3 ms·

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 ho

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.

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.