4 ms·

I disagree, ethically it is not only fully appropriate but also mandatory to post everything that said cameras contain.

GTP 6y ago
What would have we lost if he burred the faces?
VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
Body camera footage has to be reviewed and made public if appropriate. But not all body camera footage should be made public. To protect the rights and privacy of the innocent.
- xfitm3 6y ago
  It's this exact mechanism that allows police to bury mistakes. Rarely are the innocent truly protected.
  - jayrice257 6y ago
    Then how do you know if it's rare?
  - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
    not really
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Yes, really. There have been countless cases where the police "accidently" "lost" footage critical to a case.
      - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
        Most police body camera footage should never be made public. People have a right to privacy. You don't lose that right just because you had an encounter with a police officer that was filming you.
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        I think that loss of bodycam footage should be treated equivalently to discharge of a police weapon, with the officer assigned to desk duty until forensic analysis by an independent third party can confirm that the loss was caused intentionally.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    I agree that this 'review' mechanism allows police to bury mistakes when the review process is operated by a captive body, such as the police or their union. Correcting that process to independent review is an essential step. I personally think that the review process should instead follow the jury duty process, where citizens are selected at random from the population to review police footage, but I would accept an independent review board as long as less than one third of the members are political appointees.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  Leaking the footage to the buyer as in the link is the same as making it public.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    This logic does not follow. If some third-party data leak results in my social security number being published, does that mean it is now ethical for a researcher studying that data leak to post my social security number without redaction? This is not a contrived example: Equifax was, apparently, compromised in full, which means that all American social security numbers issued prior to that compromise can safely be considered 'leaked'. The logic follows that I should be permitted to post anyone's social security number for any reason at all, without regard for the ethics of doing so, because "it's been made public" and therefore all ethical concerns are void. I disagree with this premise. Context of disclosure matters, even if the information has been previously disclosed. Ethical considerations apply regardless of previous disclosure. One disclosure of personal data does not negate the ethical considerations around that same disclosing personal data, even if it has been made public at any point previously. This approach ends up supporting doxxing — where 'public' information is used unethically to target individuals for harassment.
floatingatoll 6y ago
I'm having trouble grasping what common good you see coming from your proposal. I would accept "independent review board chosen from the jury duty pool must review all bodycam fotage", but your position as you represent it is far too easy to abuse. By this logic, if the police break into your house while you're having an affair, you have no right to deny them publication of it immediately to a public website. There is tremendous potential for abuse here. For example, corrupt cops would immediately begin 'accidentally' (wink, wink) recording bodycam footage while 'not on duty' (wink, wink) when paid to by their buyers, or whenever someone is naked, since publication would be automatic and they would be immune to prosecution for their corrupt and abusive actions. From a societal injustice standpoint, it would be an extremely effective way for abusive police to enforce white male privilege upon citizens (in the same way that doxxing does). If you aren't white and male, you're at a much higher risk of being killed or driven to suicide by this "publish everything" approach capturing some behavior that abusive people can use to justify attacking you. If you are white and male, you can just shrug it off and other white men (the most likely attackers in this scenario) will give you a pass so they can get away with it too. Statistically, significantly fewer white men will suffer as a result relative to other subgroups. If you're able to see a way forward that does not have a high risk of doing damage to US society (including to people other than white men), please share it.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  The policemen can talk about what they saw, the jury can talk about what they saw, the violation of privacy happens the moment that the police walk into your house. If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either. > By this logic ... No, not really. The point of this is to establish a form of full disclosure - this is also my position about disclosing vulnerabilities. It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly. I do not see how what you said follows from what I said. > while 'not on duty' They can just use normal cameras then.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    > If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either. The possibility of jurors disclosing sealed evidence does not negate the importance of the jury process, or of sealing evidence from public disclosure. It is still valuable to take these steps, even if fewer than 100% of participants adhere to the rules. > It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly. I disagree. If medical records are leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If criminal records are sealed and then leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If the home address and work phone number of every citizen is leaked, that should not be treated as "public and uncensored". The public does not need comprehensive access to the data that was leaked in order to grasp "the full extent of data leakage". It is absolutely essential that a dependable third party review that data set — I trust HaveIBeenPwned, and I mostly trust press reporters — but their summary is generally quite sufficient without having them republish all of that data for anyone to review. > They can just use normal cameras then. Per your statement, bodycam footage should be disclosed publicly regardless of content, which would require legal protections against anyone suing to have footage taken down. Use of normal cameras would not provide such legal protections. This is not a valid equivalence to consider.

GTP 6y ago

What would have we lost if he burred the faces?

Body camera footage has to be reviewed and made public if appropriate. But not all body camera footage should be made public. To protect the rights and privacy of the innocent.

xfitm3 6y ago
It's this exact mechanism that allows police to bury mistakes. Rarely are the innocent truly protected.
- jayrice257 6y ago
  Then how do you know if it's rare?
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  not really
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Yes, really. There have been countless cases where the police "accidently" "lost" footage critical to a case.
    - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
      Most police body camera footage should never be made public. People have a right to privacy. You don't lose that right just because you had an encounter with a police officer that was filming you.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      I think that loss of bodycam footage should be treated equivalently to discharge of a police weapon, with the officer assigned to desk duty until forensic analysis by an independent third party can confirm that the loss was caused intentionally.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  I agree that this 'review' mechanism allows police to bury mistakes when the review process is operated by a captive body, such as the police or their union. Correcting that process to independent review is an essential step. I personally think that the review process should instead follow the jury duty process, where citizens are selected at random from the population to review police footage, but I would accept an independent review board as long as less than one third of the members are political appointees.
dependenttypes 6y ago
Leaking the footage to the buyer as in the link is the same as making it public.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  This logic does not follow. If some third-party data leak results in my social security number being published, does that mean it is now ethical for a researcher studying that data leak to post my social security number without redaction? This is not a contrived example: Equifax was, apparently, compromised in full, which means that all American social security numbers issued prior to that compromise can safely be considered 'leaked'. The logic follows that I should be permitted to post anyone's social security number for any reason at all, without regard for the ethics of doing so, because "it's been made public" and therefore all ethical concerns are void. I disagree with this premise. Context of disclosure matters, even if the information has been previously disclosed. Ethical considerations apply regardless of previous disclosure. One disclosure of personal data does not negate the ethical considerations around that same disclosing personal data, even if it has been made public at any point previously. This approach ends up supporting doxxing — where 'public' information is used unethically to target individuals for harassment.

floatingatoll 6y ago

I'm having trouble grasping what common good you see coming from your proposal. I would accept "independent review board chosen from the jury duty pool must review all bodycam fotage", but your position as you represent it is far too easy to abuse. By this logic, if the police break into your house while you're having an affair, you have no right to deny them publication of it immediately to a public website. There is tremendous potential for abuse here. For example, corrupt cops would immediately begin 'accidentally' (wink, wink) recording bodycam footage while 'not on duty' (wink, wink) when paid to by their buyers, or whenever someone is naked, since publication would be automatic and they would be immune to prosecution for their corrupt and abusive actions. From a societal injustice standpoint, it would be an extremely effective way for abusive police to enforce white male privilege upon citizens (in the same way that doxxing does). If you aren't white and male, you're at a much higher risk of being killed or driven to suicide by this "publish everything" approach capturing some behavior that abusive people can use to justify attacking you. If you are white and male, you can just shrug it off and other white men (the most likely attackers in this scenario) will give you a pass so they can get away with it too. Statistically, significantly fewer white men will suffer as a result relative to other subgroups. If you're able to see a way forward that does not have a high risk of doing damage to US society (including to people other than white men), please share it.

dependenttypes 6y ago
The policemen can talk about what they saw, the jury can talk about what they saw, the violation of privacy happens the moment that the police walk into your house. If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either. > By this logic ... No, not really. The point of this is to establish a form of full disclosure - this is also my position about disclosing vulnerabilities. It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly. I do not see how what you said follows from what I said. > while 'not on duty' They can just use normal cameras then.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  > If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either. The possibility of jurors disclosing sealed evidence does not negate the importance of the jury process, or of sealing evidence from public disclosure. It is still valuable to take these steps, even if fewer than 100% of participants adhere to the rules. > It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly. I disagree. If medical records are leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If criminal records are sealed and then leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If the home address and work phone number of every citizen is leaked, that should not be treated as "public and uncensored". The public does not need comprehensive access to the data that was leaked in order to grasp "the full extent of data leakage". It is absolutely essential that a dependable third party review that data set — I trust HaveIBeenPwned, and I mostly trust press reporters — but their summary is generally quite sufficient without having them republish all of that data for anyone to review. > They can just use normal cameras then. Per your statement, bodycam footage should be disclosed publicly regardless of content, which would require legal protections against anyone suing to have footage taken down. Use of normal cameras would not provide such legal protections. This is not a valid equivalence to consider.