3 ms·

this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. the public doesn't know the full situation, they don't have police trai

this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. the public doesn't know the full situation, they don't have police training, the video might be cut or not capture everything the police saw/heard. police should be held accountable for sure, but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do.

vkou 4y ago
> this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. We empower police to harass, detain, and use deadly force against the public. This power has to be counterbalanced by accountability. If the way they use that power cannot stand up against public scrutiny, then they shouldn't have it. > but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do. We wouldn't do that if they didn't so consistently fail at doing their jobs, or at being held accountable for those failures.
Clubber 4y ago
>this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. Yes, philosophically it's different because when the police say it (nothing to hide), they are trying to violate our civil rights through trickery or whatnot. In this context, it's the citizens making sure the government actors (police) are doing what they are legally required / allowed to do. The government run by the people shouldn't be hiding anything from the people, unless it's absolutely necessary. How can a country run democratically if the voters are in the dark and can't find out what's going on?
- hdjrudni 4y ago
  They should know what's going on, but they need the full story, not just what they perceive to be happening because they don't know the suspect is on drugs, or just robbed a store, or is a violent felon. I don't know how we do that. Body cams on the police sounds good, but even that doesn't capture the full picture I think. Maybe also rotate cops partners occasionally so they don't form bad habits. Maybe a bad example, but I don't expect non-programmers to be able to review my code. I don't know how we can expect non-police to properly review police behavior unless it's outrageously wrong.

vkou 4y ago

> this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. We empower police to harass, detain, and use deadly force against the public. This power has to be counterbalanced by accountability. If the way they use that power cannot stand up against public scrutiny, then they shouldn't have it. > but we need to let them do their jobs without villainizing everything they do. We wouldn't do that if they didn't so consistently fail at doing their jobs, or at being held accountable for those failures.

Clubber 4y ago

>this is dangerously close to saying you don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide. Yes, philosophically it's different because when the police say it (nothing to hide), they are trying to violate our civil rights through trickery or whatnot. In this context, it's the citizens making sure the government actors (police) are doing what they are legally required / allowed to do. The government run by the people shouldn't be hiding anything from the people, unless it's absolutely necessary. How can a country run democratically if the voters are in the dark and can't find out what's going on?

hdjrudni 4y ago
They should know what's going on, but they need the full story, not just what they perceive to be happening because they don't know the suspect is on drugs, or just robbed a store, or is a violent felon. I don't know how we do that. Body cams on the police sounds good, but even that doesn't capture the full picture I think. Maybe also rotate cops partners occasionally so they don't form bad habits. Maybe a bad example, but I don't expect non-programmers to be able to review my code. I don't know how we can expect non-police to properly review police behavior unless it's outrageously wrong.