8 ms·
How on earth is the on/off switch for the body camera under the officer’s control?
by didgeoridoo 7y ago
How on earth is the on/off switch for the body camera under the officer’s control?
- grugagag 7y agoThey have their own privacy i guess. Camera can’t record all the time, what if they’re on the toilet? But camera works both for and against cops
- Teever 7y agoThe privacy button should turn the recording off for 10-15 minutes and automatically send an alert that this has happened. The alert should trigger the footage from before and after the button press to be sent to 3rd party who evaluates it for potential abuse. Any evidence produced during a button press is default inadmissible and the law enforcement officer is assumed to be unreliable in this situation by default.
- drhodes 7y agoor the privacy button could encrypt the video stream instead of shutting it off.
- cameldrv 7y agoThis. Store the private key in a sealed envelope somewhere where only a judge can get it. If they push the privacy button and the timeframe is shown to be relevant to a case, it gets decrypted.
- RHSeeger 7y agoThis is the same type of argument made by people that say the government should have the keys to all encryption. The standard response is that, if there is a key and the government has it, it will get out and then all those things that were recorded are now open to the public. Not wanting to be filmed whiled going to the restroom seems reasonable.
- damnyou 7y agoPeople legally authorized to kill other people should be willing to subject themselves to a higher degree of scrutiny.
- cameldrv 7y agoA police officer is not an ordinary citizen. They have huge authority, and the accountability should match. Also, I'm not suggesting that they should have to wear their body cams at all times, just when they are clocked in. Hell, even gas station attendants have constant video surveillance of their actions and no one complains.
- dragontamer 7y agoI really like how you think. It could be a good example of public/private key encryption too. You can encrypt with a public key (or more commonly, symmetrically encrypt with a symmetric key asymmetrically encrypted with a public key), with the private decryption key only in the hands of a judge (or other supervisor).
- kingofpandora 7y agoBut didn't you see? They did find the evidence while on camera ... It was the planting of the evidence that happened off camera.
- krapp 7y agoThere should be no privacy button. Privacy is for citizens. When you have the power to commit violence on behalf of the state, you shouldn't be afforded the privilege of privacy, you're a predator and predators aren't to be trusted by prey.
- grugagag 7y agoWhooa, not all cops are predators, just a small minority. I think you’re forgetting what lawlessness means and what these cops do. Some arest dangerous people, murderers and such. Some plant cocaine evidence and some are power tripping. They are people like everybody else and if they get no privacy at all maybe they wouldnt want to enroll to be cops. How about we devs were constantly monitored becaus some dev stole some credentials to some database. But, why, we have nothing to hide, why not be filmed all the time and when you go to the toilet the video gets encrypted and only a judge can see that.. see where its going? There must be a middle ground. You see, this cop fucked up, that guy did a hit and run and now will probably will go free. Double fuck up imo
- krapp 7y agoAll cops are predators in that the function they serve in society is to hunt people down, sometimes with violence. Predators serve a function in the ecosystem, just as the police serve a function in civil society, but it's important to remember the relationship between the police and citizens is one in which the police will find and exploit weakness wherever they can find it. Even the good cops aren't to be trusted, because their line of duty makes them untrustworthy. >They are people like everybody else and if they get no privacy at all maybe they wouldnt want to enroll to be cops. I'm fine with them just getting no privacy while on duty. On duty, they're not people like everyone else, off duty, they are.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoThe lack of video from the police should instantly dismiss the case and put any fault on the officer.
- LaMarseillaise 7y agoI can understand this sentiment, but I am now imagining criminals deliberately destroying body cameras.
- gregoryl 7y agoIf the police can't respond with an appropriate amount of force to make it impossible to destroy all of the attending officers cameras, they are not doing their job correctly.
- jeffparsons 7y agoAlso, if the body camera isn't (1) robust enough to withstand an attack; and/or (2) streaming or at least storing the footage quickly enough to capture evidence of an attack, then whoever designed the body camera system has done an unbelievably awful job.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoThey should still be able to store the video up until it was destroyed which would show the destruction.
- ATsch 7y agoEven when there aren't, it is very frequent that the cameras happen to be "broken" when something bad happens.
- injb 7y agoWitnesses often won't talk to them if the camera is on.
- sneak 7y agoFurthermore: if we don’t trust them not to turn off the cameras, we shouldn’t be trusting them to be cops.
- pas 7y agoTrust, but verify.
- maximente 7y agonot great for super high stakes stuff (which interacting with US law enforcement absolutely is, given your life may be in jeopardy) - really need a streaming externally enforced trust and confirmation mechanism... perhaps something like, i dunno, oversight? just brainstorming here though.
- pas 7y agoIsn't there Internal Affairs? Though the problem is the incentive is not there. Budget problems prevent hiring only good candidates, and similarly the courts don't think cities should be paying a lot after these bad apples.
- balfirevic 7y agoSo indeed we shouldn't. What now?
- loeg 7y agoThis sounds nice but isn't actionable. Ok, say we don't trust the cops (true enough for many citizens). What now?