6 ms·

The SF Fire Chief needs to be invited to find a new job. All public servants should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their interacti

by thrill 13y ago

The SF Fire Chief needs to be invited to find a new job. All public servants should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their interactions with the public. If the recordings are inappropriate for public release then that's a different matter than trying to prevent their valuable existence.

sbarre 13y ago
Her excuse that it "protects privacy" is not only ridiculous, it's insulting (that they think people will buy it). I feel that this happens more and more, where leaders and elected officials will present completely transparent bold-faced lies to the public, with a straight face, when everyone involved (the speaker and the audience) knows it to be a lie, but because there is no practical or legal way to disprove the lie, it is presented anyways.. Whatever happened to integrity?
- groby_b 13y ago
  Whatever happened to integrity? Do you really think it just recently vanished? To quote from Machiavelli's Il Principe, from the 1500's: "The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present." Want to go earlier? Let's get Julius Caesar: “If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.” And I'm sure he wasn't the first one to say or think so, either. Integrity is not a quality we can ever assume in existence - the only thing that will guarantee a semblance of it is accountability.
  - chernevik 13y ago
    Too cynical, and perhaps dangerously so, yet plausible. Everyone is subject to temptation and self-justification. Anyone given too large a pass for "integrity" will start to veer to self-aggrandizement of some sort. That doesn't make people inherently bad, it does mean we all benefit from perspective and inspection. To me the take-away is that an assertion of incorruptibility is a leading indicator of trouble. Anything you aren't allowed to question or discuss is a breeding ground for trouble.
    - groby_b 13y ago
      I'd be cynical if I assumed integrity didn't exist. Some people seem to have it, and many more strive for it. But I'd be hopelessly naive if I ever assumed it to exist, or if I assumed public displays of "integrity" were connected to an internal state. These latter assumptions might be true, but the cost of them being not true is too high, and the occurrence of "not true" is too frequent. Or, shorter, "Trust, but verify" :)
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > Whatever happened to integrity? That's a really good question. I think the answer is partly that it was never there to begin with, just a thin veneer to cover the filth underneath. The difference is that there is now not even a pretence at integrity any more.
  - raldi 13y ago
    No, the difference is that we now have the Internet, which serves as a safe place to point these things out and spread the word. In the past, it was a lot easier to sweep it under the rug.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I seriously encourage you to watch this documentary: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ken_Burns_Prohibition/70199184?locale=en-US http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ken_Burns_Prohibition/7019.... The veneer used to be a lot thinner.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - raldi 13y ago
        I think you have this thread confused with some other thread.
        jacquesm 13y ago
        Hehe, oops. Thank you, have an upvote.
- DrewRWx 13y ago
  In this case, privacy could be a concern. If an officer is wearing a body camera during a search, suddenly there's a permanent record of the inside of your home and plenty more opportunity to spot unrelated crimes to hold against you.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Searches generally include extensive photography and video recording anyway, I don't think much would change in that regard.
    - DrewRWx 13y ago
      I was thinking more of the barge-down-the-door-without-a-warrant sort of search. I'm overly sensitive to it because I live in a college town with a 4th amendment violating county ordinance. If the police suspect underage drinking, they can enter the premises and arrest occupants for any other violations they see.
raldi 13y ago
Exactly. If privacy is the true concern, the solution is to forbid the unofficial mass release of helmet-cam footage, and set up specific exceptions: to expose wrongdoing, when subpoenaed by a judge, etc.
RyJones 13y ago
In the recent "I am a Seattle cop, AMA" over in /r/seattle, the officer said: "I'm torn on body cameras and confused about the public perception of them. People really didn't want us to have a drone that could fly for 10 minutes but they want us to bring cameras into their homes." [1] I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought of it that way. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_officer_amaa/cbgxabt http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...
- karlshea 13y ago
  I didn't think of it that way either, and I agree that it's a good point. I think the difference is that the drone is more of a mass-surveillance device where the individual cameras aren't (quite as much). A good analogue might be a police dash camera versus car-mounted license plate readers. They are similar but meant for very different uses.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  I don't want police officers in my home. However if police officers do come into my home then I absolutely want them to have a body camera so they can be held responsible for any actions they take.
  - RyJones 13y ago
    I agree on the first claim, but to the second, it is a two-edged sword. If the police are in your home, they may or may not see anything interesting. If they have video to play back, they may get a second chance to look for something that they wouldn't have had. I don't deny the benefit we seek, but there are risks, as well.
    - mayanksinghal 13y ago
      But shouldn't it be the case that if police is given a search warrant, we (as people, in general) want them to notice anything and everything there is to notice? This is also something I would reply to your sibling comment as well, I think many would prefer a footage of their state instead of a description of it from a police officer who might be confused/distracted/filling-up-the-gaps. It is both more objective and more just. Jury should be allowed to see as it was and not just as it is displayed during the trial.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zensavona 13y ago
Please see this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235004 (JshWright's comment, buried down in the comments) The camera was a personal camera (Like a GoPro), not an officially provided one. I think this completely validates the fire chief's actions.
JshWright 13y ago
> All public servants should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their interactions with the public. That would become extremely complicated when you consider the fact that vast majority of interactions firefighters and paramedics have are considered protected health information under HIPAA

by thrill 13y ago

sbarre 13y ago

Her excuse that it "protects privacy" is not only ridiculous, it's insulting (that they think people will buy it). I feel that this happens more and more, where leaders and elected officials will present completely transparent bold-faced lies to the public, with a straight face, when everyone involved (the speaker and the audience) knows it to be a lie, but because there is no practical or legal way to disprove the lie, it is presented anyways.. Whatever happened to integrity?

groby_b 13y ago
Whatever happened to integrity? Do you really think it just recently vanished? To quote from Machiavelli's Il Principe, from the 1500's: "The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present." Want to go earlier? Let's get Julius Caesar: “If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.” And I'm sure he wasn't the first one to say or think so, either. Integrity is not a quality we can ever assume in existence - the only thing that will guarantee a semblance of it is accountability.
- chernevik 13y ago
  Too cynical, and perhaps dangerously so, yet plausible. Everyone is subject to temptation and self-justification. Anyone given too large a pass for "integrity" will start to veer to self-aggrandizement of some sort. That doesn't make people inherently bad, it does mean we all benefit from perspective and inspection. To me the take-away is that an assertion of incorruptibility is a leading indicator of trouble. Anything you aren't allowed to question or discuss is a breeding ground for trouble.
  - groby_b 13y ago
    I'd be cynical if I assumed integrity didn't exist. Some people seem to have it, and many more strive for it. But I'd be hopelessly naive if I ever assumed it to exist, or if I assumed public displays of "integrity" were connected to an internal state. These latter assumptions might be true, but the cost of them being not true is too high, and the occurrence of "not true" is too frequent. Or, shorter, "Trust, but verify" :)
jacquesm 13y ago
> Whatever happened to integrity? That's a really good question. I think the answer is partly that it was never there to begin with, just a thin veneer to cover the filth underneath. The difference is that there is now not even a pretence at integrity any more.
- raldi 13y ago
  No, the difference is that we now have the Internet, which serves as a safe place to point these things out and spread the word. In the past, it was a lot easier to sweep it under the rug.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I seriously encourage you to watch this documentary: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ken_Burns_Prohibition/70199184?locale=en-US http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ken_Burns_Prohibition/7019.... The veneer used to be a lot thinner.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - raldi 13y ago
      I think you have this thread confused with some other thread.
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        Hehe, oops. Thank you, have an upvote.
DrewRWx 13y ago
In this case, privacy could be a concern. If an officer is wearing a body camera during a search, suddenly there's a permanent record of the inside of your home and plenty more opportunity to spot unrelated crimes to hold against you.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Searches generally include extensive photography and video recording anyway, I don't think much would change in that regard.
  - DrewRWx 13y ago
    I was thinking more of the barge-down-the-door-without-a-warrant sort of search. I'm overly sensitive to it because I live in a college town with a 4th amendment violating county ordinance. If the police suspect underage drinking, they can enter the premises and arrest occupants for any other violations they see.

raldi 13y ago

Exactly. If privacy is the true concern, the solution is to forbid the unofficial mass release of helmet-cam footage, and set up specific exceptions: to expose wrongdoing, when subpoenaed by a judge, etc.

RyJones 13y ago

In the recent "I am a Seattle cop, AMA" over in /r/seattle, the officer said: "I'm torn on body cameras and confused about the public perception of them. People really didn't want us to have a drone that could fly for 10 minutes but they want us to bring cameras into their homes." [1] I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought of it that way. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_officer_amaa/cbgxabt http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...

karlshea 13y ago
I didn't think of it that way either, and I agree that it's a good point. I think the difference is that the drone is more of a mass-surveillance device where the individual cameras aren't (quite as much). A good analogue might be a police dash camera versus car-mounted license plate readers. They are similar but meant for very different uses.
forrestthewoods 13y ago
I don't want police officers in my home. However if police officers do come into my home then I absolutely want them to have a body camera so they can be held responsible for any actions they take.
- RyJones 13y ago
  I agree on the first claim, but to the second, it is a two-edged sword. If the police are in your home, they may or may not see anything interesting. If they have video to play back, they may get a second chance to look for something that they wouldn't have had. I don't deny the benefit we seek, but there are risks, as well.
  - mayanksinghal 13y ago
    But shouldn't it be the case that if police is given a search warrant, we (as people, in general) want them to notice anything and everything there is to notice? This is also something I would reply to your sibling comment as well, I think many would prefer a footage of their state instead of a description of it from a police officer who might be confused/distracted/filling-up-the-gaps. It is both more objective and more just. Jury should be allowed to see as it was and not just as it is displayed during the trial.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zensavona 13y ago

Please see this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235004 (JshWright's comment, buried down in the comments) The camera was a personal camera (Like a GoPro), not an officially provided one. I think this completely validates the fire chief's actions.

JshWright 13y ago

> All public servants should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their interactions with the public. That would become extremely complicated when you consider the fact that vast majority of interactions firefighters and paramedics have are considered protected health information under HIPAA