3 ms·
And once again, HN "corrects" a title to something worse. The original was something like, "Town gives police wearable cameras, sees decline in complaints and
by raldi 13y ago
And once again, HN "corrects" a title to something worse.
The original was something like, "Town gives police wearable cameras, sees decline in complaints and use of force."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- danso 13y agoI think the "corrected" title works fine, actually. The point of the article is not just that complaints declined (though that may be the point you care about the most)...the point is that even though cameras are credited for this improvement, larger (more politically known) police departments are opposing it, for various reasons. I was really surprised to see that Bloomberg opposed it. Yes, the startup cost is high, but it seems like it'd be offset by the decline in fighting lawsuits. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/nyregion/order-that-police-wear-cameras-stirs-unexpected-reactions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/nyregion/order-that-police... > But when Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled on Monday that the city’s stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional and ordered that police officers in certain precincts strap tiny cameras to their uniforms to record their dealings with the public, Mr. Bloomberg’s response was immediate and emphatic. > > “It would be a nightmare,” he said. “We can’t have your cameraman follow you around and film things without people questioning whether they deliberately chose an angle, whether they got the whole picture in.” Um, just like you can't have cops carry guns because you'll have people questioning whether they were right to shoot and kill someone? Strange reasoning from the mayor.
- eterm 13y agoThe cost argument is a spurious one too. What's the cost compared to a monthly wage or the handguns they're carrying around?
- jff 13y agoPolice handguns aren't very expensive. The Glock 17, a very popular model, is about $600 and I wouldn't be surprised if police departments get discounts.
- jlgreco 13y agoSo the cameras, apparently at $900/officer, are hardly an obscene expense. That is what, a week's worth of pay? I should hope NYC could scrap together that sort of cash.
- cobrausn 13y agoPolice handguns are cheap, and the cost argument is not only not viable, it is probably only being used because it sounds better than the alternative of 'we don't want the NYPD subject to such transparency and scrutiny from the public'.
- jlgreco 13y agoBloomberg has refered to the NYPD as his "army". His privacy objections to cameras are not his real concern.
- nateabele 13y ago> I was really surprised to see that Bloomberg opposed it. That's because Bloomberg thinks of (and has often talked about, on record) 'his' police force in explicitly militaristic terms. Accountability of any sort is seen as an impediment.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI think the "corrected" title works fine, actually. I don't come to HN for editorializing.
- adeaver 13y agoHN rules say to use the original title unless it starts with a number or has the name of the site, etc... So it's not editorializing, or if it is, the NYTimes is the one doing it.
- jrkelly 13y agoI assumed it was about CCTV cameras based on the corrected title. Wearable cameras is a much more interesting story - glad I hit the comments to figure that out.
- wutbrodo 13y agoThe original I'm seeing on NYT is "In California, a Champion for Police Cameras".