Slashdot Mirror
Police Department Charging TV News Network $36,000 For Body Cam Footage (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes with news that the NYPD charged a local television station $36k to view police body camera footage. Ars reports: "As body cams continue to flourish in police departments across the nation, an ongoing debate has ensued about how much, if any, of that footage should be made public under state open-access laws. An overlooked twist to that debate, however, has now become front and center: How much should the public have to pay for the footage if the police agree to release it? News network NY1, a Time Warner Cable News operation, was billed $36,000 by the NYPD for roughly 190 hours of footage it requested under the state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). Now the network is suing (PDF) the police department in New York state court, complaining that the price tag is too steep. The network said the bill runs 'counter to both the public policy of openness underlying FOIL, as well as the purported transparency supposedly fostered by the BWC (body worn camera) program itself.'"
Isn't that Cam footage from tax payer bought cameras worn by city employees who receive their salary from tax funds? How the hell do they justify charging that kind of money?
How many workers does it take to do this?
As many as it takes to discourage requests from the citizens.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Letting the TV folk view it so they can report on it should be free or minor administrative fee. Letting them have the footage to broadcast on TV? That takes a group of two officers and two department lawyers reviewing all requested footage.
Go ahead and charge them. The media preys upon the misery of others and wants a direct free live feed with 24/7 coverage of cops hassling the public. I can't count the amount of times some traffic cop has pulled me over, given me a full field sobriety test plus breathalyzer despite not having had a drop to drink, and continued to harass me before letting me go. Now imagine I was a public official or celebrity (even worse imagine if I was a republican in a liberal-leaning city) and the TV station had full access to the cop's body cam footage. Despite my innocence it would be plastered ALL OVER TABLOIDS and other sleazy outlets as only the media could to slant and paint it in a bad light.
No thanks. You charge them out the wazoo NYCPD. Good on you for making journalists actually have to hunt down stories and do their jobs.
Just exactly how can first-person video of what a cop sees cost someone their life if revealed?
Seriously? Because - and this is easier to stomach once you get away from the view that ALL police are corrupt bastards(*) - police are involved in dealing with vulnerables victims as much as they are involved dealing with nasty perps and innocent bystanders. For example, a potential victim of domestic abuse who has invited the police in when his/her partner is out does not want an excerpt of the interview released on prime time news. An undercover cop involved in monitoring a people trafficking operation (idk if that's a big thing in the US, but it's certainly a SIGNIFICANT problem in Europe, attracting some of the most evil individuals) does not want to be shown interacting with a uniformed officer, because someone whose business is to make slaves of others does not have much regard for human life.
(*) Some are. So are some computer programmers. So are some bankers. So are some charity workers. Even among politicians, you find the worst and the best (right up to President, who is taking one of the statistically greatest risks a person can take in assuming office). Turns out everyone's human.
Just exactly how can first-person video of what a cop sees cost someone their life if revealed?
If the cop talks to a person who is then considered an informant or snitch by the wrong people.
If when talking to another cop an informant or snitch is referred to.
If anything said to a cop can wind up on TV what do you suppose will be the impact with respect to people coming forward with information? Even reporting a crime?
If disclosure of raw unreacted video identifies a person coming forward with information and that person is killed in retaliation don't you expect that victim's family to file suit against the police?
The public has a right to know if a cop is being honest, truthful, etc. But that is something quite different than seeing every minute of the cop's day, hearing every conversation.
Being able to monitor police actions is a very real benefit to society with huge value.
Absolutely, but that monitoring is not necessarily best done by TV personalities. It may be best done by review boards, judges, etc.
When someone, say "Big Mike" Brown, is shot by police, it's known when and where it happened. Releasing five minutes of video in response to a specific incident once the investigation is done would cost little and would still be extremely useful. One does not have to "trust the police" to release the video. One does have to trust them (or those related to them) to not redact stuff that is relevant but such redaction will be obvious and can be dealt with by the courts if needed.
Seriously, if you had kids and some pedophile was raping one of them and a cop wearing a body cam came across it, would you want the video of your kid being raped to be on the internet forever because someone "has the right to bodycam footage"? How about video of the body of a loved one who died in your house in a horrible accident?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Proof that Corruption in the Police is still alive and well in 2016.
Honestly they are no different than a street gang..
Well except for one, they have far better funding than a street gang.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
190 hours, at 36,000 dollars. ~200 dollars an hour to produce. How many workers does it take to do this?
Its not just some IT guy making copies of files. Its probably cops and lawyers reviewing the video to make sure victim privacy rights are not infringed and that classified information is not disclosed (identity of people disclosing information privately, references to ongoing investigations, etc). Some things a cop sees or hears should not be on TV; only review boards, judges and juries should see or hear it.
Its not unreasonable to expect the for profit media corporation that wants a copy of the video to pay for the lawyers time to review it. Its part of the "processing" in the processing and handling fee.
Not to point out the obvious, but you are saying that:
1) The police review board can *say* that the officers were talking about an informant, and suppress releasing the video of a police shooting.
2) The police can begin talking about informants *on purpose* as they drive up to a crime scene, so that a video of them shooting someone can be suppressed.
That's what you're saying - right?
We have a federal policy with classified information that's just about what you said; ie - the government can classify anything without a detailed reason.
How has that worked out for us?
What if it doesn't. What if 150 of those 190 hours are cops sitting in the car eating donuts? Does a lawyer have to watch all those 150 hours? If they claim they do, then what the fuck was the point of those body cams?
This is SOLELY a way to stop body cams being used against the police. The only ones that come out are the edited highlights of those incidents that support the police.