Police cameras

[Balls Wellington]

Being on camera won't stop them from doing shit. Because the thing is, the people who are gonna see that footage? Also cops. They just don't like that it will mean more paperwork.

Google "Shandy Cobane".

[Elder Iptuous]

i just read a couple of the news articles on Cobane and the stomping incident. (which seemed odd that the point of focus seemed more on his racist shouting than the fact that he was stomping a subdued guy!)
so, it was videoed, but i didn't see by who.  was it the dash cam? or a citizen?

i also saw an article about him beating on some guy in the back of the squad car, but the case there has attention paid to the fact that the camera on the car was turned off at the time the incident is alleged to have happened.  it is presented as evidence of foul play.  so it seems that they had to review the police policy of their discretion in turning it on or off, which i guess is pretty vague.
perhaps this will prompt legislation to mandate specific use of the cameras.

[Balls Wellington]

The point is, Cobane knew he was being taped "stomping the mexican piss" out of the guy and just didn't care. Even if one is willing to accept the "record everything" mentality (I'm not), the fact remains that getting civilian oversight of police departments with any meaningful authority over said departments is the closest thing to impossible. Which means that all the camera footage int he world is utterly meaningless.

[Elder Iptuous]

he knew he was being taped?
who taped him?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

More cameras = bad.

Everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone that can record events.  This is good.  Police having more cameras is bad.

I am amazed, Iptuous, that I have to say this to you, of all people.

[Elder Iptuous]

 
I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes.  (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?)  it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism.  part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.

i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras.  it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.
as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes.  (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?) 

It's that GIM thing.  I'm sort of stuck on that, have been for years.

it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism.  part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.

Have the part that wants to screech grab the part that wants to embrace, drag it out behind the portapotties and thrash the shit out of it until it stops being so damn submissive.

i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras.  it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.

Unless it's a live feed on youtube, it's not transparent.

as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.

And how many times has the public NOT fucked something like this up?

[Elder Iptuous]

I amaze myself with my own inconsistency, sometimes.  (out of curiosity, which particular uniform did you have me in that this position doesn't work with?) 

It's that GIM thing.  I'm sort of stuck on that, have been for years.

the tinfoil hat survivalist CT schtick?  i got bored with that brand of crazy.  it got repetitive.
been a couple years now...

it feels like we're moving to a world where privacy is a quaint anachronism.  part of me wants to screech, and part of me wants to embrace.

Have the part that wants to screech grab the part that wants to embrace, drag it out behind the portapotties and thrash the shit out of it until it stops being so damn submissive.

the part that wants to embrace doesn't see it as submission, but rather liberation. it sees the part that rejects the notion as an outmoded fool that wants to wallow in its imperfections and hide in shame and fear.

i guess, the distinction i'm seeing here is that if a system is put in place such that the footage is accessible to the court, and they are required to use them, i don't see it as the police 'having' cameras.  it seems like the courts 'having' the cameras and stapling them to the cops' heads.
police transparency = good.

Unless it's a live feed on youtube, it's not transparent.

that kind of all or nothing is rarely correct.  particularly in something as nuanced as privacy and violence in the context of governance.
is finance a relevant analogy in some sense?:
should all your financial information be private? yes.  should it be available in court proceedings? yes, if warranted.  should it be publicly viewable in realtime? no.
frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.

as far as potential for abuse, i agree that it's possible inevitable if this isn't addressed now with the public at the table in regards to how it is implemented.

And how many times has the public NOT fucked something like this up?

same as anything ever. sometimes we do things as a society and it works. well, we do it right until we don't.  then it fails.  maybe we can get it going again sometime if it's worth it.  sometimes it fails right off. 
unless there's a particular reason so say it can't be accomplished, then "it's never worked in the past" doesn't argue much because everything we've accomplished was in that position at some point.
and in a context like this, where the future's coming whether you want it or not i gotta bet on us being able to do it right, because what's the point in ignoring or denying it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.

Why?  I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.

[Elder Iptuous]

frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.

Why?  I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.

on matters of public utilization you seem to be more measured and deliberative.
for instance, you distrust anyone carrying a badge, but you recognize their necessity.
the capacity for abuse is present, and significant, but the inevitability and potential for benefit indicate that we should focus on doing it right rather than on denying that it will or should happen.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

frankly, i'm a little surprised that you take such a hard line on this.

Why?  I'm not bashful about my distrust of anyone carrying a badge.

on matters of public utilization you seem to be more measured and deliberative.
for instance, you distrust anyone carrying a badge, but you recognize their necessity.
the capacity for abuse is present, and significant, but the inevitability and potential for benefit indicate that we should focus on doing it right rather than on denying that it will or should happen.

At this point, I shall direct you to Cain for an in-depth analysis on the utility of the British CCTV system.

[Cainad]

Unhelpful cynical input:


1) Think of all the possible outcomes of implementing this technology on a wide scale.

2) Now pick the worst, most abusive, ethically warped of those outcomes. The kind of blatant horrible that would make headlines everywhere and result in effectual public outcry.

3) Now pick an outcome that is slightly less egregiously abusive: That is what will happen.

4) Watch a portion of the public get mad on Facebook, then forget about it without any meaningful policy changes being made to correct the potential for abuse.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unhelpful cynical input:


1) Think of all the possible outcomes of implementing this technology on a wide scale.

2) Now pick the worst, most abusive, ethically warped of those outcomes. The kind of blatant horrible that would make headlines everywhere and result in effectual public outcry.

3) Now pick an outcome that is slightly less egregiously abusive: That is what will happen.

4) Watch a portion of the public get mad on Facebook, then forget about it without any meaningful policy changes being made to correct the potential for abuse.

Cainad speaks truth.

[Elder Iptuous]

Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.
the fact that the former could possibly be used as another component to the latter is something that should be checked, but doesn't inherently invalidate it.

also, do you mention the CCTV system as a cautionary tale on how it can be done wrong, or as evidence that we should fight the tide of pervasive recording on principle?

Cainad,
the only abuse that i see is selective recording (or retention) to misrepresent events.  I see this as coming down the pipe, unless we either set up the system with checks to ensure, as best we can, that this is prevented.  Or, we ban police from using cameras.  that strikes me as a particularly odd thing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger,
i would say that there is a significant difference between police cameras for the purpose of monitoring police behavior and a public surveillance system.

If the cameras aren't aimed at the police, then they're monitoring something else.