4 ms·

What I got from reading the article - but not the headline or the comments. - ICE is moving to start using cameras (currently not using them) so this move over

What I got from reading the article - but not the headline or the comments. - ICE is moving to start using cameras (currently not using them) so this move overall increases the amount of footage that exists and can be released. - Their stayed approach is analogous to other law enforcement approaches already in use. So the headline should be "ICE to start using body cameras". I suspect this is in general good news for ICE - most police departments that once felt "forced" to use body cameras have found that the cameras have been good for their image. Incidents that could have previously been trumpeted as an unjustified police action now have the context of what the suspect was doing just prior that justify the action. I think ICE is betting on the same and the "look what our agents have to deal with" footage may get public airplay into their favor. We'll see

altcognito 3mo ago
Yes, I too benefit from controlling the publicity, messaging, narrative and history surrounding my actions.
Freedom2 3mo ago
Agreed, I hope the moderators here editorialize this headline to try and spur more neutral discussion. It's worth waiting to see what the outcomes of this would be.
- wtfwhateven 2mo ago
  I hope the moderators here do something about the AI spambot accounts such as the above. One example is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441 There is, of course, simply no good faith rationale for demanding the HN guidelines must somehow be applied to forbid someone quoting a spokesman of the US government verbatim. Honestly quite abhorrent and dishonest to try and pressure people to not even quote what the US government says if it makes the US gov look ridiculous. The rest of the account is trivial, nonsensical quibbling about wholly honest headlines or otherwise generic affirmations. A supposed desire for "neutrality" betrayed by a thinly veiled demand for moderators to censor and punish people for merely quoting the article itself if it doesn't make their favored politicians look great, despite it being the admin's own words. Further betrayed by repeatedly suggesting moderators change headlines to be more "neutral" (but in almost every case actually suggesting a borderline dishonest, whitewashed version to make the terrible actions be as mundane and as normal as possible)

altcognito 3mo ago

Yes, I too benefit from controlling the publicity, messaging, narrative and history surrounding my actions.

Freedom2 3mo ago

Agreed, I hope the moderators here editorialize this headline to try and spur more neutral discussion. It's worth waiting to see what the outcomes of this would be.

wtfwhateven 2mo ago
I hope the moderators here do something about the AI spambot accounts such as the above. One example is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49076441 There is, of course, simply no good faith rationale for demanding the HN guidelines must somehow be applied to forbid someone quoting a spokesman of the US government verbatim. Honestly quite abhorrent and dishonest to try and pressure people to not even quote what the US government says if it makes the US gov look ridiculous. The rest of the account is trivial, nonsensical quibbling about wholly honest headlines or otherwise generic affirmations. A supposed desire for "neutrality" betrayed by a thinly veiled demand for moderators to censor and punish people for merely quoting the article itself if it doesn't make their favored politicians look great, despite it being the admin's own words. Further betrayed by repeatedly suggesting moderators change headlines to be more "neutral" (but in almost every case actually suggesting a borderline dishonest, whitewashed version to make the terrible actions be as mundane and as normal as possible)