4 ms·

All police body cam footage should be public. Their work is paid for by tax money, they are supposed to be public servants. Governments, including their police

All police body cam footage should be public. Their work is paid for by tax money, they are supposed to be public servants. Governments, including their police force should be transparent to public they're supposed to be serving.

Jaruzel 6y ago
And if you were falsely arrested, and had the footage out there without your consent, you'd be happy for that too? It's a double edged sword I think.
- gruez 6y ago
  I don't think the parent comment (or anyone for that matter) is advocating for the unauthorized public release of bodycam footage. I think his point is that as public servants with extraordinary power, the public interest trumps any personal expectations of privacy while on the job. As such, the public shouldn't tolerate "but privacy!" as an excuse from police officers not to have bodycams.
tmoravec 6y ago
While I agree with the sentiment that public workers should be accountable to the tax payers, let's not forget they are still humans. Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times?
- grawprog 6y ago
  Fortunately, my job doesn't require me to carry firearms, detain citizens or uphold laws. Furthermore, when I was being paid by government grant money, we were accountable for every thing we did while being paid and every penny we spent. We were required to make regular reports and justify everything. It'd be nice to see even that level of accountability with policing.
- emilfihlman 6y ago
  If my desk was the outside and I was enforcing "laws" with possibly deadly force, I shouldn't have a say in if I like it or not: it (should) come(s) with the work.
- gruez 6y ago
  >Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? You can always... get another job. If you don't accept the surveillance that comes with your power to inflict violence with impunity, maybe you shouldn't be given the power in the first place.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    I agree with that sentiment, however... In EU there are shows where TV crew is embedded in highway police (traffic police). They never let people off with a warning. I literally never seen it happen. And in Europe in real life you have a chance to be caught for small infraction and receive waggle of the proverbial finger of the law. So having all police live stream their cams might not only curb bad behavior of bad cops, but also good behavior of good cops.
    - gruez 6y ago
      I hear this argument a lot (ie. "body cams will eliminate/reduce police discretion"), but I always wonder, is that a bad thing? If the department policy is that everyone that goes 10mph over the limit is ticketed, and you don't get off because of your charisma (or not being a minority), is that a bad thing?
  - lodovic 6y ago
    That's not a good way to deal with this. If you leave, the next guy will have the same shitty spying going on. Plus, nothing stops your next gig from spying on you as well. Until you've quit so many times that no employer is interested anymore. Better to tackle the problem at the root. No spying unless specifically defined how.
- wadkar 6y ago
  Well, my understanding is that there is no expectation of privacy if you’re using your employers equipment or network. I think it’s pretty clearly written on that offer letter when you sign the contract - or at least the ones I sampled. Not to mention the proliferation of CCTVs in almost all work places. So to answer your question, yeah, I fully expect my employer to record what I am doing all the time and it’s a price that unfortunately I have to pay to survive in this digital world.
  - lodovic 6y ago
    Even bathroom breaks?
    - wadkar 6y ago
      I wouldn’t be surprised if they counted those as well. I don’t think they’ll go so far as installing cctv inside the bathrooms lol
- krapp 6y ago
  >Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? I mean, many employers go as far in that direction as they legally can. See the recent thread here about "bossware."[0] However, my employer can't seize my private property, lock me or my family in a cell, torture me or simply shoot me dead in the middle of the street in broad daylight and get away with it. Police can, and do, all of those things all the time. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  On the one hand: Police having privacy while on the job. On the other hand: Not letting police get away with torture, murder, planting evidence, lying about what happened, throwing innocent people in jail. Hmm... tough choice.
  - headsupernova 6y ago
    The issue is the privacy of the people they're interacting with.
- hyperman1 6y ago
  That's a bad idea. A lot of policing is taking someone aside an giving them a warning, defusing a situation between angry people, etc... A camera only complicates these matters. What might be a better idea is stripping them of their privileged position. Today, if a police officer says something in court, it is automatically the truth. Take that away from the police, and let the camera be the official truth teller. Give accused people automatically a full version, so prosecutors can't edit against them. UPDATE whoops, this should be attached to the grandparent post.
- djohnston 6y ago
  The takeaway here is that while I wouldn't want that, the consequences of my dicking around on YouTube are significantly less severe than the consequences of police misconduct
- akira2501 6y ago
  It's simple. You encrypt the data. Only the DA has the key. This also prevents the police from being able to use their own footage when trying to make a statement, a benefit the public doesn't have. If the DA determines that a crime was likely committed, then they can decrypt the footage and review, otherwise it stays stored for a short period of time, then destroyed.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    This scheme assumes DAs are trustworthy, but there are a plethora of cases where DAs have protected bad cops. If only the DA can decrypt the video, that severely limits the opportunities of would-be whistle-blowers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  Cops are civil servants with power of life and death over people. Do not compare it with other jobs.
dgellow 6y ago
You may want to read the dystopian book “The circle”, that reasoning is a part of the plot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel) Spoiler: creating a public panopticon doesn’t necessarily results in a sane society
TheChaplain 6y ago
You forget that body cameras also record victims and bystanders.
- fortran77 6y ago
  And the _accused_. Those people need the most protection of all. The only category people that get any "special rights" in our Constitution are the accused. And for good reason.
phkahler 6y ago
>> All police body cam footage should be public. Even if they're busting a brothel? Or arresting drunk drivers? Or breaking up a bar fight? I get that people want transparency for "public servants" but I dont think people necessarily want transparency into regular peoples lives even if their actions are questionable. That leads to 24/7 suveilence under the poor argument of "if you have nothing to hide..."
- jmvoodoo 6y ago
  Redaction systems exist and are used for exactly this purpose. It's entirely possible to be transparent and protect citizen privacy. I work with a company that provides this type of technology for FOIA requests so I'm fairly familiar with it :)
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    How do you redact the arrest of someone who turns out to be innocent?
    - plussed_reader 6y ago
      Usually via the general fund of the locality where the video was recorded.
    - jmvoodoo 6y ago
      You remove their face and change their voice in the video. At least, when you're talking about body cam footage. You also blur license plates, addresses, etc. That's what is already being done for information requests to law enforcement. This isn't a hypothetical btw. This is actually how it happens in many jurisdictions, and some law enforcement agencies are being proactive about this and thinking through how to be more transparent without risking privacy of innocent or guilty parties (both deserve privacy).
AlexandrB 6y ago
This is trying to solve an institutional issue (police accountability) with technology. I don't think it will work and it will just normalize more surveillance. No amount of body cam footage is going to force DAs to prosecute, juries to convict, and police departments to discipline as long as a culture of circling the wagons exists. If you doubt that, look at how much footage was available of the arrest and murder of Eric Garner. And the officer responsible was still not indicted.
BurningFrog 6y ago
By this argument all government employees must wear body cams, and the archived streams should be open to public viewing. I don't think OP believes that. But it's what they said.

Jaruzel 6y ago

And if you were falsely arrested, and had the footage out there without your consent, you'd be happy for that too? It's a double edged sword I think.

gruez 6y ago
I don't think the parent comment (or anyone for that matter) is advocating for the unauthorized public release of bodycam footage. I think his point is that as public servants with extraordinary power, the public interest trumps any personal expectations of privacy while on the job. As such, the public shouldn't tolerate "but privacy!" as an excuse from police officers not to have bodycams.

tmoravec 6y ago

While I agree with the sentiment that public workers should be accountable to the tax payers, let's not forget they are still humans. Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times?

grawprog 6y ago
Fortunately, my job doesn't require me to carry firearms, detain citizens or uphold laws. Furthermore, when I was being paid by government grant money, we were accountable for every thing we did while being paid and every penny we spent. We were required to make regular reports and justify everything. It'd be nice to see even that level of accountability with policing.
emilfihlman 6y ago
If my desk was the outside and I was enforcing "laws" with possibly deadly force, I shouldn't have a say in if I like it or not: it (should) come(s) with the work.
gruez 6y ago
>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? You can always... get another job. If you don't accept the surveillance that comes with your power to inflict violence with impunity, maybe you shouldn't be given the power in the first place.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  I agree with that sentiment, however... In EU there are shows where TV crew is embedded in highway police (traffic police). They never let people off with a warning. I literally never seen it happen. And in Europe in real life you have a chance to be caught for small infraction and receive waggle of the proverbial finger of the law. So having all police live stream their cams might not only curb bad behavior of bad cops, but also good behavior of good cops.
  - gruez 6y ago
    I hear this argument a lot (ie. "body cams will eliminate/reduce police discretion"), but I always wonder, is that a bad thing? If the department policy is that everyone that goes 10mph over the limit is ticketed, and you don't get off because of your charisma (or not being a minority), is that a bad thing?
- lodovic 6y ago
  That's not a good way to deal with this. If you leave, the next guy will have the same shitty spying going on. Plus, nothing stops your next gig from spying on you as well. Until you've quit so many times that no employer is interested anymore. Better to tackle the problem at the root. No spying unless specifically defined how.
wadkar 6y ago
Well, my understanding is that there is no expectation of privacy if you’re using your employers equipment or network. I think it’s pretty clearly written on that offer letter when you sign the contract - or at least the ones I sampled. Not to mention the proliferation of CCTVs in almost all work places. So to answer your question, yeah, I fully expect my employer to record what I am doing all the time and it’s a price that unfortunately I have to pay to survive in this digital world.
- lodovic 6y ago
  Even bathroom breaks?
  - wadkar 6y ago
    I wouldn’t be surprised if they counted those as well. I don’t think they’ll go so far as installing cctv inside the bathrooms lol
krapp 6y ago
>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? I mean, many employers go as far in that direction as they legally can. See the recent thread here about "bossware."[0] However, my employer can't seize my private property, lock me or my family in a cell, torture me or simply shoot me dead in the middle of the street in broad daylight and get away with it. Police can, and do, all of those things all the time. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495
pmoriarty 6y ago
On the one hand: Police having privacy while on the job. On the other hand: Not letting police get away with torture, murder, planting evidence, lying about what happened, throwing innocent people in jail. Hmm... tough choice.
- headsupernova 6y ago
  The issue is the privacy of the people they're interacting with.
hyperman1 6y ago
That's a bad idea. A lot of policing is taking someone aside an giving them a warning, defusing a situation between angry people, etc... A camera only complicates these matters. What might be a better idea is stripping them of their privileged position. Today, if a police officer says something in court, it is automatically the truth. Take that away from the police, and let the camera be the official truth teller. Give accused people automatically a full version, so prosecutors can't edit against them. UPDATE whoops, this should be attached to the grandparent post.
djohnston 6y ago
The takeaway here is that while I wouldn't want that, the consequences of my dicking around on YouTube are significantly less severe than the consequences of police misconduct
akira2501 6y ago
It's simple. You encrypt the data. Only the DA has the key. This also prevents the police from being able to use their own footage when trying to make a statement, a benefit the public doesn't have. If the DA determines that a crime was likely committed, then they can decrypt the footage and review, otherwise it stays stored for a short period of time, then destroyed.
- catalogia 6y ago
  This scheme assumes DAs are trustworthy, but there are a plethora of cases where DAs have protected bad cops. If only the DA can decrypt the video, that severely limits the opportunities of would-be whistle-blowers.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Cops are civil servants with power of life and death over people. Do not compare it with other jobs.

dgellow 6y ago

You may want to read the dystopian book “The circle”, that reasoning is a part of the plot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel) Spoiler: creating a public panopticon doesn’t necessarily results in a sane society

TheChaplain 6y ago

You forget that body cameras also record victims and bystanders.

fortran77 6y ago
And the _accused_. Those people need the most protection of all. The only category people that get any "special rights" in our Constitution are the accused. And for good reason.

phkahler 6y ago

>> All police body cam footage should be public. Even if they're busting a brothel? Or arresting drunk drivers? Or breaking up a bar fight? I get that people want transparency for "public servants" but I dont think people necessarily want transparency into regular peoples lives even if their actions are questionable. That leads to 24/7 suveilence under the poor argument of "if you have nothing to hide..."

jmvoodoo 6y ago
Redaction systems exist and are used for exactly this purpose. It's entirely possible to be transparent and protect citizen privacy. I work with a company that provides this type of technology for FOIA requests so I'm fairly familiar with it :)
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  How do you redact the arrest of someone who turns out to be innocent?
  - plussed_reader 6y ago
    Usually via the general fund of the locality where the video was recorded.
  - jmvoodoo 6y ago
    You remove their face and change their voice in the video. At least, when you're talking about body cam footage. You also blur license plates, addresses, etc. That's what is already being done for information requests to law enforcement. This isn't a hypothetical btw. This is actually how it happens in many jurisdictions, and some law enforcement agencies are being proactive about this and thinking through how to be more transparent without risking privacy of innocent or guilty parties (both deserve privacy).

AlexandrB 6y ago

This is trying to solve an institutional issue (police accountability) with technology. I don't think it will work and it will just normalize more surveillance. No amount of body cam footage is going to force DAs to prosecute, juries to convict, and police departments to discipline as long as a culture of circling the wagons exists. If you doubt that, look at how much footage was available of the arrest and murder of Eric Garner. And the officer responsible was still not indicted.

BurningFrog 6y ago

By this argument all government employees must wear body cams, and the archived streams should be open to public viewing. I don't think OP believes that. But it's what they said.