ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
76% Positive
Analyzed from 1876 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#police#cameras#public#meta#glasses#privacy#https#more#lot#probably
Discussion (70 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.
Since 2016, 2 out of 3 US officers supported body cameras. That percentage increases after uptake https://ircommons.uwf.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Pol... with even skeptical Police unions & advocacy orgs gradually speaking up in favor of cameras https://fop.net/letter/abc-act-hr-3248/ https://www.policeforum.org/trending6jan24 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comments/1uf0d3a/did_the_dema...
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewall body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... which they've adjusted to by by demanding police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
They don't like it when management uses it for frivolous minor policy enforcement or they feel like it reduces their ability to use discretion.
But overall police officers who are given cameras tend to me more positive after using them.
Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.
My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.
https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police...
Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
The longer I typed in that sentence the more convinced I am youre probably right.
>“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
the privacy of prisoners maybe. A prison cell is not a public place (nor the hallways either) so there is an actual expectation of privacy there.
Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.
smartwatches are also just one or two generations away from having cameras
This is about cameras in secure facilites, such as in a prison or jail. Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
About as good of an argument as the prisoner who insists that cell searches for contraband must be announced a day before the search. Do you think the people running the jail would go for that?
Earlier this year various elected officials tried to perform exactly that kind of public inspection of ICE facilities and met a lot of resistance. I know that some subset of these were just publicity stunts, but despite that, the fact remains that the public needs to be aware of what detention in those facilities is like and if the DHS makes choices that result in random cameras being the only way to do that, then they should reap what they sow.
you're right. there's also an awful lot of very obvious good arguments for allowing recording and public access to recording, such as the incident where a prisoner was locked in a scalding shower until he was so badly burned that his skin "fell off at the touch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey). Like so many incidents of its kind, there was absolutely no hard evidence available to prove what happened and it ended up being yet another case where someone died horrifically and officially no one was found to have done anything wrong but several million dollars did change hands. If prison guards are torturing prisoners to death and getting away with it, the argument that they don't need surveillance needs to be a whole lot better than "probably good".
1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.
2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.
- prevent or more likely perform but withhold and deny existence of recordings of policing
- give police total access to "private" recordings
is ludicrous.
Meta is literally a surveillance company which as a side hustle addicts people to feeds which destroy their mental health and social relationships and sense of self worth, in service of keepting them docile, consuming, and politically steered.