3 ms·

This protects the privacy of victims, offenders and innocent suspects. All of them should have a right to privacy, except convicted offenders in matters affecti

This protects the privacy of victims, offenders and innocent suspects. All of them should have a right to privacy, except convicted offenders in matters affecting the public.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JChase2 8y ago
Agreed, to an extent. It's incredibly frustrating for things as small as a paraphernalia charge that was thrown out ending up on a local news site, especially for employability reasons. It'd be nice if there were a way to redact names and still provide access to police activity.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Isn’t that the intent behind the EU’s right to be forgotten?
wool_gather 8y ago
> except convicted offenders [emph. mine] No. Accusations (and court proceedings) need to default to being public. This is an important check on the power of prosecutors and judges.
- yorwba 8y ago
  Presumably that check is intended to protect the accused from secret prosecution. But I think in many cases, the potential reputation damage of a false accusation is so bad that the accused would prefer to make the decision about whether it should be published or not.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Presumably that check is intended to protect the accused from secret prosecution It's as much intended to protect the public from the government pretending to do things about problems that it is not doing; if prosecution is secret, government can more easily claim it is making good faith efforts when it is not then when the public can see what they are presenting at trial.
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    > the accused would prefer to make the decision about whether it should be published or not Interesting idea; that does seem like a reasonable compromise (subject to safeguards against coercion by prosecutors and similar abuse, of course).
dsl 8y ago
Almost all agencies have a policy of communicating potentially sensitive information via cell phone. There is already a balance of an informed public and protected privacy.

This protects the privacy of victims, offenders and innocent suspects. All of them should have a right to privacy, except convicted offenders in matters affecting the public.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

JChase2 8y ago

Agreed, to an extent. It's incredibly frustrating for things as small as a paraphernalia charge that was thrown out ending up on a local news site, especially for employability reasons. It'd be nice if there were a way to redact names and still provide access to police activity.

colejohnson66 8y ago
Isn’t that the intent behind the EU’s right to be forgotten?

wool_gather 8y ago

> except convicted offenders [emph. mine] No. Accusations (and court proceedings) need to default to being public. This is an important check on the power of prosecutors and judges.

yorwba 8y ago
Presumably that check is intended to protect the accused from secret prosecution. But I think in many cases, the potential reputation damage of a false accusation is so bad that the accused would prefer to make the decision about whether it should be published or not.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Presumably that check is intended to protect the accused from secret prosecution It's as much intended to protect the public from the government pretending to do things about problems that it is not doing; if prosecution is secret, government can more easily claim it is making good faith efforts when it is not then when the public can see what they are presenting at trial.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  > the accused would prefer to make the decision about whether it should be published or not Interesting idea; that does seem like a reasonable compromise (subject to safeguards against coercion by prosecutors and similar abuse, of course).

dsl 8y ago

Almost all agencies have a policy of communicating potentially sensitive information via cell phone. There is already a balance of an informed public and protected privacy.