4 ms·

Suppose that you're a father, and a policeman comes to your door to inform you of the death of your son. Do you want that video to potentially turn up in a publ

by btilly 3y ago

Suppose that you're a father, and a policeman comes to your door to inform you of the death of your son. Do you want that video to potentially turn up in a public records request? Do you trust the police IT infrastructure to be good enough that a hostile hacker can't hack the police to capture what should be a private moment for you? I'm all for a lot more monitoring of the police. But there are points I still want surveillance to stop.

throwawaysleep 3y ago
Tell people to come into the office for those things.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  That's a horrible idea. It's a much more public place than home, and "let's not talk about this here, come down to the station" is likely to be... not what some folks want to hear. Easily misconstrued.
lapetitejort 3y ago
Don't send a cop, send a grief counselor.
- tw04 3y ago
  >Don't send a cop, send a grief counselor. Are you funding every police force in the country getting a grief counselor? Not everyone lives in a big city, in many places you can count the entire precinct staff on one hand. Your alternative is "bring someone in from a different city" - which means the family will likely find out by word of mouth that their loved one is dead.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Are you funding every police force in the country getting a grief counselor? Grief counselors are paid far less than cops, so tranferring work from the latter to the former would require negative funding.
some_random 3y ago
Why does that need to be the job of a cop?
don_neufeld 3y ago
Your hypothetical is both gross and succeeds in missing the point entirely. You see, I am a father, and I have been the recipient of terrible news about my child. It was delivered by someone with the expertise to do that and the time to handle the grief and done in a very private setting. Notably, no weapons were present. No one had extraordinary powers. As a result, camera footage was entirely unnecessary in the first place. It would have been much worst to have that kind of news delivered by a police officer and it’s offensive to all parties that we do that.
- freedomben 3y ago
  You're contradicting yourself while calling GP's statement gross and missing of the point. You say that the scenario is not plausible, and then give your own story of how it was delivered, which seems consistent, but then you end with (emphasis added): > It would have been much worst to have that kind of news delivered by a police officer and it’s offensive to all parties that we do that. How can it be offensive if it's not what we do? Does it or does it not happen? And if it does happen, why is GP "gross" and "missing the point entirely" when what they said is a plausible scenario. If it doesn't happen, then what do you mean by "it's offensive to all parties that we do that"?
- btilly 3y ago
  I am glad that your terrible news was delivered well. I agree that it would be good if we stopped delivering such news via police officer. But the reality is that we DO deliver such news via police officer. And even if we stopped in this instance, we would certainly continue delivering other bad news via police officer. News like, "Your child has been arrested and is currently in jail." So we still have the problem of how to protect the privacy of civilians that the police come in contact with.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
This doesn't weigh enough at all. 1 - Like someone else said, don't send a cop for that job. 2 - Even taking the scenario as given, the two harms being weighed are widly imbalanced. The harm from having a personal moment made public does not REMOTELY compare to any example of police abuse. One can concoct scenarios for anything, and it's even true that all kinds of special scenarios do happen in reality. But the numbers and the harms are not all equal.
- btilly 3y ago
  You are making an argument for why I should be for more monitoring than we currently do. I agree with that argument, and that is why I stated that I am for more monitoring than we currently do. You aren't making an argument for the maximalist position of monitor everything, all the time, with three separate cameras. Which is the position that I'm actually arguing against. There are more than just two possible positions here. And arguing against a position that I don't hold is a straw man argument.

by btilly 3y ago

throwawaysleep 3y ago

Tell people to come into the office for those things.

ceejayoz 3y ago
That's a horrible idea. It's a much more public place than home, and "let's not talk about this here, come down to the station" is likely to be... not what some folks want to hear. Easily misconstrued.

lapetitejort 3y ago

Don't send a cop, send a grief counselor.

tw04 3y ago
>Don't send a cop, send a grief counselor. Are you funding every police force in the country getting a grief counselor? Not everyone lives in a big city, in many places you can count the entire precinct staff on one hand. Your alternative is "bring someone in from a different city" - which means the family will likely find out by word of mouth that their loved one is dead.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Are you funding every police force in the country getting a grief counselor? Grief counselors are paid far less than cops, so tranferring work from the latter to the former would require negative funding.

some_random 3y ago

Why does that need to be the job of a cop?

don_neufeld 3y ago

Your hypothetical is both gross and succeeds in missing the point entirely. You see, I am a father, and I have been the recipient of terrible news about my child. It was delivered by someone with the expertise to do that and the time to handle the grief and done in a very private setting. Notably, no weapons were present. No one had extraordinary powers. As a result, camera footage was entirely unnecessary in the first place. It would have been much worst to have that kind of news delivered by a police officer and it’s offensive to all parties that we do that.

freedomben 3y ago
You're contradicting yourself while calling GP's statement gross and missing of the point. You say that the scenario is not plausible, and then give your own story of how it was delivered, which seems consistent, but then you end with (emphasis added): > It would have been much worst to have that kind of news delivered by a police officer and it’s offensive to all parties that we do that. How can it be offensive if it's not what we do? Does it or does it not happen? And if it does happen, why is GP "gross" and "missing the point entirely" when what they said is a plausible scenario. If it doesn't happen, then what do you mean by "it's offensive to all parties that we do that"?
btilly 3y ago
I am glad that your terrible news was delivered well. I agree that it would be good if we stopped delivering such news via police officer. But the reality is that we DO deliver such news via police officer. And even if we stopped in this instance, we would certainly continue delivering other bad news via police officer. News like, "Your child has been arrested and is currently in jail." So we still have the problem of how to protect the privacy of civilians that the police come in contact with.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

This doesn't weigh enough at all. 1 - Like someone else said, don't send a cop for that job. 2 - Even taking the scenario as given, the two harms being weighed are widly imbalanced. The harm from having a personal moment made public does not REMOTELY compare to any example of police abuse. One can concoct scenarios for anything, and it's even true that all kinds of special scenarios do happen in reality. But the numbers and the harms are not all equal.

btilly 3y ago
You are making an argument for why I should be for more monitoring than we currently do. I agree with that argument, and that is why I stated that I am for more monitoring than we currently do. You aren't making an argument for the maximalist position of monitor everything, all the time, with three separate cameras. Which is the position that I'm actually arguing against. There are more than just two possible positions here. And arguing against a position that I don't hold is a straw man argument.