• Rushed body cameras faces its first privacy victim: Minnesota.
    24 replies, posted
[quote]The city recently asked the state to temporarily classify some police video as private until the Minnesota Legislature can address the issue. The request listed several categories of concern, including mental health crises and domestic assault responses. The state denied that request. Stacie Christensen is director of the Information Policy Analysis Division in the state Department of Administration. She tells WDIO-TV anything that takes place in a home would be public, if there wasn't an active investigation.[/quote] [url]http://www.kare11.com/story/news/local/2014/12/30/duluth-wants-some-police-camera-footage-kept-private/21046493/[/url]
Does privacy even matter anymore? I remember when Bush was in office and a vocal minority of dems and repubs were going apeshit about how he was eroding our right to privacy, which was met with a deafening, "meh" from everyone else. Every time something new was taken away all I can remember hearing is "meh, as long as it protects us". Now bodycams on cops are being introduced and all I can think is, "meh, it's there to protect us". I used to be one of the people crying about how important privacy is, now I can't decide if I was being unrealistically idealistic in the past, or if I'm being apathetic about the erosion of our rights now.
This is just another chapter in authorities overcompensating for past mistakes. It was worrying how little privacy concerns were mentioned when Obama announced they were being funded nationwide.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;46824818]This is just another chapter in authorities overcompensating for past mistakes. It was worrying how little privacy concerns were mentioned when Obama announced they were being funded nationwide.[/QUOTE] Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'm a huge fan of body cameras for police, but even I don't think every second they record should be a matter of public record that is available at the whim of any jackass. I even feel for the cop's right to privacy, not just the people they interact with. Having every second of your workday recorded and put on the internet for anyone's perusal is more than any person in ANY profession should have to submit to. Even the ones paid by the taxpayers. IMO, the footage should be stored on a secure server (or, at least, as secure as reasonably possible) and available only through FOIA requests and attorneys of relevant parties. At least then, if the footage gets misused, there is a clear paper trail.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46825425]I'm a huge fan of body cameras for police, but even I don't think every second they record should be a matter of public record that is available at the whim of any jackass. I even feel for the cop's right to privacy, not just the people they interact with. Having every second of your workday recorded and put on the internet for anyone's perusal is more than any person in ANY profession should have to submit to. Even the ones paid by the taxpayers. IMO, the footage should be stored on a secure server (or, at least, as secure as reasonably possible) and available only through FOIA requests and attorneys of relevant parties. At least then, if the footage gets misused, there is a clear paper trail.[/QUOTE] The problem is that FOIA requests are shot down so easily
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46825425]I'm a huge fan of body cameras for police, but even I don't think every second they record should be a matter of public record that is available at the whim of any jackass. I even feel for the cop's right to privacy, not just the people they interact with. Having every second of your workday recorded and put on the internet for anyone's perusal is more than any person in ANY profession should have to submit to. Even the ones paid by the taxpayers. IMO, the footage should be stored on a secure server (or, at least, as secure as reasonably possible) and available only through FOIA requests and attorneys of relevant parties. At least then, if the footage gets misused, there is a clear paper trail.[/QUOTE] Footage should be stored in independent servers, to avoid any attempt at tampering, and should [B]only[/B] be reviewed if the officer uses deadly force on a suspect. They should [B]never[/B] be released to the public inmediately.
Don't have modern cameras face detection software? Why not making those cameras blurry a face when they are recording a public area?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46615019]There's also the bonus fact that officers entering a home for any reason, even if to meet with the homeowner to talk about neighborhood issues, would get footage of the house's interior, what is in it, and the kind of people that live there. I find it odd that people go apeshit if you mention CCTV Cameras, but are happy with the idea of Bodycams. CCTV cameras can't move around town and go in people's houses, and many don't even have sound.[/QUOTE] So pretty much what I said before, these cams are putting people's privacy at risk. Who exactly gets access to the video? I'm really hoping that 'not private' doesn't mean 'public', because the only thing worse than the State being able to review footage of my home on a whim, is any member of the public being able to do the same.
[QUOTE=Axsisel;46825656]Don't have modern cameras face detection software? Why not making those cameras blurry a face when they are recording a public area?[/QUOTE] Evidence tampering, would be thrown out in court due to it and thus remove its usefulness? Surveillance cameras do not normally have face blurring, as that would be counterproductive to their purpose of identifying a potential criminal.
If a police officer is going anywhere where you have an absolute right to privacy (i.e., not in a public place) then whatever is going to happen next is already going on file. I think a small increase in the amount of privacy lost is well worth having the ability to hold police accountable and have more reliable on-the-scene evidence for court cases.
[QUOTE=Axsisel;46825656]Don't have modern cameras face detection software? Why not making those cameras blurry a face when they are recording a public area?[/QUOTE] I'm confused on how this is relevant at all to the article, but to put it bluntly: You have no expectation of privacy in public. No one's face is going to be blurred.
[QUOTE=T553412;46825576]Footage should be stored in independent servers, to avoid any attempt at tampering, and should [B]only[/B] be reviewed if the officer uses deadly force on a suspect. They should [B]never[/B] be released to the public inmediately.[/QUOTE] That's kinda black-and-white. I think that the video should be able to be reviewed by an arrested individual via FOIA, to see if there has been documented officer misconduct (not necessarily on the level of inappropriate use of deadly force). This is how dashcam footage already works.
You know, in this day and age of tiny cameras, why not just attach one to any firearm/launched-taser to take a picture as the trigger is being pulled? Sure, it's macabre, but it serves as point of reference. Obviously this information should only be used in investigations and should not be released to the public due to it's nature. Oh hey, it was, found what I was thinking about. [t]http://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/540570/original/guncamera.jpg=s900x1300[/t] Circa 1930s. It never caught on, but apparently a similar system was tried (again) on tasers recently and worked out fine.
Yeap, that could be better. Plus with technology nowadays, a small non-obtrusive camera can be easily built
[QUOTE=Doom14;46825990]You know, in this day and age of tiny cameras, why not just attach one to any firearm/launched-taser to take a picture as the trigger is being pulled? Sure, it's macabre, but it serves as point of reference. Obviously this information should only be used in investigations and should not be released to the public due to it's nature. Oh hey, it was, found what I was thinking about. [t]http://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/540570/original/guncamera.jpg=s900x1300[/t] Circa 1930s. It never caught on, but apparently a similar system was tried (again) on tasers recently and worked out fine.[/QUOTE] A gun camera gives 0 context. You just get the moment of firing, not what precipitated the firing
Honestly I've been [B]the[/B] bitch when it comes to privacy issues. The bitch as in having the mindset of "If I have nothing to hide then I have nothing to fear"
[QUOTE=Doom14;46825990]You know, in this day and age of tiny cameras, why not just attach one to any firearm/launched-taser to take a picture as the trigger is being pulled? Sure, it's macabre, but it serves as point of reference. Obviously this information should only be used in investigations and should not be released to the public due to it's nature. Oh hey, it was, found what I was thinking about. [t]http://assets.goodstatic.com/s3/magazine/assets/540570/original/guncamera.jpg=s900x1300[/t] Circa 1930s. It never caught on, but apparently a similar system was tried (again) on tasers recently and worked out fine.[/QUOTE] muzzle flash.... they never could compensate for it
[QUOTE=paindoc;46826274]A gun camera gives 0 context. You just get the moment of firing, not what precipitated the firing[/QUOTE] It certainly shows whether the suspect was armed or not, whether or not they were running away or actively charging the officer. I feel, if body cameras are not accepted, that it is better than hearsay. Furthermore, it does not have to be tied in with the trigger. You could have it be a video camera that activates and records any time the firearm is drawn from it's holster. I don't really see why it's a dumb idea; beyond the fact that the people who are in a tizzy over bodycams would find reason to argue with this too. [QUOTE=Sableye;46826330]muzzle flash.... they never could compensate for it[/QUOTE] Uh, triggers can have many more stages than "fire / not fire." Not only did they have it presumably have it worked out back then, but it's an extremely easy thing to fix. People figured out how to shoot through propellers in 1910s, making a camera that goes off before the trigger has activated the round is relatively simple. As per the topic, I don't really have an issue with officers using body cameras, as long as there's an effort made to keep the videos private and only for official/court use, and not to be sold out immediately to news aggregates/online. Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for privacy, but the concept of a body camera for officers is not even the tiniest baby step above the many, many multitude of extremely less secure security/stop-light cameras I have to pass by every day.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46826330]muzzle flash.... they never could compensate for it[/QUOTE] Someone has never heard of a flash suppressor.
Ordinarily I'm on the side of privacy vs. security, but on this issue, I kind of agree with having a police officer wear a camera when on duty like they would a dashcam. Only use it in the case of trial as another piece of evidence. This gives another, less biased, report available since any action the officer takes will be recorded anyways. This one will just have a little less context at times, a little less bias, and a little more of a candid 'this is what happened from time x to time z while event C happened at time y'.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46824743]Does privacy even matter anymore? I remember when Bush was in office and a vocal minority of dems and repubs were going apeshit about how he was eroding our right to privacy, which was met with a deafening, "meh" from everyone else. Every time something new was taken away all I can remember hearing is "meh, as long as it protects us". Now bodycams on cops are being introduced and all I can think is, "meh, it's there to protect us". I used to be one of the people crying about how important privacy is, now I can't decide if I was being unrealistically idealistic in the past, or if I'm being apathetic about the erosion of our rights now.[/QUOTE] Privacy matters too me, and i would like that too be respected by the government.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46824743]I used to be one of the people crying about how important privacy is, now I can't decide if I was being unrealistically idealistic in the past, or if I'm being apathetic about the erosion of our rights now.[/QUOTE]You're being apathetic, I've been cynical for a long time about society and how it operates but I've never budged on certain things. I don't give a fuck if this protects anyone, if somebody's privacy is being violated then it's a serious thing because that's a big deal. Privacy is tied up in our sense of security and self, if we can't feel safe to think and say as we please in our own homes then that's damaging our lives. Ultimately the right to privacy, free speech, free expression... it all holds the same weight as a right to live because for me it's all the same thing. Living under the shadow of a watchful government... that's an [i]existence[/i] and not a [i]life,[/i] I don't consider a life to be worth living if it isn't free. All of that aside though, several people have stated the obvious common-sense solution here: make the footage available when it's absolutely necessary. Then nobody's privacy is violated, people can still be safe, police officers can still be held accountable, and there's additional evidence that will either help incriminate or exonerate a defendant in a trial.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;46824743]Does privacy even matter anymore? I remember when Bush was in office and a vocal minority of dems and repubs were going apeshit about how he was eroding our right to privacy, which was met with a deafening, "meh" from everyone else. Every time something new was taken away all I can remember hearing is "meh, as long as it protects us". Now bodycams on cops are being introduced and all I can think is, "meh, it's there to protect us". I used to be one of the people crying about how important privacy is, now I can't decide if I was being unrealistically idealistic in the past, or if I'm being apathetic about the erosion of our rights now.[/QUOTE] Some things need to be kept private though. An officer meeting with an informant should NEVER EVER be able to be seen by ANYONE, due to the risk you run of exposing the informant. I think situations like that are REALLY what need to be guarded here, because that can literally lead to people dieing.
[QUOTE=T553412;46825576]Footage should be stored in independent servers, to avoid any attempt at tampering, and should [B]only[/B] be reviewed if the officer uses deadly force on a suspect. They should [B]never[/B] be released to the public inmediately.[/QUOTE] So, because Rodney King didn't die, if the police had body cam footage it couldn't have been used to prove excessive force? I agree with the independent storage idea (because frankly I don't trust all police not to destroy evidence) but it can be used for a lot more than just deadly force cases. That footage could document all sorts of police misconduct. Or, for that matter, exonerate cops who are falsely accused by assholes. We're not putting surveillence technology back in the box. Might as well proliferate it so everyone is on even ground.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.