Slashdot Mirror


The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police

New submitter Cuillere writes: In the fall of 2014, a hacker demanded the Seattle Police Department release all of their body and dash cam video footage, prompting chaos within the institution. Although it was a legal request per Washington state's disclosure laws, Seattle's PD wasn't prepared to handle the repercussions of divulging such sensitive material — and so much of it. The request involved 360 TB of data spread across 1.6 million recordings over 6 years. All recordings had to be manually reviewed and redacted to cut out "children, medical or mental health incidents, confidential informants, or victims or bystanders who did not want to be recorded," so fulfilling the request was simply not within the department's capabilities. Thus, they took a different strategy: they hired the hacker and put him to work on developing an automated redaction system. "Their vision is of an officer simply docking her body cam at the end of a shift. The footage would then be automatically uploaded to storage, either locally or in the cloud, over-redacted for privacy and posted online for everyone to see within a day."

20 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be part of the solution - not part of the problem.

    1. Re:Love it by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. They are working to serve the public. They should be prepared to get a bulk request for all data they have everywhere. Putting limitations on it will first clog up the courts, since a judge will have to decide whether it meets the law's requirements, which then involves lawyers. Then it will be used to cover up real crimes under the auspices of "not an official incident".

    2. Re:Love it by hawguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If not honoring or stalling indefinitely FOIA requests is one extreme, requesting every last bit of recoding is the other.

      The law should be amended to require specific and limited dates, specific officers, and that it be pertinent to an official incident.

      So a little police oversight through FOIA is fine, but too much oversight is too much, because police need to be able to get away with abuse at least part of the time?

    3. Re:Love it by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they want the data, they have to deal with the consequences.

      The alternative is NOT collecting it and storing it indefinitely. Fine by me, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Love it by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point. Manually redacted footage will still be available via FOIA request, and unredacted footage will still be available in court. These over-redacted clips are designed specifically so that they can be publicly posting to the 'net at the end of each day, without anyone ever having to make a FOIA request at all. And they're not blurred to the point of uselessness; they're blurred to the point where you can't see details, but you can see when something is happening that warrants further attention.

      The idea is that by posting them immediately, it will increase transparency by giving the public a means to sift through recent footage and find incidents that may be of interest, without compromising the privacy of the individuals involved. By enabling the public to more or less go on fishing expeditions on their own time without costing the police any extra time or effort, it benefits the public since they are more capable of finding incidents, and it benefits the police since the FOIA requests they'll be dealing with (they claim that a minute of footage takes an hour to redact on average) will hopefully be more narrow in scope, since the requestors would have been able to sift out the majority of the irrelevant footage in advance. The end result is more capability to discover unreported incidents, more awareness of what's actually going on, less time spent manually redacting irrelevant footage, and a greater capacity for handling FOIA requests.

      It's a win-win, and it's by no means useless. It actually strikes a great balance between protecting the privacy of those being filmed and making the body cam footage readily available so that the public can better oversee the police.

    5. Re:Love it by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or more often, a fishing expedition.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re: Love it by vilanye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think citizens requesting government documents should have the same burden to meet that the state has when investigating people?

      I am not sure if that is just short-sighted idiocy or a troll attempt.

  2. So you see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "...so you see, Your Honor, that's why all the footage is completely black, end to end, and we have no useful footage of the incident in question."

  3. Please, no. by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am 100% for body cameras on all police. But when that footage goes public, it becomes a possible intrusion into my civil liberties. What if I get arrested on a bogus child sex abuse charge? Facebook provides a good model of what will happen. The perp goes up on a police blotter for mug shots, it goes viral, and even after he is cleared, FB stalkers turn into real life stalkers, pulling up into the driveway in the dead of night and flashing their brights into the living room, or publicly commenting that if they see them on the street, they're as good as dead. Such a thing happened to a friend of mine, and this bullshit mob justice has to stop.

    The only way to protect the rights of the accused is to hide police-public interactions behind an wall of secrecy. Want body cam footage? Or a mug shot? Or an arrest history? Get a subpoena, and it better be relevant.

    1. Re:Please, no. by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As opposed to currently where your name, address, and age go onto the police blotter in the local newspaper?

    2. Re:Please, no. by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now it won't just be arrests, though, but any interaction with police.

      We just see the way this goes. Some tiny little thing gets taken out of context and posted online and people go fucking rabid, for and against.

      There was a story a few weeks ago from Australia (just as easily anywhere in the US, though) about a guy who was "creep shamed" as a pedo when he was really just taking a selfie with Darth Vader as a joke to send to his kids. tl;dr mom sees guy take pic near her kids, flips, takes pic of him, posts online, 20k + views, death threats, cops, psychological trauma, etc etc.

      And then of course there was a backlash against her (I'm not sure if her identity was revealed) with all the anti-moral panickers having a moral panic about moral panics. As terrible a mistake as she made, she doesn't deserve death threats either. If you think she does, congratulations on being part of the problem.

      I just wonder how good the redaction can be that you can't match somebody up. It's not to hard to imagine the same kind of scenario playing out. Guy's at the park with his kids, kids are out of sight, cop asks the guy what he's doing here "Oh I'm here for the kids." "Hmmm...all right then..." Internet Super Hero catches sight of this, snaps a pic, finds the footage on the police website later "EVERYBODY WATCH OUT FOR THIS PEDO HE 'GOES TO THE PARK FOR THE KIDS!!!!'" Face is blurred and speech is altered, but it's clearly the same guy. Time/place/clothing.

      Then of course there's all the other interactions with police where they're not talking to a suspect. What about interviewing victims? If somebody calls the cops on an abusive spouse do they now have to worry that their dirty laundry is going to be on the internet for everybody to see? How hard will it be to match up victims based on...who knows...addresses, landscape features, google street view data.

      Same with the mentally ill. Bipolar family member having a manic episode and slipping into psychosis and you need help to get them to the hospital? Gotta think twice about making that call now. And yes, yes, I know there have been a few instances of cops hurting or killing a mentally ill person when their family called for help, but it's very rare compared to the number of times they're the only way to get a suicidal or psychotic person to the hospital for treatment. But now you're adding definite privacy concerns to rare brutality concerns.

      Even if they can't identify you, you know some asshole is going to turn this into a game. "Post the funniest/most fucked up police footage." When I was younger and stupider I played a game with people on a forum once where you went to the sexual predator watchdog website where you could put in an address and it would show you the registered sex offenders on a map and you'd find the creepiest looking mugshots/conviction list near you and try to outdo the other people playing the game. I feel pretty ashamed of that now. But, well, it's going to happen.

      I'm all for body cams, but man, I just think there's got to be a better way to oversee the program to protect people who have interactions with police than publishing the videos for everybody to see. Some kind of civilian oversight board that approves requests. 99/100, a time you're interacting with police is not a good day in your life. You're either a victim or a suspect, and you don't deserve to have one of the worst days of you life broadcast, particularly in these hyper-sensitive days of internet mob moral justice.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. I'm extremely surprised... by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm extremely surprised to hear that a police department--when faced with legal requests from an unimportant regular joe--actually went out of their way to implement an elegant system to an issue instead of dragging their feet. None of us would have been surprised to see a police department throw a wrench into the system.

    I'm honestly considering writing them a letter thanking them for their exemplary compliance. Good cops need to know we support them.

    1. Re:I'm extremely surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might have more to do with the whole Dept being under the watchful eye of the DOJ and not the wonderful Seattle PD. You should google that dept before feeling the need to thank them for anything.

  5. Only in some situations ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The footage would then be automatically uploaded to storage, either locally or in the cloud, over-redacted for privacy and posted online for everyone to see within a day.

    For court purposes, there can't be any redaction.

    Because as soon as you start snipping out bits, you lose context and some of what actually happened.

    The full video must be available for scrutiny ... or you'll get the 5 seconds which supports the police version of events, or which has been edited to alter the sequence of events.

    Part of the reason people are starting to insist on body cameras is we don't trust the police. Because increasingly the police are not trustworthy, and don't know or care what the law says.

    Which means all of this raw video should be held in escrow where the police have no ability to alter or delete it.

    If the police hold it, and have the power to edit it ... suddenly it becomes a less trustworthy record.

    So when the police start claiming they need to redact it, they better have the ability to provide the un-redacted version for court proceedings.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Only in some situations ... by Straif · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read the article you'd see that there are 3 possible versions of police video. #1 always exists, #2 will exist in most cases (when fully implemented) and #3 is only created upon request.

      1) The raw video which is stored on DVD and available for any court proceedings. This version is not altered in any way.

      2) The over-redacted version which this post is about. This version is intentionally altered to try and remove any identifying features from the subjects, including suspects and also filters out videos involving specific crimes (rape or involving kids). This video is not used for any legal proceedings; it's primary purpose is to allow interested parties to review police interactions with the public.

      3) Videos legally requested under disclosure laws. These are manually redacted to remove the minimum required by law to protect peoples privacy. Depending on the subjects this would generally look like the videos you see on COPS where the subjects are clearly visible but some bystanders are blurred.

      The idea is that by providing the second type of videos they can reduce FOIA or similar legal requests because in most cases seeing exactly who was involved is much less important as seeing what was done to and by each person involved in the incident. Before the existence of the over-redacted versions every request to view police body cams resulted in the the need to create a manually redacted version and this took up to 1 hour/minute to process.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  6. Re:What About The Innocent? by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are not anonymous until proven guilty.

    No one should be subject to a trial of public opinion, period.

  7. what the... by slashmydots · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What kind of mentally deficient person wrote that summary? A programmer or professional video editor would be the one hired to do that job, not a hacker. Did they lose the password to the video system? Otherwise he's not a hacker.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:too bad it doesn't work with banks by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    give me all of your money!
    OK, here is a job counting it

    Well more like "You can have all the cash you want, as long as you find a way to make it unusable as currency, yet still detectable as cash".

  10. Re:What About The Innocent? by edjs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one should be subject to a trial of public opinion, period.

    No one should be subject to secret arrest and detention either. It's unfortunate that we rush to judgement, but part of the reason to publish arrests is to protect those arrested.