5 ms·

This makes me really wary of ever gaining the attention of a police officer in Boston. Police car GPS tracking technology is surely coming to my state (after al

This makes me really wary of ever gaining the attention of a police officer in Boston. Police car GPS tracking technology is surely coming to my state (after all, the city buses already have it), and it will be welcome here. Minnesota peace officer vehicle dashboard camera videos are often used in investigations, including investigations of officer misconduct, and everyone expects the video to be available any time a police vehicle is involved in an interaction with the public. It has been mandatory in my state since the 1980s for all custodial interrogations by police to be videotaped from beginning to end, and the videotapes can become part of the court record any time police conduct in a case is in dispute. Law enforcement is better when law enforcement officers are subject to the law. It's really that simple. If we know what police officers are doing, we know whether or not they are doing their taxpayer-funded jobs and whether accusations against them are true or false. Every law-abiding police officer should be glad to be on record about what happened while on patrol.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- scarecrowbob 13y ago
  No. Public actors acting on the public in public should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  - Balgair 13y ago
    I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. Cops, no matter how corrupt or bad, are still people just like you and me. EDIT: I should explain myself more. Cops are people too. That we have a system that automatically prioritizes their word above all others is that problem here. Dashcams and monitoring every trip to the doughnut shop is a symptom of that. Maybe we should treat the root cause, not the symptoms. Maybe the system is in need of some TLC, not more rules and exceptions.
    - smtddr 13y ago
      >I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. As a person, sure. But as an on-duty police officer? Even a regular person working at McDonald's or Walgreens or Walmart there are cameras rolling all day.
      - Balgair 13y ago
        And why is that a justification? Should McDonalds have cameras on it's employees that the employees cannot access or gain copies of the data within?
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. I would argue the opposite. The unique powers given to cops (the ability to detain people and use violence) should come with significant hurdles to using those powers and increased oversight.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        Indeed, turning the phrase around leads to what you are referring to, and makes sense; If anything, since your privileges increase, your responsibilities should as well. The whole point of a police officer is to have individuals with extra privileges that are trusted to work for society. Without the responsibility to use these privileges as they were intended, the position has no meaning.
        Balgair 13y ago
        I agree with you, thank you.
      - Balgair 13y ago
        Ok, so then do peace officers have that responsibility? Are they the ones responsible and no-one else? Why?
  - aperrien 13y ago
    I agree, for the most part. No right of privacy on duty, but they should have a reasonable expectation of discretion. For example, if there are two officers driving a beat somewhere, and they're wearing a recording device of some sort, if they choose to discuss family matters with each other, that has no reason to make it to the public record. However, if in the middle of their conversation, they spot someone doing a purse-snatching, all of the events surrounding that crime should be available for the record. I would expect someone from the court to make the sensible decision as to what goes into the record.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I understand why your call for discretion sounds like a good idea, but the only conceivable implementation will be cops (either those cops themselves, or other employees of the police force) deciding which stuff is irrelevant personal stuff and which stuff is public record. And there's no reasons to believe that discussion of their own misconduct would ever make it to the public record.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Could you clarify for me - are you saying that monitoring of police is a good thing? You start by saying "No", but I believe monitoring police interactions with the public is a good thing?
    - scarecrowbob 13y ago
      Sorry to be unclear; the deleted parent wonders if loss of privacy for police is a yet another step in our surveillance state, to which I say, no-- it is a different class of interaction. I support general monitoring/documentation of police interactions with the public.
- anonyHN 13y ago
  Actually there are many benefits to the LEO for having their interactions recorded. The use to the organization when addressing citizen complaints and providing evidence are pretty widely acknowledged. [0] This isn't just about 'catching cops doing bad'. It is also about having more reliable evidence to use if a complaint or a situation of one person's word against another arises. The fact that it can also prove wrongdoing by a LEO should be thought of as a side benefit. [0] http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5k3IK9SZuz4%3D http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5k3IK9SZuz4...
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Absolutely. And I have had numerous situations where I have wished there was a record of what I said or did. My interactions with the public would be far easier if they were recorded. Too often there is a difference of opinion, especially when people are stressed out during interactions and miss key instructions or messages. Most recent occasion? A complaint over something that happened yesterday.
lostlogin 13y ago
>>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.<< I don't agree with this statement, however I do feel that someone who is being paid to do a job slips into a slightly different category. It's not that I feel an employer should be able to watch those on the clock, but the relationship with privacy changes. And when the employee is in a job which includes monitoring of, let alone policing of behaviour - absolutely monitoring is appropriate. How else do you resolve the he said, she said situation?
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Indeed, that statement only makes sense in a world that is maximally accepting, tolerant, forgiving, and fair-minded. That is not our world, not by a long shot.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

scarecrowbob 13y ago
No. Public actors acting on the public in public should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Balgair 13y ago
  I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. Cops, no matter how corrupt or bad, are still people just like you and me. EDIT: I should explain myself more. Cops are people too. That we have a system that automatically prioritizes their word above all others is that problem here. Dashcams and monitoring every trip to the doughnut shop is a symptom of that. Maybe we should treat the root cause, not the symptoms. Maybe the system is in need of some TLC, not more rules and exceptions.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    >I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. As a person, sure. But as an on-duty police officer? Even a regular person working at McDonald's or Walgreens or Walmart there are cameras rolling all day.
    - Balgair 13y ago
      And why is that a justification? Should McDonalds have cameras on it's employees that the employees cannot access or gain copies of the data within?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. I would argue the opposite. The unique powers given to cops (the ability to detain people and use violence) should come with significant hurdles to using those powers and increased oversight.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      Indeed, turning the phrase around leads to what you are referring to, and makes sense; If anything, since your privileges increase, your responsibilities should as well. The whole point of a police officer is to have individuals with extra privileges that are trusted to work for society. Without the responsibility to use these privileges as they were intended, the position has no meaning.
      - Balgair 13y ago
        I agree with you, thank you.
    - Balgair 13y ago
      Ok, so then do peace officers have that responsibility? Are they the ones responsible and no-one else? Why?
- aperrien 13y ago
  I agree, for the most part. No right of privacy on duty, but they should have a reasonable expectation of discretion. For example, if there are two officers driving a beat somewhere, and they're wearing a recording device of some sort, if they choose to discuss family matters with each other, that has no reason to make it to the public record. However, if in the middle of their conversation, they spot someone doing a purse-snatching, all of the events surrounding that crime should be available for the record. I would expect someone from the court to make the sensible decision as to what goes into the record.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I understand why your call for discretion sounds like a good idea, but the only conceivable implementation will be cops (either those cops themselves, or other employees of the police force) deciding which stuff is irrelevant personal stuff and which stuff is public record. And there's no reasons to believe that discussion of their own misconduct would ever make it to the public record.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Could you clarify for me - are you saying that monitoring of police is a good thing? You start by saying "No", but I believe monitoring police interactions with the public is a good thing?
  - scarecrowbob 13y ago
    Sorry to be unclear; the deleted parent wonders if loss of privacy for police is a yet another step in our surveillance state, to which I say, no-- it is a different class of interaction. I support general monitoring/documentation of police interactions with the public.
anonyHN 13y ago
Actually there are many benefits to the LEO for having their interactions recorded. The use to the organization when addressing citizen complaints and providing evidence are pretty widely acknowledged. [0] This isn't just about 'catching cops doing bad'. It is also about having more reliable evidence to use if a complaint or a situation of one person's word against another arises. The fact that it can also prove wrongdoing by a LEO should be thought of as a side benefit. [0] http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5k3IK9SZuz4%3D http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5k3IK9SZuz4...
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Absolutely. And I have had numerous situations where I have wished there was a record of what I said or did. My interactions with the public would be far easier if they were recorded. Too often there is a difference of opinion, especially when people are stressed out during interactions and miss key instructions or messages. Most recent occasion? A complaint over something that happened yesterday.

lostlogin 13y ago

>>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.<< I don't agree with this statement, however I do feel that someone who is being paid to do a job slips into a slightly different category. It's not that I feel an employer should be able to watch those on the clock, but the relationship with privacy changes. And when the employee is in a job which includes monitoring of, let alone policing of behaviour - absolutely monitoring is appropriate. How else do you resolve the he said, she said situation?

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Indeed, that statement only makes sense in a world that is maximally accepting, tolerant, forgiving, and fair-minded. That is not our world, not by a long shot.