Police Body Cam Privacy Exploitation 301
blindbat writes: A new YouTube account is pushing local police agencies to reconsider their use of body-mounted cameras. Poulsbo Police have been wearing body cameras for about a year, and the department says the results have been good. But last month reality hit, in the form of a new YouTube user website, set up by someone under the name, "Police Video Requests." The profile says it posts dash and body cam videos received after public records requests to Washington state police departments. "They're just using it to post on the internet," said Chief Townsend, "and I suspect it's for commercial purposes." In September, "Police Video Requests" anonymously asked Poulsbo PD for every second of body cam video it has ever recorded. The department figures it will take three years to fill that request. And Chief Townsend believes it is a huge privacy concern, as officers often see people on their worst days. "People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; do we really want to have to put that video out on YouTube for people? I think that's pushing it a little bit," he said.
Legalities (Score:2)
Wouldn't the person require a release form and consent from the people in the video to upload it or use it anywhere?
Re:Legalities (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it is being obtained from the police it no doubt is classified as a public record.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I get a law enforcement guy to record a movie with his bodycam it falls into the public domain?
Re: (Score:3)
There's an interesting concept.
What happens if some big media company's automatic audio fingerprinting bot issues a DMCA takedown on one of these videos?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Great. Now all the mobsters and thugs and crooked cops will know to blare Top 40 to prevent evidence from being posted online.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they have already been punished for their crimes.
Re:Legalities (Score:5, Insightful)
More interesting: what happens to the footage actually contains something covered by DMCA?
There's an easy answer to that one: get rid of the goddamned DMCA.
There is no legitimate reason for it to exist in a free society. Even the "safe harbor" provisions would not be necessary, if it weren't for other parts of the same law.
So just get rid of it. Things were demonstrably better before it existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Video gets taken down, media company gets no penalty.
Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
You next video project should be to compile a feature film composed entirely of "found footage" in by-cop shaky-cam.
Re: (Score:2)
No, as the law enforcement officer would be in your employ and therefore and video is not related to his law enforcement job.
Re: (Score:2)
If they claim they are "news", then they would have an editorial context exemption.
Re: (Score:3)
If I record you in a public street I can publish it without your consent. Video shot in public does not need the permission of anyone but the owner of the video.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, no, I'm not waiting for the porn, I'm waiting for the shit storm in the media that it creates. This already happened once when someone filmed their exploits with an underaged girl, and media outlets were requesting copies of the tape along with other evidence as matters of public record. The judge had to actually issue an order to stop handing it out since it was basically child porn.
Re:Legalities (Score:4, Funny)
better yet, i'm waiting for a policeman to walk into a movie theater with his cam running.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it's called my heel through the screen you cheap bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hello, rape victim, it's the police. Could you tell your rapist to stop raping you so that you can cover up and we can come in and film you?"
Re: (Score:3)
It is evidence and only a matter of public record in a court, until then it should be protected for security reasons, as public release will interfere with it's use in any possible new or ongoing investigations. Want a peak, then go to court to get specific access to specific dates and specific interactions and justify why and show your pretty face to the cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
In most if not all US jurisdictions, no photo release is required for individuals appearing in a photo/video taken of individuals visible from a public location. Check YouTube, do you think everybody appearing in those videos has signed a release?
Now most commercial agencies will require a photo release if using something commercially because of CYA and lawyers but legally not required.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if there's any CYA going on, the odds are it's because something dodgy is happening and you want to make sure you don't end up the fall guy. That suggests that releases are likely technically required, just rarely enforced. That is to say that it's rare for an individual actually protest, and even more rare for them to sue for anything more damaging than removal of the video. So why bother with all the releases?
Note: IANAL, and I suspect the rules are very different for making a film versus publi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's going to depend on the use as to whether a release is needed, news organizations are generally given very broad latitude in their use of likeness so long as the use is deemed in the public interest, even if the use is commercial. Now, is a random youtube poster who is obtaining recordings under open records laws going to be given the same treatment, that's probably unknowable until it's fully litigated, but unless the persons postings are deemed in the public interest it's unlikely they will rece
Re:Legalities (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, making all the public surveillance information to the public seems like it would be a danger to privacy, and put too much information in the hands of stalkers, kidnappers, and other criminals. There would be a public backlash when something bad happens.
It seems like we need a new organization to collect information and safeguard it. An organization that is not directly under the command of the executive branches or legislative branches. Access could be granted through either an existing court system or a dedicated court system. This seems like too important an issue to just keep reacting to without a strategy.
Re:Legalities (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the key is that you shouldn't be able to request access to the recording unless you personally were involved
and/or there is a court order. A police's bodycam should be like video surveillance video. A nosy reporter (or a youtuber)
shouldn't be able to just request hours of footage without a legitimate link just as a reporter can't force walmart to
release their surveillance videos. It should be archived and relatively easy to get to for interested parties but not
the general public. A compromise might be a small screen public viewing room that doesn't allow recording devices
where someone could watch the tapes and then once they find what they are looking for then do an official request
for that section of the video along with what they are going to do with it.
Re:Legalities (Score:4, Interesting)
As an aside, we probably already have similiar laws on the books. I'm pretty sure you can't just download
and listen to every private 911 call. You have to have a legitimate reason to want to access them.
Re: (Score:3)
Another Agency (Score:3)
Maybe the NSA? Have them do something useful and since they already have all the video...
Completely agree (Score:2)
There needs to be an office with access that reviews requests for their validity and type that is completely unrelated to the entire legal system.
To much FOIA information is used solely for the purpose of entertainment at the expense of *suspects*.
Merely being accused of a crime regardless of the merits is pretty much a life sentence when your mugshot is plastered on 500 websites and magazines. It's definitely something that needs to be dealt with in a very careful way. Allowing the PDs discretion is the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. Actually we should trim the bureaucracies down to the minimum. Courts involve too much bureaucracy so remove them. Police over site committees, same thing. The police can have the freedom to arrest anyone they consider a criminal, they can also have the freedom to punish, whether a beating, a summary execution or just delivering the criminal to the local private prison, which will also have no over site as we don't need no bureaucracies interfering with private business.
Thinking about it, we c
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe they should be required to make the footage available, BUT control its dissemination, just like clerks of court intermediate public access to recorded documents.
The footage should be filed with a government records office.
You can review the footage, and copy it for $10 per minute of video.
You should be required to show ID, and your copy should be watermarked with the ID information of the person who requested the record.
If you want to republish the video, you should be required to pro
Re: (Score:2)
You can review the footage, and copy it for $10 per minute of video.
No. Absolutely not. There should not be more than a reasonable fee for a copy. A couple bucks for the clerk's time, the end. We're talking digital here.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Absolutely not. There should not be more than a reasonable fee for a copy.
$1 per page is pretty standard for copying paper documents, a minute of footage costs considerably more.
You haven't demonstrated that $10/Minute is an unreasonable fee for the purpose of limiting the amount of content that will be exported.
It would only limit access to people of limited means, and when it comes to public record you're not allowed to dick people over just because they're too poor.
Well, in theory, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like there should be a signed release required.
I would disagree. Charged suspects and corrupt officials would never sign the release even if it might be in the public interest. I would agree with you that it should not be automatic but there should be some mechanism to release the video even if those videoed oppose it.
Re:Legalities (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't make it available to the public, then only they have access.
False dilemma [wikipedia.org]. The two extremes of "full public access" and "no access" are not the only alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
there is the public interest test, for GP's information. If the release of a document is deemed (even by a separate hearing) to be in the public insterest, then it is released for dissemination to any interested party. The test can be and is abused, for example in public family law, where EVERYTHING is engaged by public interest immunity and is thus compartmented "eyes only". I would be risking contempt of court if I disclosed for example, that my own children made disclosures against public servants which
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the person require a release form and consent from the people in the video to upload it or use it anywhere?
Depends on the circumstances and where it was taken but in most cases no release is required in the US. On top of that, it's part of the public record so that also factors in. At that point it's like republishing an arrest report or similar record.
This is something that can be fixed with legislation. Take the video out of the public record and restrict it to police/prosecutors and those individuals directly involved in a particular incident. Put a request process in place so the media can go through a
Straw man (Score:2)
I haven't seen anyone suggest that police interaction anywhere there's an expectation of privacy (in a home, for example) should be made available to the public.
Re:Straw man (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a straw man, it's a deliberate attempt to prevent citizen review. If any joe shmoe can request the tapes he could find evidence of police malfeasance and bring it to the public's attention. If the only one that can request it is the one in the video the cops can intimidate or threaten them with charges to prevent it's reveal. You aren't looking for the ulterior motive here, did you notice the sly comment about commercial use?
See even if the videos are being recorded their will be no review or punishment for cops violating civil rights if the victim doesn't come forward (and they might not want to because of what is recorded).
Good Grief (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a Straw man argument, but it does not seem like you took the time to investigate what a Straw Man is. The purpose of the argument is what you stated, which matches what therealkevinkretz stated in different words.
While surely video requests need to be reasonable and not "give me everything" there must be a method for people to request this information. Otherwise the information is useless, and the whole point of "watching the watchers" is once again lost.
As you, and therealkevinkretz, stated that is the point of TFA. The obvious answer is to refuse the request for _everything_ and make the person give specifics. E.G. I need all data from December 20th 2013 from Officer X. No purpose is necessary, and the request is reasonable. Nope, it does not have to be on Youtube either, which is another straw man argument from the chief.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
See even if the videos are being recorded their will be no review or punishment for cops violating civil rights if the victim doesn't come forward (and they might not want to because of what is recorded).
As with all issues this is a question of balance. I see the need for privacy of all the people who do not want their interactions with the police to be public as far outweighing the possibility that some police violations might go unpunished. Nothing is perfect and compromises are always needed.
Re: (Score:3)
did you notice the sly comment about commercial use?
I'm guessing you've never heard of this little show, easily one of the most successful of all time, originally aired when I was 1 year old and still airing new episodes, called Cops? Commercial use is absolutely something to be concerned about with body cam record requests, and to think that it's some sly comment with an ulterior motive is ignoring that there's a real, undeniable truth to it.
anonymously (Score:3)
anonymously asked Poulsbo PD for every second of body cam video it has ever recorded.
anonymously? As in, "I want all of your videos. Please leave them in the hollow hole in the old oak tree at midnight tonight."?
Re: (Score:2)
My bet is on the "Anonymous" person or organization being composed of one of more police officers.
This is an attempt to roll back to the days before the police had body cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, cops have had cameras in their patrol cars for decades, yet people mass-requesting videos from bodycams is some sort of new thing? Um, wouldn't the same laws apply to those videos as do the ones from dashcams? Shouldn't the police chief know that?
The more I think about this, the more it starts to smell like bullshit.
We already have laws to cover this (Score:5, Insightful)
INAL, but ...
First, laws like the freedom of information act refer to federal institutions, so this ~may~ not apply
Second, someone has to classify the police video as 'public records'. They are not explicitly made so just because they're information produced by a public office.
Third, even if they do apply, they can be denied for valid grounds - for example, if they contain personally identifying information, underage nudity, or other public safety issues - it's going to be on a per-municipality basis.
Personally speaking though, I think that if what's being recorded happens in a public space, then there should be few barriers to viewing it. Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap, and I think anyone even remotely involved would understand that. Unless they really are thinking they need to get consent forms from every person.
On the other hand, if you choose to display it in a public medium like youtube, well, maybe you would need to get permission from those recorded.
Re:We already have laws to cover this (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Cop shows up to investigate, wearing his cam
3. The front of your house, then the inside is recorded on his cam.
Public record or not? Can anyone request this footage, yes or no? The argument could be made either way.
You did nothing wrong, the cop did nothing wrong.
So then we're back to allowing the cops to redact or not provide footage as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And many people, incl. many here, want them on all the time, no exceptions, to prevent exactly that.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if you really want this type of oversight into governmental activities, then you should want this same sort of camera on all of your senate, congressmen/women, judges, jury, and all the way down to local mayors and governors, and most importantly - the president.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think we don't want that? It's just that in the case of the police, there's a chance that we could get it. As for the officer's "bathroom duties", so what. They don't care much about our privacy, so why should we care about theirs. Still, ok, have the camera be able to be put into a "marking time" mode...but there still needs to be continuous sound recording. It should be a firing offense to disable the camera while acting as a police officer.
Re: (Score:3)
Then they serve no real purpose. If he can turn it on and off at will, he'll just turn it off when he wants to do something illegal.
If the cop turns it off, that is evidence in a trial. A policeman should want the camera on, to show he's doing his job. Cameras protect good cops as much as they implicate bad cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Option C: All video is transfered to the custody of an independent citizen's oversight committee (your police department has one of those, right?) Both police and citizens must then request footage through them, and some legitimate cause must be provided, and be minimally verified by the committee. That introduces significant obstacles to data mining by both police and criminals, while making data mining for potential cases of illegal police behavior relatively easy for the very people charged with overse
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The three years part is because someone DOES have to review it for exactly the types of things you mentioned. You can just drag and drop every video file from the server to a hard drive and say, "DONE!"
Trouble Makers With Too Much Time (Score:2)
Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap
Three years is not for a single video, but all of them. And all of them would need to be reviewed before release.
A previous post suggested (and I agree that it's fairly obvious) that not all records produced by public agencies are required to be released.
This yahoo should have to specify parameters that narrow down the request to something in a specific relevant range. Otherwise, it's just some asshole who doesn't like cops being a pain in the ass. It's a "nuisance" request that should be rejected.
You know,
Extortion Web Site (Score:5, Insightful)
You all know about the Mug Shot sites? They will remove your mug shot for $500? That's what this crap is. These assholes want to start a whole new angle on this scam: They will remove your police interaction (arrest or no arrest) for a price. Or maybe they will advertise your moment on the front page of their extortion web site.
3 years sound right (Score:2)
Anyway the police is not only intervening in *public* places, but also in *private* placves, like a house domestic dispute , among others, or maybe meeting somebody telling them somebody is making drugs at a house. How do you know which minutes of the video agent XYZ made on day DD/MMM/YYYY is in a private place or in a public o
Re: (Score:2)
First, laws like the freedom of information act refer to federal institutions,
Most jurisdictions have some sort of FOI legislation. I Washington State it is the Public Records Act [wa.gov]
Second, someone has to classify the police video as 'public records'.
From the quoted law;
"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.
From that it appears that police video would be Public Record in Washington.
Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap, and I think anyone even remotely involved would understand that. Unless they really are thinking they need to get consent forms from every person.
So someone has to review every piece of video for every officer on the force to ensure that the video is not exempt from being released. There are 17 officers and probably 5 police cars in the Poulsbo police force. Say 5 officers on a shift that would mean that up to 120 hours per day or a total of 43000 hours o
Re: (Score:2)
Many states have a "Sunshine Law" which requires all public documents to be available for public review upon request. 99% of what police officers do is covered by this. Exceptions are often made for many items related to personnel records, things with specific safety implications (such as public school safety plans), records dealing with minors, and so forth. However, if something doesn't fall under a specific statue covered in the "Sunshine Law" then it's considered a public document if it was obtained
Re: (Score:2)
purpose is to stop camera wearing (Score:5, Insightful)
What better way for someone to get the department to stop using cameras?
Desperate excuse (Score:5, Interesting)
So somebody somewhere on the internet seems like they want to abuse the cams and the ONLY feasible answer is to stop using them entirely? That has the stink of bad excuses to it. Anyone wanna bet that this 'anonymous' is someone in the department or a close reletive?
They could, of course, just adopt a sensible policy like releasing the videos only to the parties involved in the video or legal representative thereof. That would be just fine except then there would be no ' very good reason ' (TM, pat. pend., some restrictions apply, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear) to scrap the program.
Re:Desperate excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course one of the reasons for police cams is for police accountability; that means that public interest groups - or individuals claiming to represent public interest - should have access as well. In fact, I can't think of a sensible reason for anyone to be denied access in the general case - outside of other concerns (privacy, etc).
There's another factor to consider as well. Since these groups are often adversarial in relationship to the police, having the police themselves control the policy on who has access to it would be a bad idea. In fact, having the police anywhere in the chain is incorrect; they shouldn't have control of the video itself, much less be responsible for releasing it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should have more police records requests. It would nice to search for video or find out who calls the cops all the time. It will help shame people into minding their own business and not involving the police in every little thing.
overload (Score:2)
Should be confidential/private (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep the videos for 180 days or a year and delete unless they're part of a court order to keep. Only release to the public (including press) via court order. If citizens want to record the police, they're (usually) free to do so with their own equipment and on their own time.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep the videos for 180 days or a year and delete unless they're part of a court order to keep.
I think that if they kept these videos for a year, that would be enough. Unless, like you say, there's a court order of some kind.
Only release to the public (including press) via court order. If citizens want to record the police, they're (usually) free to do so with their own equipment and on their own time.
That's just it, this is their (The People's) equipment. The People buy the cameras, pay the cops, and should have access to any/all of the data generated. If there is some reason to have public outcry due to something revealed by the videos, then, if you ask me, the system is working fine. Why not have a Youtube channel devoted to publishing all of it? Hell of a thing to do
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that one of the points of the body cameras is for citizens to be able to do random inspections to make sure that cops aren't abusing power. As much as we don't want the information abused, we do want citizens able to request and view arbitrary footage. The two desires are at odds with each other, and balancing them will be tricky.
Solution (Score:3)
1. All video gets released after 2 years
2. Those in a recording can sign a release to allow for earlier public release, this can be a part of any booking process if an arrest is made but has to be explicitly optional on the part of the suspect.
3. Recordings can be released early for specifically defined public safety and suspect apprehension purposes (eg, somebody shoots an officer and escapes, amber alert or other active suspect recording)
4. Recordings are automatically released early at the request of an organization of the Press.
5. Recordings can be released early at the order of a Judge (any Judge at any time, so as to preclude a pro-LEO or even anti-LEO seeming Judges from preventing a release).
The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
"...And Chief Townsend believes it is a huge privacy concern, as officers often see people on their worst days. "People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; do we really want to have to put that video out on YouTube for people? I think that's pushing it a little bit," he said.
Really? You're suddenly concerned about the privacy of citizens?!?
Seems you've had no problems making millions off broadcasting those same citizens on shows like "Cops" for the last twenty five years.
Let's just stop with the bullshit here before someone drowns.
The real reason the Chief has a serious privacy concern is likely more related to the officers who are also on camera. Certain supervisors don't want to see their subordinates on their worst days either, especially when the end result is a public uprising that could be rather embarrassing for people in certain positions.
Re: (Score:3)
You understand that the people on those cop-reality-shows have signed a release, right?
Doesn't really matter when the Chief is using the excuse that we shouldn't see people "on their worst days".
It's pretty damn obvious that seeing people on their worst days is part of the "train-wreck" advertising mantra behind Cops and shows like it.
Nobody is tuning in to see someone get a speeding ticket in the mall parking lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it does matter, a whole freaking lot, because any countervailing rights to privacy that the people "on their worst days" have fall right off the scale when they agree to sign the release. Systematizing the recording, thereby bypassing any release process, removes the ability for people to waive their right to privacy -- we just throw it out for the public to consume. Just because the cops are public servants and subject to public scrutiny does not necessarily make every private figure with which th
Rethink? (Score:2)
that there is to rethink is the public records laws.
Police footage should be held by a branch of the civil service not linked to the police hierarchy, so that evidence can't be "accidentally" deleted by the police. That footage should not be considered "public record" due not only privacy matters, but also due process/presumption of innocence/protection of witnesses. (You don't release witness testimony or suspect interview notes as "public record", do you? Why should footage be any different?
Any public re
Since when do the police care about privacy? (Score:2)
Mugshots and information about arrests are made publicly available. Most news articles I read have the names of any supects and arrestees over 17 years of age. This is all before any kind of criminal convinction. Why the sudden concern about whether someone gets "embarrassed"?
Re: (Score:3)
Most people the police interact with are never arrested. Victims, for example, would also be on the video, unless the video is reviewed and those people are obscured. The inside of private homes will also be filmed, including the locations of valuables.
It's the next step in the (Score:3, Insightful)
devolution of American Culture. We had "Cops" on TV, but that was edited and sanitized. Now we go straight to the video. Next it will go to a "Max Headroom" style live feed direct from the cops camera to your TV.
Wonderful. That's show biz!
Declare them privat. (Score:2)
But it in no way prevents the government from recording them in the first place.
This is not rocket science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is an issue why? (Score:4, Interesting)
A police bodycam doesn't record what the police officer is doing, it records what he sees - members of the public. It would be more sensible to ask around for CCTV footage of police officers as they go about their public duty. Ian Tomlinson's killer (PC SIMON HARWOOD) wouldn't have been convicted if he'd been wearing a bodycam for the simple reason that at the point where the data is seized it cannot be proved who was wearing the camera since it would have been the police own data officer who had first dibs at that data*. It was fortunate for the sake of justice that a member of the public recorded the assault which caused Tomlinson's death; unfortunate that that evidence, although damning, was not allowed to stand.
* I should also point out that the killing was investigated by the Police and prosecuted by the CPS rather than a private criminal prosecution - too late to do that now, Double Jeopardy is well and truly engaged, all the Tomlinson family had left was a civil suit for wrongful death which was pissed all over when they publicly and fairly comprehensively accepted the offer of settlement.
** I hereby revoke any implied consent to my visage being used, parodied or referred to in any video, news report or any other media known or unknown without my express prior written informed consent.
*** The right to bring private prosecutions is preserved by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which is still in force. This right has been codified since 1197.
Overall not such a bad trade off (Score:2)
While creating some kind of limiting factor would be pertinent (by officer, by location/time, cost limits ($5 for 1 hour, $500 for two hours) etc), even if this is the price of keeping officers from stepping over the line it would be well worth paying as long as there are SEVERE penalties for officers destroying body cam footage of their own wrongdoing. Police may see people at their worst but their interactions with any one person are (at least for the average person) a very small privacy imposition compa
Prevent publication w/o a court order (Score:3)
FWIW, here's what I might suggest:
1. Make every video accessible by the public in-person at the police station and at a set of accredited institutions (i.e. public interest groups);
2. ban re-publication of the videos without a court order;
3. water-mark any video available outside the police station so that whoever copied it can be traced and their authority to receive copies revoked.
This would seem to prevent the problem of republication for commercial purposes, but still allow people who are involved in incidents or interested in police oversight to access and review the videos.
Translation (Score:2)
Chief Townsend believes it is a huge privacy concern, as officers often see people on their worst days. "People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; do we really want to have to put that video out on YouTube for people? I think that's pushing it a little bit,"
Wow, I'm a bit shocked to see he showed enough restraint to not spout some bullshit about "terrorists" too.
Re: (Score:2)
Except privacy and dignity.
Will you be voluntarily wearing a bodycam and uploading ALL of the contents of it to Youtube? Including time in the restroom? Bedroom? Annual performance review?
Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread (Score:5, Funny)
My yearly "bedroom time" is my yearly performance review.
I meet or exceed expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Should that video be available publicly? What if that victim is a child?
Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread (Score:4, Funny)
"Information wants to be free. Nothing is taken from the people whose videos are posted."
Don't try to anthropomorphize information. It hates that.
Re: (Score:3)
In Norway we have something called "Datatilsynet". It's not private. It can't be private.
Are you giving away your freedom and privacy to private entities?
Presumably by "it's not private" you mean "it's not a private entity, it's a public entity" (in an article discussing privacy, the term "private" in the sense of the private sector of the economy should be used with care, to avoid confusion; perhaps Norwegian has separate words for "not part of the public sector" and "not to be made available to the public", but "private", in English, can mean both).
For those curious about Datatilsynet, here's their English-language Website [datatilsynet.no].
Re: (Score:2)
Your first request for footage not of a case you are personally involved in or involved in the legal defense of is $1.00. The second request is $10.00. The third is $100.00 and so on...
The cost resets every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the PD should do is setup a youtube-ish site with the raw video...
Are you kidding me? That would be a video feed for every on duty police officer and police car in service. That is a lot of video, a lot of bandwidth and a lot of costs.
Re:Bad precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is a great idea. They should set up a site with every single second of footage on it, with all faces and letter/numbers fuzzed and all the audio turned into mwaw-mwaw-mwaw sound ala Peanuts-adult-speech. That's just not technically all that hard anymore. It doesn't require any human work. Then the cops'll know that if they use force or anyone or pass cash, bored seniors will see it and request the clear footage where a human would make sure that it would be acceptable (manual censorship). Don't like th emanual censorship in the clip you got? Fight that.
You get an honest police force and very little actual labor, as compared to people making blanket requests becasue they don't know what's there and they're looking for something good to show.
Yes, you can request the footage now of when that cop hit your kid, but you can't find out about someone getting a bribe unless you do the blanket requests described in the story.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Request a specific hour of video recorded by a police officer/car camera
2. Request videos pertaining to a specific case. Case numbers must be provided by the requester.
This way, if someone wants ALL OF THE VIDEOS, they must fill out a crap ton of forms. If they want videos pertaining to a specific case, then they fill out the form, and get what ever videos, however long, pertain to it. If they need more, they can easily fill out a few more fo
Re: (Score:2)
Discriminating against poor people. That's how that would be spun, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for posting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a gun cam. It's the size of a tactical flashlight and records full HD. While it might be a bit awkward as an addon piece to a pistol (it is possible to use for example a forestock mould to prevent snagging, which would necessitate a new holster - see the examples used on Battlestar Galactica (2003) which are FN Five-seveN among other models with custom barrel moulds), it's easy to add a scope ring to an MP5 (or if it already has a dot sight, slap one on the Weaver rail on the sight itself!). I also h
Re: (Score:2)