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.

Comments

Legalities

[durrr]

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

[cold fjord]

Since it is being obtained from the police it no doubt is classified as a public record.

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, and Youtube should block video by default, until they can verify attached consent form?

Re:Legalities

[durrr]

So if I get a law enforcement guy to record a movie with his bodycam it falls into the public domain?

Re:Legalities

[Strangely Familiar]

It seems like there should be a signed release required. The bigger issue is how to deal with this power imbalance. The police collect video everywhere they go. If they don't make it available to the public, then only they have access. The potential to game this system is obvious. Police "lose" video, or withhold it unless someone gets a judge to order the release. Using this and video monitoring of the public more generally, they are perhaps given too much information and power not available to the public.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

As a burglar, i'd love to have real police officers check houses for me. All I need is to ask! I love this tech!
My cousin, ambulance chasing lawyer, can't wait for recordings from paramedics and fire dept.

Re:Legalities

[djdanlib]

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:Legalities

[mythosaz]

You next video project should be to compile a feature film composed entirely of "found footage" in by-cop shaky-cam.

Re:Legalities

[jklovanc]

No, as the law enforcement officer would be in your employ and therefore and video is not related to his law enforcement job.

Re:Legalities

[internerdj]

More interesting: what happens to the footage actually contains something covered by DMCA?

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it is being obtained from the police it no doubt is classified as a public record.

Ahh, its a public record yes, so it can be obtained, but if you wanted to exhibit it you'd need to comply with laws for that, like photo releases for everyone appearing in it.

The one place where copyright works in favor of the little guy :P

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA wins, of course. The movie industry is more important than anything, including terrorism, the children and ponies.

Re:Legalities

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

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:Legalities

[Wycliffe]

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

[Half-pint HAL]

That's what he's saying -- officer walks into coffee shop, Katy Perry is on the radio, footage is DMCA'ed

Re:Legalities

[Wycliffe]

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:Legalities

[djdanlib]

Great. Now all the mobsters and thugs and crooked cops will know to blare Top 40 to prevent evidence from being posted online.

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. I can't get any police report on accidents I want, I have to have standing and prove that standing. I don't see how this would be any different (laws vary by state of course).

Re:Legalities

[EvilSS]

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 an judge where the privacy vs reporting issues can be weighed on a case by case basis. We already do this with other records where privacy of the individual(s) involved outweighs unrestricted public access. Some states have also started to do this with things like mugshots to prevent them from being used on mugshot websites (which are just a legal shakedown scheme).

Re:Legalities

[Immerman]

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 publicly releasing it, especially when money is involved. That said releasing unwelcome footage of police has been repeatedly ruled legal, but I think a large part of that is due to the fact that they're acting in the capacity of public employees

Re:Legalities

[cheater512]

Video gets taken down, media company gets no penalty.

Duh.

Re:Legalities

[fustakrakich]

An organization that is not directly under the command of the executive branches or legislative branches.

An organization under its own authority is much more dangerous. Normal public oversight over the government is all that is required, not another 'committee'. So, like they say, *If you see something, say something!* Don't let them get away with it. Always always treat authority as your adversary, guilty until proven innocent, the same way we are treated by it.

Re:Legalities

[afidel]

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 receive the same limited immunity.

Re:Legalities

[radarskiy]

Then they have already been punished for their crimes.

Re:Legalities

[xaotikdesigns]

Just warn people the cops have cameras and they are on live TV

"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:Legalities

[mysidia]

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 protect the privacy of people shown in the video or audio by obtaining a release for your commercial use, or clear the use of the video for newsworthiness through a neutral 3rd party, unless the person shown in the video is deceased or convicted of a crime.

Re:Legalities

[xaotikdesigns]

I'm waiting for the first instance of child nudity filmed by police to become the new thing in child port...

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

[alexander_686]

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

[rogoshen1]

better yet, i'm waiting for a policeman to walk into a movie theater with his cam running.

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

The example given was not releasing police video of people being strip searched. That isn't removing informaiton or punishing those who release it. Your understanding of the problem, not to mention censorship, needs work.

So no, it isn't censorship. It isn't even close.

What would make you think that it is?

Re:Legalities

[Jane Q. Public]

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:Legalities

[ShanghaiBill]

If they don't make it available to the public, then only they have access.

False dilemma. The two extremes of "full public access" and "no access" are not the only alternatives.

Re:Legalities

[drinkypoo]

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:Legalities

[ihtoit]

yes, it's called my heel through the screen you cheap bastard.

Re:Legalities

[ihtoit]

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 was subsequently suppressed. You know what? I think it is in the public interest to know that certain elements in the public sector are FILTHY FUCKING KIDDIE FIDDLING BASTARDS.

Re:Legalities

[corsec67]

The copyright status of the video is separate from needing a model release to use the video in a non-editorial context.

If they claim they are "news", then they would have an editorial context exemption.

Re:Legalities

[CanHasDIY]

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:Legalities

[drinkypoo]

You haven't demonstrated that $10/Minute is an unreasonable fee for the purpose of limiting the amount of content that will be exported.

Because it penalizes anyone attempting to use the footage to actually check up on the police. It takes a human sitting there watching all of the footage. The cops get to use automated systems to keep tabs on us, why shouldn't we get to return the favor?

Re:Legalities

[Lumpy]

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:Legalities

[Lumpy]

What if it's Nickleback?

Re:Legalities

[Lumpy]

Nope, unless it was shot on private property no releases needed.

Re:Legalities

[mysidia]

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.

They do it already; and the privacy concerns outweigh the problems.

You probably only need a minute or so of footage for legitimate purposes; on the other hand, attempting to exploit the footage for commercial ends should be prohibitively expensive; for example, $600 for an hour of footage from one Officer, I believe is sufficient that noone will be frivolously pulling an hour of video to post on Youtube, on the other hand, if you need to use it for a legal purpose, that price is pretty cheap ----- it's really just enough to make sure it won't be profitable just to repost it and hope for advertising, unless, the video is extremely special.

In terms of cost recovery, video media is much more expensive to store, backup, and manage that data, than text media is. A minute of video is actually more than 10 times as expensive as a page of scanned text is.

And remember.... when you want to get a copy; it's not just clerk time you're paying for, the entire IT system that stores all this data, including electricity, personnel, computers, software licensing, etc, and makes it possible to retrieve it needs to be funded by the fees associated with info requests.

Re:Legalities

[Anonymous Coward]

8th Amendment issue.

Re:Legalities

[mysidia]

The cops get to use automated systems to keep tabs on us, why shouldn't we get to return the favor?

It sounds like a special research project which can demonstrate value to the public and non-pecunary interest that might be worthy of receiving a fee-waiver.

Not like the guy whose big idea is just to repost material to make money on Youtube ads.

Re:Legalities

[SeaFox]

Do the producers of Cops get releases from all the people they film?
That's 100% for commercial purposes.

Re:Legalities

[rtb61]

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:Legalities

[JasonGoatcher]

If they are crazy, they won't care, and screw them too, that's fuckin' life!

In case you weren't aware, there's medication that can help "crazy" people. But if you put video of their behavior on the internet, that's a permanent smudge on their reputation.

Re:Legalities

[dargaud]

A judge ? And the world is not black OR white, you know.

Re:Legalities

[rioki]

First there are limited provisions AND the police does not only operate open in public space. Probably most of the juicy bits are taken on private property, such as during an arrest.

Re:Legalities

[dcw3]

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.

How about we make it so these are only releasable upon a conviction? People get charged all the time, that doesn't mean they've done squat.

Re:Legalities

[lazyforker]

This sounds reasonable. I'd also like some kind of "video cannot be used commercially" license. And perhaps the data should be destroyed after (say) 6 months if: there's no successful conviction, there's no Internal Affairs investigation underway, there's no pending or ongoing lawsuit/prosecution against a police officer.

Re:Legalities

[tehcyder]

What if it's Nickleback?

something something cruel and unusual punishment

Re:Legalities

[Half-pint HAL]

Great. Now all the mobsters and thugs and crooked cops will know to blare Top 40 to prevent evidence from being posted online.

No, now the mobsters will know not to blare Top 40 so that the evidence can all be posted online and their lawyers can move for a mistrial on grounds of sub-judice evidence being released into the public domain.

Re:Legalities

[Warhawke]

No, it's not "other parts of the same law" that require the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, it's traditional, old school common law. If you aid and abet someone in committing a crime, then you are liable as an accomplice, or a secondary/contributory infringer in the case of copyright. Without it, every ISP is technically liable for every copyright infringement committed on their network or website, because they give consumers the tools to commit the infringement, thereby making them liable.

Get rid of the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and you can kiss the open internet (including this forum) goodbye. Unless you consider the days before the Internet to be "demonstrably better."

Re:Legalities

[AK Marc]

Not a valid motion. Much of the evidence against mobsters is often public domain. 90% of the evidence against Al Capone was. If your joke of a motion was legit, I think someone smarter than you would have used it before.

Re:Legalities

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it's not "other parts of the same law" that require the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, it's traditional, old school common law. If you aid and abet someone in committing a crime, then you are liable as an accomplice, or a secondary/contributory infringer in the case of copyright.

Irrelevant. Those things were already illegal! Further, MOST copyright infringement is not a crime. Genuine piracy (copying & distributing for profit) is, but the vast majority of copyright infringement isn't piracy.

DMCA added nothing substantial to reasonable copyright laws. What it did was make attempts to break (and even research about!) "protections" illegal. While courts have held parts of those restrictions don't hold water, some still do.

It also created the DMCA "takedown" provisions, which border on prior restraint. Those moved the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, which is an abomination in the eyes of U.S. (and Common Law) legal principles.

All in all, the majority of DMCA is a violation of Common Law principles.

Re:Legalities

[david_thornley]

If I aid somebody in doing something you can sue about, I can be found liable. So, if I host a website with user-provided content, and you sue because somebody put up something you've copyrighted, you could normally sue me. This part of the DMCA is actually a step forward (as opposed to the rest of the DMCA, which we are in agreement on).

The takedown provisions aren't as bad as they look, either. They're safe-harbor provisions, meaning the host will not be found liable in any case where they followed them. This allows YouTube and the like to host user-supplied stuff without exposure to crippling amounts of liability and without spending many resources on monitoring for copyright infringement. If YouTube is sure something's up legitimately, they don't have to take it down. They usually aren't.

DMCA takedown provisions also can't possibly be prior restraint, since they're done after something has been posted to the Internet. Nor is there any presumption of guilt, or burden of proof. The safe harbor provisions allow the host to put the potentially illegal material back up if the poster files a DMCA counterclaim. At that point, it's between the copyright holder and whoever posted the material, and YouTube or whoever is legally off the hook.

Re:Legalities

[david_thornley]

Ideally, the video is stored by somebody other than the police, so it can't be "lost" by the police. As far as turning off or obscuring cameras, that's something for a lawyer to argue in court. I believe that, in civil cases, if evidence is withheld it may be assumed to be in the worst interests of the withholder, and in criminal cases the defense should point out possible violations from missing video.

Re:Legalities

[david_thornley]

The problem I have with that is that police see a whole lot of things that shouldn't be public. If you know that Officer X broke up an attempted rape, should every neighborhood pervert be allowed to watch that footage? If a person was doing something legal but embarrassing, should a business or political rival be able to get the footage? Allowing the videos to be generally available is going to constitute a whole lot of invasions of privacy.

Re:Legalities

[Half-pint HAL]

A) Al Capone was done for tax evasion, and the evidence against him was drawn from his annual returns.

B) Capone, although guilty, was subject to a miscarriage of justice. His sentence was unusually long for the crime he was convicted of. He was essentially punished for his mob work even though he was never convicted of it.

C) Plenty of people have used this exact same thing before. It's a move for dismissal/mistrial on the grounds of a tainted jury. It is far from unknown for cases to be dropped because media attention on a suspect has compromised the ability to hold a fair trial. This is why there are laws to block news outlets from reporting pertinent facts in a case before the trial. This is what the term sub judice, as per my previous message, refers to.

So what was that about jokes and smarter people...?

Re:Legalities

[mysidia]

If a person was doing something legal but embarrassing, should a business or political rival be able to get the footage?

Yes, after showing a signed consent for everyone appearing in the video, or after the clerk blurs the face of every civilian who does not consent, at an additional surcharge per minute and per frame of footage requiring censorship.

If you know that Officer X broke up an attempted rape, should every neighborhood pervert be allowed to watch that footage?

There should be a code for that. If there is nudity involved, the video should be tagged, and additional cost should be imposed on the requestor in order to censor any body parts, before the footage can be accessed. Also, the clerk should be required to review the video, before copying or viewing it outside the records room can be allowed, which the person wanting the footage should pay the cost of; not just the marginal cost of reviewing the footage they are requesting, but at least double their share of long-term infrastructure costs in supporting that whole system.

Re:Legalities

[AK Marc]

It's a move for dismissal/mistrial on the grounds of a tainted jury. It is far from unknown for cases to be dropped because media attention on a suspect has compromised the ability to hold a fair trial.

That's different than moving for a mistrial simply because facts were released into the "public domain". They had to be widely spread, and common knowledge. Even OJ managed to get a jury that supposedly never heard of the killing before being called for jury duty. So a dismissal for something being in "public domain" without any evidence of jury taint isn't popular, as you state.

You know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.

Re:Legalities

[mysidia]

The threshold of reasonable is usually determined by what it costs to fulfill the request.

$1/page is standard because it's a pretty good approximation of the cost of materials, plus the marginal cost of paying a clerk to locate and reproduce the document in question.

A piece of paper costs less than $0.01, and maybe $0.02 or $0.03 a page in material after considering the ink and the cost to operate a printer. (Your $0.10 in toner estimate is way off-base)

The cost is not for the clerk retrieving the data; YOU can retrieve the data from the electronic retrieval system, once you selected the document in takes 30 seconds. About $0.02 in hourly pay for the clerk; so it's literally about $0.07 a page in time and materials.

BUT You are forgetting something important. You are not paying JUST for time and materials. You also have to pay for "your share" of the idle time.

A video search and retrieval system is probably massively more expensive per unit, because there are likely to be massively fewer retrieval requests.

Think of it this way. Clerk of courts process document requests all day long. If all the clerks makes $10/Hour, and they copy on average 100 pages per hour per person over the duration of employment, that's about $0.02 a page in labor.

On the other hand.... if demand drops, and their request volume goes down to 2 or 3 people requesting 10 pages a day, or 1 page per hour per employee on average, then the average labor cost of copying a page goes up to $10.

The actual cost is a function of what the entire market is doing.

The true cost to each buyer is (Cost to support the entire system over its lifetime) TIMES (A Weight factor). Where the 'Weight factor' corresponds to the proportion of the system's usage attributable to that buyer.

Of course you can never calculate that. But if you buy a $20,000 software license, and only turn out to get 100 records requests of 1 minute each, then the reasonable price to copy about 1 minute of video footage using that system is about $1,000, at least.

Re:Legalities

[EnempE]

You are 100% Correct. In fact Washington State law reflects this. In the law on public Disclosure.

Besides the fact that an anonymous request should be ignored as the applicants name and address etc. should be included on the application.
RCW 42.56.240
Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.
The following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter:
(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);
(4) License applications under RCW 9.41.070; copies of license applications or information on the applications may be released to law enforcement or corrections agencies;
(5) Information revealing the identity of child victims of sexual assault who are under age eighteen. Identifying information means the child victim's name, address, location, photograph, and in cases in which the child victim is a relative or stepchild of the alleged perpetrator, identification of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator;
(6) The statewide gang database referenced in RCW 43.43.762;
(7) Data from the electronic sales tracking system established in RCW 69.43.165;
(8) Information submitted to the statewide unified sex offender notification and registration program under RCW 36.28A.040(6) by a person for the purpose of receiving notification regarding a registered sex offender, including the person's name, residential address, and e-mail address;
(9) Personally identifying information collected by law enforcement agencies pursuant to local security alarm system programs and vacation crime watch programs. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted so as to prohibit the legal owner of a residence or business from accessing information regarding his or her residence or business; and
(10) The felony firearm offense conviction database of felony firearm offenders established in RCW 43.43.822; and
(11) The identity of a state employee or officer who has in good faith filed a complaint with an ethics board, as provided in RCW 42.52.410, or who has in good faith reported improper governmental action, as defined in RCW 42.40.020, to the auditor or other public official, as defined in RCW 42.40.020; and
(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

Re:Legalities

[RockDoctor]

officer walks into coffee shop, Katy Perry is on the radio, footage is DMCA'ed

s/coffee shop/private home/

Re:Legalities

[Half-pint HAL]

If we start talking about private homes, the issue of consent/release forms comes up -- privacy in public places vs private homes is a very different legal matter. While the police are allowed to film and keep records of them carrying out their duties, that's very different from a commercial entity releasing that footage for publix consumption.

Re:Legalities

[Jane Q. Public]

The takedown provisions aren't as bad as they look, either.

The takedown provisions are terrible. There are innumerable documented cases of abuse, and the burden of proof is shifted away from the accuser and on to the defending party. That makes it an effective tool for censorship, if only temporary. And it has been used that way. Many, many times. Further, it discriminates against the poor who have less time/money to demonstrate documented ownership.

The burden of demonstrating infringement must be on the claimant before a takedown. The fact that it is not is inexcusable, and must change.

Re: Legalities

[RockDoctor]

The same issue applies to a police officer recording copyrighted matter in the process of his work in a private home. His possession of an unlicensed recording of Katy Perry (whoever he is) remains a crime, regardless of whether he also has footage covering work - related stuff. Even if it's the same footage.

Re:Legalities

[david_thornley]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Once the takedown is done, and the counterclaim filed, the hosting site is out of the loop. The poor don't have to document legitimacy in order to file the counterclaim.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[cold fjord]

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?

Straw man

[therealkevinkretz]

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

[rahvin112]

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).

Re:Straw man

[Anonymous Coward]

The request in this case was for every second of video recorded. Are you saying that none of that time came in a home? Not that it matters. /. says that I, as an officer, should not be able to turn off my camera for any reason. But I should be able to if I go in someone's home or when they don't want it filmed? Body cams just got a lot more complicated. Now I have to get a release from everyone, and I can't film in homes (can that still be used against me?) or anywhere else someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy (a legitimate expectation of privacy is two components objective and subjective). Wonderful. That camera is going to be on and off, on and off, on and off. On while I'm pissing. On while I'm talking to myself in my car. On while I approach the door. Off when everything matters. And probably off when the jury let's a guy off, because I, as a jack-booted thug, turned my camera off, not for privacy, but so I could beat them into submission.

Re:Straw man

[jklovanc]

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:Straw man

[blackraven14250]

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.

Re:Straw man

[suutar]

As a cop, your camera should never be off. But I, as a private citizen, should be able to get a copy if I have a good reason. In my opinion, the best indication that I have a good reason is if I'm willing to shell out 5 or 10 bucks per minute of footage (enough that I'm unlikely to be able to profitably resell it, but not so much as to be prohibitive) or willing to get a judge to agree that I have a good reason (which should cost less but I'm sure there'll be fees for applying).

I believe that unfortunate as it may be, privacy and secrecy are being eroded by large scale surveillance. However, given that as a practical matter the government _will_ surveil the people, it is far better for the people to also surveil the government, because that helps keep the power imbalance smaller.

Re:Straw man

[eineerg]

Only rich people though? Not like you're gonna know which minute you need

Re:Straw man

[dcw3]

As a cop, your camera should never be off.

In general, I'll agree. But, exceptions for certain periods, like donuts and potty breaks need to be allowed.

Re:Straw man

[suutar]

point. Viewing the footage at the station to determine which chunk you want to buy a copy of should be free. Even if you don't buy a copy you have enough information to get it subpoenaed if you need it in a case.

anonymously

[frovingslosh]

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:anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the damn summary. Someone using the name "Police video requests" on Youtube requested all the video using that name and not their own. Was that so hard?

Re:anonymously

[frovingslosh]

Yes you ignorant AC, it is damn hard. The police have no way to give the video to one of you Anonymous types. They couldn't even email that much video to an anonymous email address. To say that "somebody" wants us to give them many terabytes of data but we don't know who they are implies that we have no practical way to give it to them (not that they should give it to them).

Re:anonymously

[whoever57]

anonymously asked Poulsbo PD

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:anonymously

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:anonymously

[pmocek]

They can post the records on an FTP server, on an HTTP server, using SpiderOak, using OnionShare, or use any of a number of other methods.

Re:anonymously

[pmocek]

We had to sue Seattle Police Department to get them to provide dashboard camera video. Until recently, they refused to provide it to uninvolved parties until the statutes of limitation on civil and criminal lawsuits ran out. That's three years. They also had a policy of purging video after three years.

See this report, published yesterday:

An important precedent for public access to police video was set in June, when the state Supreme Court ruled that the Seattle Police Department had wrongly withheld dashboard camera footage from a KOMO-TV news reporter. The reporter filed a request in 2010 for "any and all" in-car footage the department had tagged to keep since 2007.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[DrunkenTerror]

> Bedroom?

Bodycam video of me sleeping and refreshing /. can't be that compelling.

Bad precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

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

[wonkavader]

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:Bad precedent

[xaotikdesigns]

What the should do is set up a form that offers two options:

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 forms to get that extra data, like, where did an officer go after interviewing witnesses.

This would make it easy to fulfill requests, and keep outrageous requests from entering the system.

Re:Bad precedent

[pmocek]

Public agencies in Washington are not allowed to discriminate as you suggest. That would be a violation of RCW 42.56.080, which states, "Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.56.070(9) or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records to certain persons."

Re:Bad precedent

[pmocek]

Such may be the cost of facilitating public oversight of government staff who are authorized to enforce public policy with force.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

If there is an issue then ask for a specific video. It is unreasonable to demand every second of video taken by police. There are privacy concerns. Some of that video is taken in private situation.

Re:Bad precedent

[pmocek]

Do you find it unreasonable for the public to demand access to the entire body of public records because of the burden on public agencies of getting public records out of the systems in which they chose to store the records, or because of people's on-camera interaction with public servants while performing their public duties?

Re:Bad precedent

[suutar]

If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen, can tell the difference between being refused access to footage because the subject is embarrassed about something that I really don't have any need to know and being refused access because either the police or the subject are embarrassed about something that I do have a reasonable need to know, then I'm fine with that.

But lacking the ability to make that distinction myself without having seen the footage myself, and having a lack of trusted disinterested parties who have seen it, I have to lean towards making it available. And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen,...

Maybe you are "concerned" with things have noting to do with you. There is a fine line between "concerned citizen" and busybody.

And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.

Sorry but everyone is not like you. The civilian in the video should be the one to say whether or not it is public.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

Both. The former is a fishing expedition and the latter is an invasion of privacy.

Re:Bad precedent

[pmocek]

These have implications on our privacy, I agree. However, I think there is nothing wrong with the public going fishing for government malfeasance. With the extraordinary authority we give some staff, to harm people on the job in order to enforce our public policy, should come extreme on-the-job scrutiny. If somebody doesn't want the public looking over his shoulder all the time, the being an armed public servant is the wrong job for that person.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

However, I think there is nothing wrong with the public going fishing for government malfeasance.

Some people would also use the same access to fish for things to use against the civilians in the the videos.

If somebody doesn't want the public looking over his shoulder all the time, the being an armed public servant is the wrong job for that person.

You forget that it is not only the police in the video but the public as well. As I have said, the civilian in the video, unless it is being used in an investigation, that should have control over whether or not it is public.

Re:Bad precedent

[suutar]

There is a fine line. Without more info you don't know which side I'm on. For example, what if I want to examine footage from the time when a cop is alleged to have used excessive force when apprehending a suspect? Is that me being a busybody or reasonably wanting to keep an eye on those authorized to use lethal force? And how do you make the dividing line objective enough to codify in rules? Because if you can't do that, then you're stuck with picking someone to make subjective calls, and then you're forced to trust them to get it right. Given the levels of regulatory capture we've been seeing, that's not an option that bodes well.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

For example, what if I want to examine footage from the time when a cop is alleged to have used excessive force when apprehending a suspect?

Then you request the specific video for that specific instance and the person involved gets to say whether you get it or not. That is far different from requesting all video from all cameras all the time.

Given the levels of regulatory capture we've been seeing, that's not an option that bodes well.

it also does not bode well to have every interaction with police available on the web.

I find it interesting that you see everyone in authority as bad but consider every civilian to be good. There are some civilians who will use these videos to do very bad things.

Re:Bad precedent

[suutar]

So I request the footage and the cop says no. So much for oversight.

Or I request the footage and the suspect says no. Possibly because the cop intimidated him into refusing permission. Again, so much for oversight.

I don't see all civilians as being good. I do see civilians as being at the lower end of the power imbalance and I want to maintain oversight capability to keep it from getting more imbalanced.

Re:Bad precedent

[jklovanc]

So I request the footage and the cop says no. So much for oversight.

Cop can not say no as they are on duty.

Possibly because the cop intimidated him into refusing permission.

Possible but not probable. Anyone who is threatened by a cop would just go to the media and a shit storm would ensue.

Again, the bad uses of blanket release of video far outweigh the good.

We already have laws to cover this

[quietwalker]

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

[YrWrstNtmr]

1. Your house is broken into
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:We already have laws to cover this

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[BringsApples]

I think that both of you are misdirected. These cameras don't record until the officer decides.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

And many people, incl. many here, want them on all the time, no exceptions, to prevent exactly that.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[jklovanc]

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

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 of video to review. That takes a lot of time even for a dedicated person to do. Then any possible denial would have to be reviewed again by a lawyer to ensure that it is outside the request. Three years to review 24 hour video from ten sources is lot that much time.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[Immerman]

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 overseeing them.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[BringsApples]

There would have to be some sort of way that the officer could turn off the thing, they have bathroom duties like the rest of us.

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:We already have laws to cover this

[lionchild]

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 through public funding.

So, if the data on police body cams was made possible by public funds, stored on servers purchased with public funds, then they are more than likely going to be subject to "Sunshine Law" information requests. This is the same law that keeps City Councils from hold closed meetings and passing city ordinance outside of the view of the public, or our state lawmakers to do the same. The laws are typically boiler-plate and very broad, the exceptions very narrow.

All of that being said, I can imagine that a new addendum is made for body cams, though not likely for dash-cams. Such as when police enter a private residence, video of open, ongoing investigations, videos dealing with minors, etc..

It's a brave new world. We need to temper our need for transparency, with the fact that our police officers are human; they will make mistakes, just like every citizen will make mistakes. It's the unintentional mistakes that we need to be able to roll back the clock on, to a time before when our whole life was televised on social media...when people actually forgot a stupid, unintentional mistake.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[phantomfive]

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:We already have laws to cover this

[HiThere]

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:We already have laws to cover this

[xaotikdesigns]

So now i need to request the dash cam video of any police officer that drives into someone's house!

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[pmocek]

Wrong. In Washington, every record made by a public agency is public record unless it is exempted from our Public Records Act. Public is the default. There is no need for anyone to classifiy a record as public in order to make it so.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[rgmoore]

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.

In this case, I think the police department would be justified in denying the request as unduly broad and burdensome. There's a huge difference between requesting all the footage associated with a specific incident or investigation and demanding all the footage period. Most public records laws allow the government to charge the people making requests for the costs of providing the records, and the police would certainly be justified in demanding upfront payment in this case.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[pmocek]

I believe all of that is correct. Thus, police departments had better stop co-mingling releasable and non-releasable records and portions thereof. Making redaction so time-consuming as to greatly delay production of records is an effective means of circumventing our Public Records Act, and we should not allow our public servants to do so. This goes doubly for those public servants who have the extraordinary authority to harm people on the job.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[Jeremi]

And many people, incl. many here, want them on all the time, no exceptions, to prevent exactly that.

Of course, a dishonest police officer can always find something to cover the camera with, or "accidentally" put it on backwards, or "forget" to charge the battery, or any number of other subtle or not-so-subtle bits of sabotage.

The real endgame arrives only when both the police officer and any person (s)he comes in contact with are both recording video. In that case both parties will have an incentive to record everything, since otherwise only the other party will have (possibly selective/edited) video evidence to provide.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[BringsApples]

Why do you think we don't want that?

Dunno, but who'd be in charge of watching all of that video, to check for illegal activity/wrong doing? (I think it'd require a bunch of lawyers because normal people are not trained in practices of law, and wouldn't know when something illegal happened) Then who pays them for their services? This camera idea, although a good idea in theory, is a slippery slope in practice. You'd have to double the current number of police employees in order to be able to sift through the data that the first half creates.

There are corrupt police officers, no doubt. But a camera isn't going to make them act in the way that we want them to.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[jklovanc]

Thus, police departments had better stop co-mingling releasable and non-releasable records and portions thereof.

How to you segment a video feed from an officer's camera when the officer move from public to private situations at any time?

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[Areyoukiddingme]

Option C: All video is transfered to the custody of an independent citizen's oversight committee (your police department has one of those, right?)

Oh yeah, it's independent. The chairman is the brother-in-law of the police chief, the treasurer is the sister of a desk sergeant, and the secretary who keeps the minutes? That's Bubba. He's a functional illiterate.

You just set that there piece of paper in that inbox right there and we'll get back to you. Don't mind the dust.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[pmocek]

I don't believe that public servants spend much time in private situations while on the job. And if we need special teams of police who are assigned to go into people's homes, when invited, without camera, never without a witness, then maybe we should arrange for that.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[jklovanc]

I don't believe that public servants spend much time in private situations while on the job.

Police deal with people at their worst moments. Do you really believe turning that into "America's Funniest Cop Videos" is a good idea.

And if we need special teams of police who are assigned to go into people's homes, when invited, without camera, never without a witness, then maybe we should arrange for that.

That is a completely unworkable idea. Situations happen too quickly. Some police forces are too small to handle that. For example Poulsbo has a total of 17 police officers. Any video inside a home should be considered private. Cameras are also important in every situation. Whether or not the video is released is the issue.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[pmocek]

Care to address the issue at hand instead of throwing up strawmen? I don't believe that public servants spend much time in private situations while on the job. I'm not arguing that police don't deal with people at those people's worst moments. I'm not arging anything about the entertainment value of watching public servants on the job.

Whether or not the public have access to public records is up to the public to decide. The people of Washington do not yield our sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give our public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for us to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that we may maintain control over the instruments that we have created.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[jklovanc]

Whether or not the public have access to public records is up to the public to decide.

Take a look at the laws surrounding public records. There are several instances where records that are held by public agencies are not required to be available to the public. Here is an exerpt from the Washington Law;

RCW 42.56.050
Invasion of privacy, when.

A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Sorry but a poloce officer talking to a drunk on the sidewalk is not "of legitimate concern to the public". Look at this whole list of exemptions.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[lazyforker]

"3 years" - well it depends on how the data is being stored and retrieved, and how it's being supplied to the requestor, and how much there is. Imagine manually importing and transcoding (somehow losslessly) 8 hours of HD video (I'm guessing here - 1 officer's shift) to DVD-sized blobs; burning the DVDs; printing/applying labels (or generating print jobs to print on the disk); packing and shipping the disks etc. Now multiply that process by the number of shifts worked since the cameras were introduced. I doubt that the police dept keeps a team of video engineers employed just for the purpose of generating DVDs for extortionists.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[crtreece]

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.

I don't have a problem with those public officials being monitored while they are on the job. The police, who generally carry guns and have a growing reputation for abusing the powers granted by their position, seem like a good place to start.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[Immerman]

If your community allows that level of "regulatory capture" even in (often toothless) oversight committee, they deserve what they get.

Re:We already have laws to cover this

[HiThere]

Reports so far seem to be that cameras help, even if they can be turned off. But allowing them to be turned off at a whim is clearly a major weakness.

Also, the videos don't need to be watched and evaluated. They need to be cached in a write-once append only memory. And stored in a place untouchable by the police...and perhaps by the courts, only copies are accessible. Thus copies would be available under subpoena.

The question is, should reporters be allowed access? And reporter doesn't mean someone employed by a media company, it includes stringers, muckrakers, and people with an axe to grind. The question is, should they be allowed to post copies of the records. Many of the records shouldn't be available to people without records being kept of who saw them. As has been pointed out that would be valuable information to, e.g., burglars. But there needs to be a way to make the significant information public that has less cost and paperwork than a legal subpoena.

Clearly NONE of the current methods of dealing with this are even approaching what is required, and there are lots of corner cases. But its also clear that while setting up a good system is a big design problem, it not major....except for getting everyone to agree.

Re:"Datatilsynet"

[Guy Harris]

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.

purpose is to stop camera wearing

[jjbarrows]

What better way for someone to get the department to stop using cameras?

Re:purpose is to stop camera wearing

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I think a police officer is the one requesting the video.

FoI Requests aren't free (as in beer)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FoI Requests aren't free (as in beer)

[mythosaz]

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:FoI Requests aren't free (as in beer)

[newcastlejon]

Why do you hate journalism?

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[cold fjord]

You seem to have sprung a leak. You shold attend to that before it becomes an even bigger problem.

Desperate excuse

[sjames]

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

[quietwalker]

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:Desperate excuse

[borcharc]

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.

Re:Desperate excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that woman shouldn't call the cops every time she's slapped a little or her husband grabs a knife, but only when he's really really gonna cut her this time.

Re:Desperate excuse

[sjames]

All FOIA laws I know about carve out exceptions where a non-government entity has a significant privacy interest.

Re:Desperate excuse

[sjames]

I don't necessarily think the police should make the determination. The public defender's office might be a better choice. The various civic groups could probably have little problem getting citizens to sign releases for their video.

Re:Desperate excuse

[sjames]

I think he was meaning things like I got the wrong change or my burger doesn't have enough ketchup on it sorts of complaints. Yes, idiots do call 911 for crap like that.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[mythosaz]

My yearly "bedroom time" is my yearly performance review.

I meet or exceed expectations.

overload

[kqc7011]

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.

Should be confidential/private

[Enry]

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:Should be confidential/private

[BringsApples]

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 with your time. If you want to sit around spending hours of your life uploading and/or watching Youtube videos that cops took, go ahead. But, I can't think of a better way to have oversight of the police dept.

The technology-enabled all-seeing-eye should be (owned by) that of The People, not some single person in some place of power. After all, The People are the ones paying for the whole thing to take place, being that it's for their own protection.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Aristos Mazer]

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.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Anonymous Coward]

"Random" inspections are an incredibly inefficient way to watch the watchers in this scenario. It'd be like the NSA recording every phone call in the country, but without the automated filtering power they use to cut down the search space they're interested in.

Even a dirty cop may do honest, if dull, work for 39.5 hours of a 40 hour week.

The only sane way to use the footage in this role is to wait for specific allegations of wrongdoing to be made by private citizens, then request the footage that corresponds to those officers/times/locations.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[rgmoore]

Keep the videos for 180 days or a year and delete unless they're part of a court order to keep.

I think you would want to broaden that to include anything that's part of an ongoing investigation. Something like a missing person case can involve an open-ended investigation, and the courts are unlikely to be involved until/unless there's evidence of a crime. The police should maintain the records for that kind of investigation as long as the case is still open.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Enry]

"ongoing investigations" becomes a catchphrase to cover a lot of potentially shady things. Judges rubberstamp all sorts of things these days, having one review something involving a missing person case shouldn't be too difficult.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Enry]

Then let a court decide.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[bwwatr]

As has already been pointed out, however, what about cases where a police officer is inside your home, responding to a break-in? Do you want footage of the tour of the out/in-side of your home on YouTube? Do you want the toughest moments of the lives of decent people chronicled for everyone to watch? Let me draw a parallel from a world I know - Canada's health care system. It is publicly paid for, like the police, and as such, records and information "belong to the people". However, when I call an ambulance, that record is considered confidential, and requests from the public for access must be justified. A process exists for releasing those documents, and patient privacy is a major component of it. I don't see why, with a police encounter, it couldn't work similarly. Yes, the risks are higher, since police sometimes like to hide things, but involving a neutral third party whose access can't be overridden by police, could mitigate those.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[rgmoore]

"ongoing investigations" becomes a catchphrase to cover a lot of potentially shady things.

I think that's a bigger concern if the result of declaring an investigation ongoing is to make it easier to discard evidence rather than to retain it. It's always possible to discard or seal evidence that's being kept, but it's not generally possible to recover evidence that's been discarded. Therefore, the general position should be to discard only recordings that can easily be categorized as not evidence and keep any that might possibly be evidence.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Enry]

I see your point. It's still a tricky problem to solve for the largest number of cases while keeping the contents of the videos safe from both police and public tampering. The examples I've seen in the past were police interactions with the public that potentially has the public in the background for some reason, or tracking of citizens like tracking license plates. Police video + facial recognition = 0 security.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[david_thornley]

Keep them until they are no longer of possible legal use. That would normally mean to the point where a statute of limitations kicks in, unless there's some reason to keep it afterwards.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[Enry]

Not bad. There are some crimes with no statute of limitations.

Re:Should be confidential/private

[david_thornley]

Sure. If any variety of murder has no statute of limitations, keep all records from an incident where somebody died indefinitely. That's not a big burden.

Solution

[cHiphead]

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).

Re:Solution

[WhatHump]

2. Those in a recording can sign a release to allow for earlier public release...

Seriously? Are you going to log on daily to the web site hosting the recordings and scan every minute of footage for your image (or images of family members/loved ones)? Just because you weren't arrested doesn't mean there isn't an image out there of you that you would prefer not to be in the public domain. The ability to record everything/everyone/everywhere necessitates a new set of laws and controls to protect our privacy.

Re:Solution

[meta-monkey]

The problem is releasing all footage can also be harmful to innocent citizens. Maybe you got arrested for something you didn't do and are later acquitted. But now there's video of you being confronted, ordered to lie face down on the ground, handcuffed, put in a squad car, etc, and that footage is now on the web without context.

The officer in the summary also had a good point about the mentally ill. Maybe you're bipolar and are normally well-medicated and completely fine, but something happens and you wind up in a delusional manic episode. The cops come and take you to the mental hospital. Now, those police records are covered by HIPAA, and mental health stuff is protected with the utmost care (I do database programming for a major hospital. HIPAA is taken very seriously, and you can't access any psych data without passwords and any attempt to do so immediately sends a notice to the privacy office). But if just anybody can get that camera footage and post it to the net, searchable, say goodbye to your career.

Not everything cops do is some terrible infringement on the rights of citizens, and not every citizen they encounter is a lawbreaker who should be publicly shamed. Sometimes it's somebody they should be discretely helping. Knowing that the cops are going to record everything and it'll be posted to the net will make people scared to call them when they need help. Sometimes battered women don't call the cops because they're worried about making a scene, or getting their husband in trouble. Now add to the reasons not to call for help that their dirty laundry is going to be posted to the internet.

The public availability of all police action is not in the public interest.

Good Grief

[s.petry]

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:Good Grief

[pmocek]

Washington's Public Records Act does not require a requester to state the reason for his or her request. We have to identify specific records, and "all incident reports" or "all suchandsuch videos" is sufficiently specific. Refusing the request as you suggested would be a violation of the PRA. Revised Code of Washington 42.56.080 states, "Agencies shall not deny a request for identifiable public records solely on the basis that the request is overbroad."

Re:Good Grief

[s.petry]

In this case, I don't think the argument is simply that the request is overbroad. There are resource requirements related to accomplishing the task which make the request not feasible. For example, the requester claims "I want all 30 Petabytes of information" and does not provide a medium the request can not be accepted. Another example is "I want all 50Gb of that data on my trusty ole Zip drive".

IANAL but don't see this as a difficult decision by a judge, or a difficult amendment to add to the current legislation. Private infrastructure, like "Youtube" can not be used to fulfill these requests and the request must be technically feasible.

For clarity, the 30 Petabytes and 50Gb numbers were pulled from the air and not technically correct.

Re:Good Grief

[pmocek]

Police departments are public-records-generating machines. A large portion of what their staff do is the generation of public records. With every new type of record they decide to create, they need to be thinking about how they will provide public access to those records. To do otherwise is to wall the public off from that which is our right to see. If cop gear suppliers like Coban, Taser, and VieView want to sell their systems to Washington law enforcement agencies, they better figure out a way to make mass-export of public video records to the public feasible.

The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[geekmux]

"...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.

Another Agency

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Maybe the NSA? Have them do something useful and since they already have all the video...

Trouble Makers With Too Much Time

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Rethink?

[Half-pint HAL]

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.

Extortion Web Site

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Since when do the police care about privacy?

[physicsphairy]

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:Since when do the police care about privacy?

[SydShamino]

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

[mark_reh]

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!

Completely agree

[gatfirls]

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.

Re:Completely agree

[fustakrakich]

There needs to be an office...

Yes! another bureaucratic committee to administer this! Just what we need... How much do I have to give you to put my useless brother-in-law on the council, so I can get his lazy drunken ass out of the house and get some 'quality time' with the old lady?

I swear you're gonna make it turtles all the way down.

Re:Completely agree

[dryeo]

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 can save the tax payers money by letting the private prison industry hire the police instead of publicly funding them. I'm sure the invisible hand of the market will fix any abuse by the people boycotting the goods produced by the prisoners.

3 years sound right

[aepervius]

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.

Declare them privat.

[gurps_npc]

This is a great argument to have the videos declared personal, similarly to a social security number. Identities can be concealed, just like they do on those COPS shows, or the tapes can be declared off limits for public information requests barring a warrant.

But it in no way prevents the government from recording them in the first place.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[penguinoid]

"Information wants to be free. Nothing is taken from the people whose videos are posted."

Confidential informants might disagree with that (while ironically liberating information).

This is not rocket science

[duck_rifted]

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.

Re:This is not rocket science

[YrWrstNtmr]

Right. But those rules currently do not exist. The cameras do exist.

Re:This is not rocket science

[duck_rifted]

Sure, but I'm just taking the opportunity to point out that there's a solution that won't defeat the purpose of having the cameras in place to begin with. The cameras protect both officers and civilians, but it is inevitable that police will want to lock down footage so that it can be used to assist prosecution but not to hold officers accountable for misconduct. Dash cams already get that treatment in many places by getting "lost". Privacy is a hot button issue right now, so it is great rhetoric to try and sway people to oppose these cams. That would not be in our best interest. So, it's well-timed to show before the conversation reaches maturity that there's a solution that doesn't render the cameras useless for protecting civilians as well as cops.

Re:Charge a fee just like for public court records

[YrWrstNtmr]

25 dollar duplication fee
...billable at a rate of $50 dolllars per hour

Discriminating against poor people. That's how that would be spun, anyway.

Re: to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously time to get back on your meds.

This is an issue why?

[ihtoit]

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.

Re:This is an issue why?

[david_thornley]

To be curious, what jurisdiction is the Prosecution of Offences Act for? The spelling of "Offences" looks British.

Re:This is an issue why?

[ihtoit]

the case I cited should have been a bit of a clue as well. Yes, England. Tomlinson was murdered by an on-duty police officer, at the G8 protest while he was travelling home from work - he wasn't even part of the protest but that's tangential to the issue.

Overall not such a bad trade off

[Dereck1701]

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.

Re:They don't have to turn over $#@*

[tomhath]

Thanks for this post. I suspect the requester is on a fishing expedition since, as you point out, the police don't need to release anything interesting if they don't want to release it.

Re:The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[wrc]

You understand that the people on those cop-reality-shows have signed a release, right?

What about all the cop shows

[Stan92057]

What about all the cop shows on TV? guess it doesn't matter if THEY exploit people for commercial reason hu?

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[xaotikdesigns]

Cop kicks down the door. Inside is a rape victim, naked, on the floor.

Should that video be available publicly? What if that victim is a child?

Prevent publication w/o a court order

[debrain]

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.

Re:They don't have to turn over $#@*

[Hussman32]

Thanks for posting this.

Re:Eventually police cams will bite you

[xaotikdesigns]

Just put bright IR LEDs everywhere. THey'll blind the cameras but not you. Problem solved.

Translation

[CanHasDIY]

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:comprimise on the volume of requests

[ihtoit]

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.

Re:Man files public records request, news at 10!

[xaotikdesigns]

How do you deliver all videos recorded by a police department? How many police are on active duty at any one time? You'll have a camera for each officer, and their car, for an entire day. How long ago did they start wearing the cameras? How many terabytes of data does that come out to? How do you quickly prepare and deliver that information? How many discs do you need to copy that? I'm guessing they probably have DVD burners at best. FIrst they'll have to pull all that data from where ever it's archived, which will take some time. THen they'll have to process it, making sure that anything relating to an active investigation, or anything that has been sealed is not disclosed. THen they'll have to start burning discs. Yeah, it's going to take a long time. Especially since they probably won't be able to dedicate someone to it 24/7.

Also, you may want to ask the rape victim that the police saved if they see any issue with their portion of the video being given out to anybody that asks for it.

SOP Delays

[pubwvj]

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."

Re:Man files public records request, news at 10!

[pmocek]

If only there was some giant network of computers and a sort of web, world-wide, that would allow anyone who is interested to connect to machines on that network remotely, video could be digitized and provided to anyone wishing to review it, without the need to burn it onto physical media and transport it by post or carrier pigeon.

Already been done

[duke_cheetah2003]

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!

Re:Already been done

[ihtoit]

the fool with the youtube account is ostensibly trying to get footage of cops misbehaving.

I make video documentaries. You never see me in those documentaries. You rarely even hear me. My style is getting other people to conduct the narrative, I'm holding the fucking camera.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[Scarletdown]

"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:Anonymous?

[ihtoit]

yes, of course neglecting to remind everybody that there is no such thing as privacy in a public space.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[Bite The Pillow]

Context is important. In particular, "nothing is taken" is wildly out of context in your quote.

Now, I admit that I do not agree that "nothing is taken from the people whose videos are arrested." But context, being important, requires me to label you, anonymous retard, a petulant and uncomprehending net loss on society.

State your thread, and the context in which it was stated. Or, fuck off back to dixie and die on a piece of concrete or similar intended as a means of conveyance.

Hang on, something isn't adding up

[crioca]

How is it that police are unable to refuse these requests? I mean if I asked for all the records the police held on Person X, would they just cough it up?

If yes, then the problem has nothing to do with body cams specifically.

If no, then why are these recording being treated so differently?

Re:The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[geekmux]

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:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[dryeo]

Or even the interview with a rape victim. There's definitely parts of police work that should be kept private and in my country victims of sexual assault usually have their anonymity protected even in the courts.

Re:to quote from a +5 comment in another thread

[Thanshin]

Including time in the restroom? Bedroom? Annual performance review?

Or, even worse, a combination of those three?

"In February, Mr. AC's restroom visits' length decreased by 50%. This evolution was probably unrelated to that same month's bedroom performance rate: low to very-low. A significant increase from January's performance: Abysmal. Here you can see a video in which his technique has been described by Mrs.AC as 'Uninspired and sad'."

hypocrits

[SuperDre]

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...

Hey! Psst.

[REALMAN]

"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??

The video should not be considered public record

[failwyn]

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.

Where's the common sense?

[skovnymfe]

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

• 1) I am acting on behalf of said person, with written consent, ie lawyer or friend/family, or
• 2) a judge signs a document forcing the police to release the video, for example in case of a criminal investigation.

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.

Curious

[JerryLove]

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.

Re:The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[meta-monkey]

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.

Re:The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[Warhawke]

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.

Re:The real reason? Officer privacy, not citizens

[geekmux]

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.

Re:Legalities - should be confidential

[kandresen]

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.