3 ms·

Sure... my point is just that the issue is more complicated than it seems to be on the face of it... Law enforcement officers end up coming into contact with e

Sure... my point is just that the issue is more complicated than it seems to be on the face of it... Law enforcement officers end up coming into contact with everyday people in very compromising positions, often through no fault of their own, and in their own homes. Like I said, I fall on the 'pro-camera' side of the debate, but there are a lot of often overlooked implications that I feel need to be part of the discussion.

sitkack 12y ago
I think you are in the weeds at this point.
- JshWright 12y ago
  Perhaps I am. I was simply trying to relate a personal experience with these cameras, and the fact that they have made me feel uncomfortable at times (for the sake of the folks I'm caring for). It seemed germane to the conversation. Maybe someday it'll be routine enough that it doesn't enter my mind. For right now, it's frankly a bit of a distraction (in situations where a distraction can literally be fatal).
  - sitkack 12y ago
    I understand that. The petitions state in intent of direction and action, I don't put much weight in specifics at this level. And in your case, there should be some exemptions for doctor patient privilege. You need the trust of the person you are serving to know how to treat them. If they mixed drugs or took a drug they didn't have a prescription for you need to know. But if they think the camera will testify against them, they won't seek the help they need. This is why there should be a federal standard about the collection of signals. I would absolutely like to know that when I see a camera on an officer that the event is being recorded and accessible during discovery later. Even if I don't know the officer in question and that the audio, video, etc won't be prevented from being archived or be altered. Cryptographic signatures and one way encryption are key in this regard. The cameras should be treated as a trusted third party, not an optional tool under the purview of the officer. There should be a public ledger that is subject to review of who requested unencrypted access to recorded signals.

sitkack 12y ago

I think you are in the weeds at this point.

JshWright 12y ago
Perhaps I am. I was simply trying to relate a personal experience with these cameras, and the fact that they have made me feel uncomfortable at times (for the sake of the folks I'm caring for). It seemed germane to the conversation. Maybe someday it'll be routine enough that it doesn't enter my mind. For right now, it's frankly a bit of a distraction (in situations where a distraction can literally be fatal).
- sitkack 12y ago
  I understand that. The petitions state in intent of direction and action, I don't put much weight in specifics at this level. And in your case, there should be some exemptions for doctor patient privilege. You need the trust of the person you are serving to know how to treat them. If they mixed drugs or took a drug they didn't have a prescription for you need to know. But if they think the camera will testify against them, they won't seek the help they need. This is why there should be a federal standard about the collection of signals. I would absolutely like to know that when I see a camera on an officer that the event is being recorded and accessible during discovery later. Even if I don't know the officer in question and that the audio, video, etc won't be prevented from being archived or be altered. Cryptographic signatures and one way encryption are key in this regard. The cameras should be treated as a trusted third party, not an optional tool under the purview of the officer. There should be a public ledger that is subject to review of who requested unencrypted access to recorded signals.