Slashdot Mirror
Police Body Cam Privacy Exploitation
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.
Wouldn't the person require a release form and consent from the people in the video to upload it or use it anywhere?
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?
"Information wants to be free. Nothing is taken from the people whose videos are posted."
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.
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."?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
IMO, it sets a bad precedent to allow ~all~ video to be accessed... it probably makes it a pain in the ass, requiring dedicated staff just to sit there and copy stuff, let alone find it.
What the PD should do is setup a youtube-ish site with the raw video that only streams 320x240 thumbnails with no audio and no GPS data and no precision timestamps (eg "November 2014, Week 2"). To retrieve the full data either:
a) a "freedom of information" request must be made using the video id, in which the PD can verify the person requesting is not a criminal (do you really want criminals, terrorists to learn about police activity?) Once verified, any OLD videos that are not currently part of a court case can be accessed after 90 days.
b) Verified LEO's, Lawyers and students working for either can access the full videos under a non-commercial license.
The PD retains copyright on the video itself in order to have it pulled from video sharing sites in the case of court orders requiring the video to be sealed.
The only work-around for requests requires the consent of those in the video, in which the user scans their drivers license or passport, and lets the facial-recognition algorithm attempt to find them in the videos.
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.
I could see criminals using videos recorded by police entering you property or house to be used to locate valuables and map your house out for theives. I don't want a police cam in my house. When they become required and become public record, the last shred of privacy in my house will be dead. Granted, I can see a future where advances in various probes, wireless, and imaging capability will completely kill privacy. I hope I'm dead by then.
I'm not seeing the issue here. The whole point of the police cameras is for public review and evidence preservation -- how is this impacting it? As for complaining it'll take 3 years; that seems fishy.
What better way for someone to get the department to stop using cameras?
Police recorded video should be private unless admissible for a legal proceeding.
For example, just because there is a traffic stop, doesn't mean that there should be a permanent record to the public of that stop.
Commercial users can be charged search, review and duplication fees.
If every second of video is requested, every second of video must be WATCHED and REVIEWED. Believe me, once you return an estimate of tens of thousands of dollars, this person will likely go away.
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.
Let them have the video, but with the condition that they live stream every hour of the video starting from the first minute to the last minute of the first video and then the first minute to the last minute of the second video and on and on. No editing allowed. If there is identifying information that would be shown, go to a black screen until the information is no longer on the video. If the officer working at a computer, black screen again. "Police Video Requests." should have to post a bond to be paid to paid to anyone who's information is shown on the video.
Passionately Indifferent
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.
Cops has been on the air for years, and the police haven't been calling for it to be canceled.
We know who the real bad boys are.
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).
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"...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.
Maybe the NSA? Have them do something useful and since they already have all the video...
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, these same idiots bleating that these are "public records" and *ALL* public records must be disclosed are the same folks that bash police for being resistant to body cams. It's a shame, but these people come off simply as trouble makers. Remember this case when you opine for body cams in YOUR municipality.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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 request for access should involve either a crime number or a complaint number directly relating to the footage you're looking for, so any fishing expeditions would effectively be perjury.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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"?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
You want police body cam records? Please specify the relevant incident number and each video associated with an incident number will be charged a 25 dollar duplication fee, plus a video editing fee to perform a redaction of sensitive personal information to non relevant third parties billable at a rate of $50 dolllars per hour.
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!
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 worst case scenario.
Personally i think such video should be private and only amde available to prosecutor/defense in case of complaint or questions, but they are not public record, but what do I know.
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 one ? Or even if that mintues is betrying that person as giving up a meth lab, guys which might seek a revenge ? Answer : you do not unless you watch every second of it and prune every such segment. As such, 3 years might even be conservative considering the amount they have to watch and work on.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But it in no way prevents the government from recording them in the first place.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
What about requirements for obtaining records on someone else?
If you request records relating to another person, and disclosure of the records could invade that person's privacy, they ordinarily will not be disclosed to you.
Oops. You can't use the FOIA for the purposes of invading someone's privacy.
Most of what they will request is exempt from the FOIA per Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552):[7]
7. records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
If the cop left it on when he went to the bathroom, is that public?
Only footage used in court should be considered public.
If you are under arrest, you may request the footage for the time period in question.
You should not get to make your Youtube channel out of people's misery.
You should not get to go fishing for misconduct on a cop's whole career.
You should not get to use my face, just because a cop went by me on the highway.
We simply need FOIA limitations pertaining to dash and body cams such that when no arrest is made, no property is seized, no citation is issued, and no force is used, the footage is not made available. The rules need to be very clearly written with zero ambiguity so that in any case whatsoever where anything more than talking comes of a police encounter, the footage is made available.
First, IAL
Poulsbo is in Washington State.
Under the Washington State Public Records Act (Wash. Rev. Code 42.56 et seq.), there are plenty of exceptions that these requests can be denied under.
Exceptions under RCW 42.56.240 (pay attention to the bolded parts)
(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy;
(2) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies, other than the commission, if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property. If at the time a complaint is filed the complainant, victim, or witness indicates a desire for disclosure or nondisclosure, such desire shall govern. However, all complaints filed with the commission about any elected official or candidate for public office must be made in writing and signed by the complainant under oath;
(3) Any records of investigative reports prepared by any state, county, municipal, or other law enforcement agency pertaining to sex offenses contained in chapter 9A.44 RCW or sexually violent offenses as defined in RCW 71.09.020, which have been transferred to the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs for permanent electronic retention and retrieval pursuant to RCW 40.14.070(2)(b);
(12) The following security threat group information collected and maintained by the department of corrections pursuant to RCW 72.09.745: (a) Information that could lead to the identification of a person's security threat group status, affiliation, or activities; (b) information that reveals specific security threats associated with the operation and activities of security threat groups; and (c) information that identifies the number of security threat group members, affiliates, or associates.
Furthermore, while they can't deny this request merely on the basis of its breadth, those records that they do hand over may be handed over in installments, so I would expect that the end result of this request will be a slow dribble of videos depicting Officers sitting in their cars doing very little, since basically any information potentially identifying a victim may be redacted.
Simple solution: The videos are not a matter of public record unless an arrest/citation is made. Also anyone not under arrest or cited must be blurred out, the way they do on COPS. Privacy is maintained unless someone is actually charged, and only those charged are part of the public record.
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Scenario: Police give their friends a warning for driving drunk.
They also arrest a "mentally ill person".
That mentally ill persons's arrest record is public.
The wrongdoing by the police isn't.
Shut the fuck up about what might go wrong, and focus on what almost certainly has.
I have been waiting for a while for someone to pin down what has been my concern over the whole police body camera thing.
It's nice to see that this is finally getting some attention.
on the one hand I am all-for some kind of check to police authority. It's nonsense to think that the police force isn't self serving and in desperate need of reform. Any authority that isn't by nature self depreciating is by nature self perpetuating.
But the "lets just film every thing" attitude isn't the answer.
How could that kind of information stockpiling not be abused. Frankly I'm kind of surprised that the group that berails police corruption is abetting mass state surveillance.
24/7
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 compared to an invaluable tool for preventing the currently unchecked abuses in law enforcement. Remember this kind of footage has been paraded over television for more than a decade (COPS anyone) and there hasn't been much in the way of complaints. Simply censor any names/faces/location information from requests unless some kind of court order is acquired for any footage that is released.
You understand that the people on those cop-reality-shows have signed a release, right?
http://i.imgur.com/ad1NeYk.png
What about all the cop shows on TV? guess it doesn't matter if THEY exploit people for commercial reason hu?
Jack of all trades,master of none
This is undoubtedly a blackmail scheme to make people pay to get their police body cam footage taken down, like the companies that charge to take down your mugshot. The problem being once it's out there, it's out there. Just ask Anthony Weiner.
If you are at your worst in public, you still have no expectation of privacy and you can be recorded and those recordings can be distributed, and there is nothing you can do about it.
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.
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.
Clearly, you've never had any personal interaction with members of the 'law enforcement' community. If there is any compromise, it will inevitably be at the expense of those who are already being unlawfully abused by the coercive power of the state.
No fucking compromise when it comes to abuse of authority and betrayal of public trust under the color of law.
The person making this request is only still anonymous because it is a cop. What better way to shut down cameras than manufacturing a problem? What better problem to manufacture than one that is a hot topic right now - privacy.
Now that they are no longer rounding up pot smokers all day, they have time to consider things like "privacy" "expectation" and "oversight" Whats the problem here? All footage of "house-calls" should go off limits. Same goes for Sexual assault. Nothing gets released until after it works it way through the judicial system. (speedy trial and all that) Everything else should be piped directly to the net for public consumption. Cant afford to pipe it? Tell that to the judge. We will be happy to setup a payment plan+ court fees+filing fees+convenience fees+financing fees. Perhaps its time we all drank from the trough.
You have an often fought for right to film the police in public and post it online. SO DO THEY. There is no privacy in public anyway, get used to it.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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 have a Crosman Nightstalker which uses the exact same composite shell as the Beretta CX4 Storm - the cam slots in next to the barrel through an open pocket set into the nose of the forestock. As pistol mounting goes, I only have one pistol with a rail that I actually use - that would be my .177 Webley Nemesis which I use for 20m target, that has a Tasco 3-7 x20.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Standard Operating Procedure on things that might be security risks or violate privacy is to have a time delay before the materials can be released under the Freedom of Information Act and typically heavy redaction. I can just see the delivery:
"Your request for the video will arrive in 30 years. The 10 billion seconds of video you requested will be redacted to all zeros for privacy and national security reasons. Since it will be MPEG compressed this will allow us to deliver in a single byte. Watch your email box. G'day."
That's not a problem at all. It's not any citizen's job to police the police. That's the job of the staff sergeant, police chief, mayor, and city council. Don't like the job they're doing? Be a citizen and voice your concerns to your government, and if they do nothing, vote someone else in. Besides, your typical Joe Citizen is as qualified to evaluate police work as he is qualified to shoot a rocket into outer space.
Pocket cams are there to protect everyone's interest, both police and private citizens. But it's -not- a big brother spy camera. Parent poster is succinct and correct.
Aren't we already showing people breaking laws and on their worst days with all the various Cop Reality shows? What's the problem here? Such footage has already been commercialized!
If yes, then the problem has nothing to do with body cams specifically.
If no, then why are these recording being treated so differently?
It used to be a pretty regular experience to get pulled over by an officer who was using his judgement and he or she could let us off with a warning or write us a ticket. But now, they are making the movies hoping for that video that will launch them into stardom when their shots go viral. That is definitely a conflict of interest over and above their duty to protect and serve. Just who are they protecting and serving now when some idiot in some foreign country that has declared jihad can sit and eat his camel sandwich and laugh at the show? Doesn't that bother anyone else besides me?
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.
The police have plenty of choice in this matter. If they don't want the public to review their actions, then they can quit their jobs as police officers and go into the private sector.
"Information wants to be free. Nothing is taken from the people whose videos are posted."
Says somebody who's never been doxxed, subject to identity theft, had a stalker, had some interests that while perfectly legal were objectionable to their boss/family,
Well, the people publishing those video's on youtube are the ones that are the biggest hypocrits on the planet..
And even if it was recorded by a police officer, doesn't mean you can just publish the video without consent of the people being filmed, especially if there is a commercial reason for publishing it.. and certainly in this case there seems to be a commercial reason..
Well, why not follow these people who post these video's and post their lives when they are not at their best on youtube, I guess then they would scream and cry themselves...
"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."
Ever heard of "Cops"? On TV??
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
It should be readily available to persons involved or for court cases, you should not have the right to request videos of others, and certainly should not have the right to make videos of others available online.
If I make a request for a video of my car being pulled over, then that video should be delivered.
If I make a request for a video of someone else being pulled over, then that video should not be delivered, unless
Why does the American situation have to be so damn complicated all the time? God damn political maneuvering is all anyone can do these days. Not my fault, not my problem, go fuck yourself.
The PD, like any organization, needs a clear, appropriate and sensible record retention policies. Records, including videos, should be destroyed when no longer needed. Thirty days is long enough to know whether the video of an event is needed for an investigation, so a policy to automatically destroy after 30 days unless marked otherwise will minimize the cost and harm of such fishing expeditions.
Yeah right, because THIS EXACT POLICE CHIEF made truck loads of money off of shows like Cops. He doesn't run all the police in the country you know.
Show me how he or anyone in his department has been involved in any way shape or form with that sort of exploitative TV show and your argument might be a tiny bit valid.
So the police raid someone for child porn and collect a bunch of pictures. These pictures are evidence (and used in a trial) I presume. Are they also public record?
I assume they are not; that you can't have the police send you copies. Why is this video any harder to sort out than court evidence?
Or you could have nigh-100% public access by making it available in a viewing room. I'm not aware of anything in the FOIA that should require that copies be made.
Or, if the abuses of the FOIA are relatively few in number; allow judicial review upon request.
The issues:
Can be used for to invade privacy, hurt people, or extort them.
Partial solution:
Create/improve a law so if anyone is asked for anything to remove embarrassing footage they can be sued.
I was going to suggest making it impossible to anonymously request footage but what would the point be? Once the footage is released to someone they can create copies and pass it on to anyone who can potentially use it for whatever purpose.
Imaginary scenario: Guy and girl breakup. Guy knows girl had trouble with police about drugs a year ago and requests the video. He then sends it to the company she is trying to get a job with. Ugly results ensue. Resulting question: Should the girl be able to sue the guy? How would she be able to prove he requested/sent the video if he can request and deliver it anonymously?
"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,"
Let me correct his comment so it sounds right:
People with mental illness, people in domestic violence situations; We claim the right to sell that kind of thing on TV through our network affiliates on COPS. Who do these people think they are requesting public data to make money off of these people when we clearly are the only ones who can do that.
At the same time, he's not wrong.
Should victims of domestic abuse now have yet another reason to be scared of calling the police because their traumatic event will be broadcast on the web?
Should loved ones of the mentally ill who become a danger to themselves and need to be brought to the mental hospital now be worried about calling the cops because their loved one on his worst day is now going to have his trauma posted online for people to gawk at and employers to find?
If you're arrested for a crime you didn't commit and are later acquitted of, should your arrest be posted to the internet?
Not every interaction between police and citizens is a horrible violation of the rights of the innocent, nor is it a terrible criminal brought to justice. Sometimes, (frequently), it's police discreetly helping people on their worst days. The disclosure of all police interactions with the public is not in the public interest.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Well, we are a nation who have "Crime Times" magazine at gas stations with faces of people who were arrested. Not convicted mind you, arrested. But we still put their picture up on a publication and let it haunt them, because a good story always trumps truth. That's the mind set we live in, if there are cops involved the person must be wrong, because authority is always right. In time we've decided you know what would be a great idea? Maybe we should just do whole videos instead of mugshots. Aaahhh society, how I'd like to slap everyone.
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 they interact also subject to public scrutiny.
Just because I consent to let a cop into my house does not mean that I consent to let the entire Internet into my house. With Cops, I can at least choose to consent to broadcast my wife-beater-wearing self and messy home to the public. Just because you want to shove this in the "Cops are self-serving thugs" box doesn't mean it neatly (or doesn't at all) fit. Complex issues are complex.
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 they interact also subject to public scrutiny.
Just because I consent to let a cop into my house does not mean that I consent to let the entire Internet into my house. With Cops, I can at least choose to consent to broadcast my wife-beater-wearing self and messy home to the public. Just because you want to shove this in the "Cops are self-serving thugs" box doesn't mean it neatly (or doesn't at all) fit. Complex issues are complex.
I'm curious, how many consent forms did you sign today when you decided to walk the 5 blocks to your destination instead of drive, in which no less than 50 city cameras recorded your every movement?
For 95% of the time anyone would interact with a member of law enforcement, we will be in public, in which you simply have no expectation of privacy. Period.
That said, I'm not sure how much of your argument here fits in the box.
For the remaining 5% of the time (home search warrants, etc.), simply disable the camera, or mandate policy to not release any of this type of footage for public consumption. Policy regarding usage can control this quite easily, and make a complex issue quite simple.
Cops gets signed releases or they don't air the footage if it is in a private space. If the footage is taken in a public space (park, public street, or sidewalk) and they have don't have a signed release, they will blur the face and redact the name from audio if possible. If not possible, they will not air the footage. All minors need releases from a legal guardian. If there is a person on the video that is not part of the incident, such as a by-stander walking in the scene, unless they get a signed release they will blur the face if identifiable.
The work the police is doing does not automatically enter public domain, there is supposed to be clearence levels involved. Unrestricted, restricted and Confidential is the highest level. (Secret and Top secret only apply to army). When the police is to deal with special cases such as robbery, violence, etc, it is supposed to be a confidential case in mostly all cases.
Now the police face freedom of information requests, and the article is talking about the cost of evaluating what can be and cannot be relased - it is too expensive to go through and evaluate all the material, and they face a request to release ALL footage!
The most obvious policy should of course be
1) blanket requests cannot be made - all freedom request should be specific and for a purpose for the freedom request to be evaluated
2) the release should take into account who file the request. It is very different if a person unrelated with a case request the footage or if the person in the footage/his lawyer request the information. Confidential information may be given to the later two, whereas others only should get confidential information under specific conditions and all groups should likely sign confidentiality agreements if confidential infrormation is handed out. If the information is not viewed as confidential however, the information rules apply accordingly.
In other words, the way it is supposed to work we should track down and arrest someone who disclose confidential information obtained under a freedom of information request.
Blanket requests can fuck off somewhere