4 ms·

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?
- cam_l 13y ago
  "a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities" I don't actually think that privileges bear any relationship to rights or responsibilities. If you had suggested that their rights increase in line with their responsibilities, that is something I could get behind. The question is what the recordings are used for. If they were automatically backed up and stored out of police hands - only to be used in the event of a court case. If the additional responsibility of being constantly recorded was attached to the right for that recording to be used only in court - this would be reasonable. If they are going to look at the recordings as part of, say, performance reviews.. not so good.
  - Balgair 13y ago
    What if google wants to use their videos as part of real-time traffic? In such a case, shouldn't public servant's data, no matter the cause of the service, be allowed to be used for public good? What about when a cop makes a friendly but racist joke at a co-worker or friend? Should that be allowed? What about when the officers are having a fight with their boyfriends or in-laws. Just because the fight is occurring 'on-duty' doesn't mean that they can avoid it nor does it mean that they loose the right to have an argument with loved ones privately. Also, privileges are part of responsibilities. With further responsibilities come further privileges. Higher ranks in the military are saluted because of their increased duties, they also gain a better mess hall and other privileges as rank improves. Outside of the military, a driver's license is a good example. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to maintain safety for your vehicle. The responsibilities of a US citizen are to serve if drafted, to be educated, to serve on juries, to respect the law, to pay your fair share of the taxes, to respect the authority of the government, and to respect the differing opinions of other citizens. With this you gain many rights and privileges that are afforded to you that many people in other countries do not have.
    - cam_l 13y ago
      First off, thanks for replying. I don't really understand where you were going with your first paragraph. My point was there should be a damn good reason, and damn good protections, for the use of public data if it has the potential to transgress into the private boundaries of public servants. I think the additional potential for abuse of position in public service roles certainly forfeits some expectations of privacy. But do not see the public utility in allowing that kind of open data.. if you mean to point out that such a system will be abused, then I fully agree. My greater point, and the reason I posted, is exactly the opposite of your second paragraph. People often confuse privileges with rights, but they are simply something conferred on you by another. It is not like rights or responsibilities which tend toward a sort of universal human condition. They are given quid pro quo. Just because it may be given in response to exercising your responsibilities, does not mean it has anything whatsoever to do with them. Also, a driver's license is an interesting example. I generally think I have a right to do whatever the fuck I want as a human, provided I do no harm to others. Theoretically, it is not a privilege the state gives me. A drivers license is a social pact and further, a recognition that I take my responsibilities seriously. In reality, the state has taken away my right to drive, by threat of punishment, and given it back to me as privilege. Power games.. This sort of subtle manipulation of power and privilege makes me think that perhaps privilege is fundamentally morally wrong. Though probably unavoidable, they have a way of corrupting, both those who think they have a right to the power and those who think they have a right to the privilege.
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.

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?
cam_l 13y ago
"a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities" I don't actually think that privileges bear any relationship to rights or responsibilities. If you had suggested that their rights increase in line with their responsibilities, that is something I could get behind. The question is what the recordings are used for. If they were automatically backed up and stored out of police hands - only to be used in the event of a court case. If the additional responsibility of being constantly recorded was attached to the right for that recording to be used only in court - this would be reasonable. If they are going to look at the recordings as part of, say, performance reviews.. not so good.
- Balgair 13y ago
  What if google wants to use their videos as part of real-time traffic? In such a case, shouldn't public servant's data, no matter the cause of the service, be allowed to be used for public good? What about when a cop makes a friendly but racist joke at a co-worker or friend? Should that be allowed? What about when the officers are having a fight with their boyfriends or in-laws. Just because the fight is occurring 'on-duty' doesn't mean that they can avoid it nor does it mean that they loose the right to have an argument with loved ones privately. Also, privileges are part of responsibilities. With further responsibilities come further privileges. Higher ranks in the military are saluted because of their increased duties, they also gain a better mess hall and other privileges as rank improves. Outside of the military, a driver's license is a good example. With the privilege of driving comes the responsibility to maintain safety for your vehicle. The responsibilities of a US citizen are to serve if drafted, to be educated, to serve on juries, to respect the law, to pay your fair share of the taxes, to respect the authority of the government, and to respect the differing opinions of other citizens. With this you gain many rights and privileges that are afforded to you that many people in other countries do not have.
  - cam_l 13y ago
    First off, thanks for replying. I don't really understand where you were going with your first paragraph. My point was there should be a damn good reason, and damn good protections, for the use of public data if it has the potential to transgress into the private boundaries of public servants. I think the additional potential for abuse of position in public service roles certainly forfeits some expectations of privacy. But do not see the public utility in allowing that kind of open data.. if you mean to point out that such a system will be abused, then I fully agree. My greater point, and the reason I posted, is exactly the opposite of your second paragraph. People often confuse privileges with rights, but they are simply something conferred on you by another. It is not like rights or responsibilities which tend toward a sort of universal human condition. They are given quid pro quo. Just because it may be given in response to exercising your responsibilities, does not mean it has anything whatsoever to do with them. Also, a driver's license is an interesting example. I generally think I have a right to do whatever the fuck I want as a human, provided I do no harm to others. Theoretically, it is not a privilege the state gives me. A drivers license is a social pact and further, a recognition that I take my responsibilities seriously. In reality, the state has taken away my right to drive, by threat of punishment, and given it back to me as privilege. Power games.. This sort of subtle manipulation of power and privilege makes me think that perhaps privilege is fundamentally morally wrong. Though probably unavoidable, they have a way of corrupting, both those who think they have a right to the power and those who think they have a right to the privilege.

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.