2 ms·
This isn't simply police surveillance; this is citizen surveillance using a common technology, and the citizens are voluntarily offering information to the poli
by threatofrain 6y ago
This isn't simply police surveillance; this is citizen surveillance using a common technology, and the citizens are voluntarily offering information to the police. They could've just as easily uploaded it to YouTube.
- mywittyname 6y agoSomething can be technically legal but also have a devastating effect on civil liberties. There's a lot more information available here than would be on, for example YouTube. The most salient is that YouTube lacks timestamping. So a video pulled from YT might not be credible evidence because there's no way to prove when the video was recorded. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine where a video was recorded. My contrast, Ring contains all of the metadata necessary for video evidence to be admissible in court. There's all the who/what/when/where information along with chain of custody guarantees.
- threatofrain 6y agoI wasn't focusing on what's technically illegal. I just don't want the conversation mixing up police with citizen surveillance. The admissibility of evidence in court sounds like an issue related to minor details in the implementation of recording technology at the user end. But the final link that is really impactful is when citizens cooperate with police.