be possible to ensure an encrypted version of all the video is always uploaded to some governmental servers that the police can not tamper with, where the video can only be accessed under appropriate circumstances by an appropriate authority.

tylerhou 9y ago
You're abstracting a lot of your argument away. When are "appropriate circumstances?" Who is an "appropriate authority?" Surely not the police department? Or the DA? Those questions are the crux of the issue, not the medium on which the recordings are stored.
- ameister14 9y ago
  An appropriate authority is a judge, and appropriate circumstances are if and when it passes the requirements to be shown in court or accessed with a warrant.
- DomreiRoam 9y ago
  You can create a system with authorization, ACL and an audit trail with justifications. It is less complicated to implement and can be audited after the fact. When you need access to an information, the system ask a reason (a procedure number or something) the system can grant it or not and all is logged. You can have a third party or authority notified and they could grant access to more sensible information.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > Those questions are the crux of the issue, not the medium on which the recordings are stored. They are definitely important, but remember that I was replying to a comment that implied the only option was for the video to be made publicly available, and my comment was primarily trying to say that was not the only option. I'm not sure exactly what the appropriate circumstances/authority are -- not my area of expertise -- but I think ones must exist. I don't know if you're arguing against the idea that there is some appropriate circumstances/authority.

ufmace 9y ago

The related argument against this that I've seen from a few cops is that this also removes their ability to use discretion and not charge people. If somebody reports a crime and happens to have some drugs in their pocket and the police find them, they could have just ignored them or confiscated them and not charge the guy in pursuit of the greater good, but with the whole thing on tape, they essentially have to charge everything they see/find.

CaptSpify 9y ago
Is that an issue though? It's my understanding that police are allowed a lot of discretion as to whether or not they should charge someone with a crime. ianal, so genuinely asking
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
This argument makes no sense to me. Are police allowed to use discretion? If Yes - then doing something they're already allowed to do on tape makes no difference. If No - then either they shouldn't be doing it and tape stops them from doing something wrong. Or they should and laws can be updated to allow it. Having things float in a legal grey area is terrible for society. If it isn't legal, make it fully legal and cops are now fully covered.