4 ms·

We should all get real-time access to police body cams. After all they have nothing to fear if they're not doing anything wrong, right?

by abeppu 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
It's not quite that symmetric. The public having real-time access to police body cams mean that criminals also have that, which means they can see where the police are, which means they can be where the police aren't. Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. One of those is a sensible outcome; the other is not. Mind you, I'm not saying this police access is a good idea. Just that this rebuttal fails.
- babyshake 4y ago
  So a real-time feed of police body cams with a one week delay should mitigate the effects of criminals watching the feeds.
  - ejb999 4y ago
    A 'real-time feed' with a one week delay? I don't think you know what the word means.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Yes, GP does. That sentence clearly and unambiguously means unedited, continuous, and with a 1 week latency.
    - mikestew 4y ago
      "Real-time" doesn't mean "live", which might be what you're shooting for in your definition policing.
- abeppu 4y ago
  > Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. From the article: > The SFPD will also be able to access private camera footage during large-scale public events such as protests, even if there is no suspicion that a crime has taken place. They explicitly want access in cases where there hasn't been a crime. The EFF posts on this legislation also points out that this is likely to not be particularly effective in addressing crime, if the rules laid out are followed. And members of the police commission even asked for this vote to be delayed. This is not actually about stopping crime. > One of those is a sensible outcome No, the outcome which involves all the non-criminals going about their daily lives inside a panopticon is not sensible.
peter422 4y ago
Fyi I've requested body Camara footage in SF and the process was quite easy, the video was delivered quickly and I used it to win my case against the city. I know you are making a facetious point but the footage is quite available.
- rabuse 4y ago
  Until it's not, due to "lack of funds", or "COVID-19 issues".
  - autoexec 4y ago
    or "we lost it" or "camera malfunction"
raldi 4y ago
In all seriousness, the most surveilled room in the city should be the surveillance center. Perhaps on a delay, everything that happens there should be reviewable by any citizen. If something happens there that needs to be struck from the public audit record, they should be required to get sign-off from a judge or have a watchdog official summarize the incident with the minimum possible redaction.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
googlryas 4y ago
So when I'm detailing to a cop how my ex partner broke into my house and raped me, you think you have a right to that information? Cool man.

We should all get real-time access to police body cams. After all they have nothing to fear if they're not doing anything wrong, right?

by abeppu 4y ago

We should all get real-time access to police body cams. After all they have nothing to fear if they're not doing anything wrong, right?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

It's not quite that symmetric. The public having real-time access to police body cams mean that criminals also have that, which means they can see where the police are, which means they can be where the police aren't. Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. One of those is a sensible outcome; the other is not. Mind you, I'm not saying this police access is a good idea. Just that this rebuttal fails.

babyshake 4y ago
So a real-time feed of police body cams with a one week delay should mitigate the effects of criminals watching the feeds.
- ejb999 4y ago
  A 'real-time feed' with a one week delay? I don't think you know what the word means.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Yes, GP does. That sentence clearly and unambiguously means unedited, continuous, and with a 1 week latency.
  - mikestew 4y ago
    "Real-time" doesn't mean "live", which might be what you're shooting for in your definition policing.
abeppu 4y ago
> Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. From the article: > The SFPD will also be able to access private camera footage during large-scale public events such as protests, even if there is no suspicion that a crime has taken place. They explicitly want access in cases where there hasn't been a crime. The EFF posts on this legislation also points out that this is likely to not be particularly effective in addressing crime, if the rules laid out are followed. And members of the police commission even asked for this vote to be delayed. This is not actually about stopping crime. > One of those is a sensible outcome No, the outcome which involves all the non-criminals going about their daily lives inside a panopticon is not sensible.

peter422 4y ago

Fyi I've requested body Camara footage in SF and the process was quite easy, the video was delivered quickly and I used it to win my case against the city. I know you are making a facetious point but the footage is quite available.

rabuse 4y ago
Until it's not, due to "lack of funds", or "COVID-19 issues".
- autoexec 4y ago
  or "we lost it" or "camera malfunction"

raldi 4y ago

In all seriousness, the most surveilled room in the city should be the surveillance center. Perhaps on a delay, everything that happens there should be reviewable by any citizen. If something happens there that needs to be struck from the public audit record, they should be required to get sign-off from a judge or have a watchdog official summarize the incident with the minimum possible redaction.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

googlryas 4y ago

So when I'm detailing to a cop how my ex partner broke into my house and raped me, you think you have a right to that information? Cool man.