4 ms·

The problem is that most people don't consider how much of that footage has privacy implications. They deal with people very single day, they need to be able t

The problem is that most people don't consider how much of that footage has privacy implications. They deal with people very single day, they need to be able to turn those cameras off in the case of, a nude minor, a detailing of psychiatric history of a minor, etc. The problem is that giving them that ability also opens the door for them to abuse it. There is no easy/good answer here. And I'm not making excuses for them, if they're abusing it go scorched earth on them please, their position in society means they require it. But police MUST be able to turn their cameras off.

CptFribble 3y ago
I disagree, police should not be able to turn off the cameras, but the footage should NOT be public by default. Instead, the footage should be regularly audited by a vetted third party not connected to the police, police union, of families of police. The footage should of course be archived for some long period of time measured in years for use in proceedings, and audits the discover significant periods of no footage not attributable to technical malfunction should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the officer. Making allowances for the officer to decide when it's "appropriate" to turn off the camera will inevitably lead to the current situation of the cameras being not used nearly enough - only instead of "oops it was off" it will become "I used my judgement that this was a sensitive event and turned it off, whoops now no one knows who shot first"
- rekoil 3y ago
  This is my take as well. Complement it with asking the officer to try to identify periods where the video might need to be deleted to save a whole bunch of time for those working to process the data.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    It’s not at all obvious to me that any expensive or time-consuming processing of routine/boring bodycam video is needed.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  yeah, that's what we want, 3rd parties having access to SSN's, addresses, psychiatric details, etc. This all works in theory but not practice. If we were try to implement that in 20 years people would be complaining about fraud tracked down to some minimum wage worker reviewing tapes for these 3rd parties. this is why I said there's not an easy answer.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    >yeah, that's what we want, 3rd parties having access to SSN's, addresses, psychiatric details, etc. ?? This already can happen by default for a LOT of people. I work as a subcontractor for a federal contractor in healthcare, and I can see all of them if I wanted to. We just don't.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      > I work as a subcontractor for a federal contractor in healthcare, and I can see all of them if I wanted to. We just don't. I also work in healthcare, I'd like to see you make that request. edit: To draw an analogy. you may work for a credit bureau but if you start requesting records for celebrities you're not going to be working there for very long. I've _built_ the systems put in place to limit and monitor for these sorts of activities in healthcare specifically as a result of the liability it puts the company under due to federal regulation.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        Then you would know that HIPAA allows for one subset of the above, health information to be shared for treatment purposes even without patient authorization, as long as reasonably safeguarded. I'm not saying that encapsulates everything that person says. But "reasonable safeguards" absolutely include a lot of the things you say are unacceptable. I worked for a company that built claims benefits management systems, including one for SAG-AFTRA. Notably, that one, because they were about the only customer who was absolutely militant about lockdown of access to data (because it would show celebrity healthcare claims). Actually, the biggest challenge we had was from our customers wanting to do data mining that was federally illegal (like looking at familial healthcare data to determine predisposition for a covered person for a certain condition).
Aachen 3y ago
Filming nude adults is fine and not a privacy issue for those involved? If anything, most societies accept nude children (especially around bodies of water) much more readily than adults. Not sure why you're calling out children specifically: they can't give consent but, if asked, I expect that adults would rarely give consent for being filmed by the police either, even when dressed as well as one can be!
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I was trying to provide an example clear enough to be readily understood by readers, in no way, shape, or form, was I trying to imply my list was complete.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I wasn't asking if the list is complete. I was asking why this is even an example at all because I don't understand the reasoning
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I believe you do understand the implications of filming a 10 y/o nude girl.
      - Aachen 3y ago
        I believe you don't, because there are none in a normal case, such as when it's as part of your legitimate job Perhaps that's not common knowledge? It's not illegal to have pictures of nude children insofar as I know laws in various countries. What's illegal presumably everywhere is if there are sexual suggestions (or more than suggestions), which presumably would not be the case in your example Also, police has to handle these sorts of pictures for prosecution anyway. They already have certain exemptions. Even if you had been right, that could have been extended to cover these cameras while on duty
        3y ago
FireBeyond 3y ago
No, the solution there is appropriate security of footage, appropriate access control, and appropriate vetting of footage before release. But there should be little to no discretion. There are security cameras in hospital ERs (I'm a paramedic) where I absolutely assure you even outside rooms, in the open areas, people in states of undress (from MVA/trauma, etc., and us working on them) and people in behavioral crisis are a daily occurrence. Those cameras are not turned off then.
- tzs 3y ago
  How long is the footage kept, and who can get access to it?
denton-scratch 3y ago
> they need to be able to turn those cameras off in the case of, a nude minor Why? It's not a mobile phone, they can't "save the video to the cloud" - it gets downloaded when they return to the station, by the charger.

CptFribble 3y ago

I disagree, police should not be able to turn off the cameras, but the footage should NOT be public by default. Instead, the footage should be regularly audited by a vetted third party not connected to the police, police union, of families of police. The footage should of course be archived for some long period of time measured in years for use in proceedings, and audits the discover significant periods of no footage not attributable to technical malfunction should be grounds for immediate dismissal of the officer. Making allowances for the officer to decide when it's "appropriate" to turn off the camera will inevitably lead to the current situation of the cameras being not used nearly enough - only instead of "oops it was off" it will become "I used my judgement that this was a sensitive event and turned it off, whoops now no one knows who shot first"

rekoil 3y ago
This is my take as well. Complement it with asking the officer to try to identify periods where the video might need to be deleted to save a whole bunch of time for those working to process the data.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It’s not at all obvious to me that any expensive or time-consuming processing of routine/boring bodycam video is needed.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
yeah, that's what we want, 3rd parties having access to SSN's, addresses, psychiatric details, etc. This all works in theory but not practice. If we were try to implement that in 20 years people would be complaining about fraud tracked down to some minimum wage worker reviewing tapes for these 3rd parties. this is why I said there's not an easy answer.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  >yeah, that's what we want, 3rd parties having access to SSN's, addresses, psychiatric details, etc. ?? This already can happen by default for a LOT of people. I work as a subcontractor for a federal contractor in healthcare, and I can see all of them if I wanted to. We just don't.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > I work as a subcontractor for a federal contractor in healthcare, and I can see all of them if I wanted to. We just don't. I also work in healthcare, I'd like to see you make that request. edit: To draw an analogy. you may work for a credit bureau but if you start requesting records for celebrities you're not going to be working there for very long. I've _built_ the systems put in place to limit and monitor for these sorts of activities in healthcare specifically as a result of the liability it puts the company under due to federal regulation.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Then you would know that HIPAA allows for one subset of the above, health information to be shared for treatment purposes even without patient authorization, as long as reasonably safeguarded. I'm not saying that encapsulates everything that person says. But "reasonable safeguards" absolutely include a lot of the things you say are unacceptable. I worked for a company that built claims benefits management systems, including one for SAG-AFTRA. Notably, that one, because they were about the only customer who was absolutely militant about lockdown of access to data (because it would show celebrity healthcare claims). Actually, the biggest challenge we had was from our customers wanting to do data mining that was federally illegal (like looking at familial healthcare data to determine predisposition for a covered person for a certain condition).

Aachen 3y ago

Filming nude adults is fine and not a privacy issue for those involved? If anything, most societies accept nude children (especially around bodies of water) much more readily than adults. Not sure why you're calling out children specifically: they can't give consent but, if asked, I expect that adults would rarely give consent for being filmed by the police either, even when dressed as well as one can be!

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
I was trying to provide an example clear enough to be readily understood by readers, in no way, shape, or form, was I trying to imply my list was complete.
- Aachen 3y ago
  I wasn't asking if the list is complete. I was asking why this is even an example at all because I don't understand the reasoning
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I believe you do understand the implications of filming a 10 y/o nude girl.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      I believe you don't, because there are none in a normal case, such as when it's as part of your legitimate job Perhaps that's not common knowledge? It's not illegal to have pictures of nude children insofar as I know laws in various countries. What's illegal presumably everywhere is if there are sexual suggestions (or more than suggestions), which presumably would not be the case in your example Also, police has to handle these sorts of pictures for prosecution anyway. They already have certain exemptions. Even if you had been right, that could have been extended to cover these cameras while on duty
      - 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago

No, the solution there is appropriate security of footage, appropriate access control, and appropriate vetting of footage before release. But there should be little to no discretion. There are security cameras in hospital ERs (I'm a paramedic) where I absolutely assure you even outside rooms, in the open areas, people in states of undress (from MVA/trauma, etc., and us working on them) and people in behavioral crisis are a daily occurrence. Those cameras are not turned off then.

tzs 3y ago
How long is the footage kept, and who can get access to it?

denton-scratch 3y ago

> they need to be able to turn those cameras off in the case of, a nude minor Why? It's not a mobile phone, they can't "save the video to the cloud" - it gets downloaded when they return to the station, by the charger.