[garygreen]

i'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that i have no idea what i'm talking about.

that said, i don't really understand the logic of the op.  you're talking about privacy in public spaces in a way that makes no sense to me.  walking on a sidewalk isn't like having a private phone conversation.  what expectation of privacy is there for a person in a public space?

[Rushy]

i'm not a lawyer, so it's possible that i have no idea what i'm talking about.

that said, i don't really understand the logic of the op.  you're talking about privacy in public spaces in a way that makes no sense to me.  walking on a sidewalk isn't like having a private phone conversation.  what expectation of privacy is there for a person in a public space?

The OP make that argument, in fact the word "privacy" isn't even referenced. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[garygreen]

[N]ot but a year or so ago, the entire country was up in arms about mass surveillance of everyone via the NSA, Facebook, and other organizations. Now we not only have the idea of creating a perpetual state of cameras watching from CCTV on the corner to cameras on LEOs, but many people are begging for more of it. Am I in the twilight zone? I'm guessing it is safe to assume that the people against mass surveillance aren't the same people wanting these cameras everywhere.

This sounds to me like you're asking why the people who oppose NSA surveillance don't also oppose police body cameras.  Mass surveillance is a privacy issue.  I thought you were talking about a privacy issue.  I'm not sure how else to read the OP.

Since the state is already allowed to photograph and film people in public, and since people don't have any expectation of privacy in public, then I don't really see what the problem is. 

[Rushy]

This sounds to me like you're asking why the people who oppose NSA surveillance don't also oppose police body cameras.  Mass surveillance is a privacy issue.  I thought you were talking about a privacy issue.  I'm not sure how else to read the OP.

Since the state is already allowed to photograph and film people in public, and since people don't have any expectation of privacy in public, then I don't really see what the problem is.

Mass surveillance is not a privacy issue. I (and every politician out there) could argue that anything you do on the phone or online is public because it goes through publicly available transmission lines. People wanting to talk about mass surveillance being a privacy issue are exactly the reason why mass surveillance probably isn't going anywhere.

[garygreen]

Mass surveillance is not a privacy issue.

Setting aside the Thork-level inanity of this statement, I don't get what your problem with police body cameras is then.  What's the bad thing that happens from having beat cops keep a visual record of what happens to them while on patrol?

[Rushy]

Setting aside the Thork-level inanity of this statement, I don't get what your problem with police body cameras is then.

My problem is mass surveillance. Which is why I stated that as the problem in the OP.

What's the bad thing that happens from having beat cops keep a visual record of what happens to them while on patrol?

With that kind of logic, why not just put them everywhere? In your house, your car, your workplace. Why not record yourself 24/7? You aren't doing anything bad, are you? Certainly there is another way to stop corruption other than mass surveillance. "What's wrong with the NSA? Look at all the terrorists they have stopped!" Yes, certainly the NSA watching everyone all the time has made corruption and crime nonexistent.

Besides, how does that make any sense? "Cops are corrupt, so let's have cops record cops so they can view their own corruption in HD" That... makes no sense.

[juner]

If you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't be worried.

[garygreen]

Incidentally, this happened to be on the top page of reddit when I was checking it this morning: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/30/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Why do you think Apple and Google are doing this? It's because the public is demanding it. People like me: privacy advocates. A public does not want an out-of-control surveillance state. It is the public that is asking for this. Apple and Google didn't do this because they thought they would make less money. This is a private sector response to government overreach.

Then you make another statement that somehow these companies are not credible because they collect private data. Here's the difference: Apple and Google don't have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does, and to me it's very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution.

Yep.  Mass surveillance is not a privacy issue.

My problem is mass surveillance. Which is why I stated that as the problem in the OP.

So the problem with mass surveillance is mass surveillance?  What are you, hourly?  I'm trying to figure out why you think mass surveillance (in public spaces) is bad, other than hurr but who's gonna store all the tapes?!?!?!

What's the bad thing that happens from having beat cops keep a visual record of what happens to them while on patrol?

With that kind of logic, why not just put them everywhere? In your house, your car, your workplace. Why not record yourself 24/7? You aren't doing anything bad, are you? Certainly there is another way to stop corruption other than mass surveillance. "What's wrong with the NSA? Look at all the terrorists they have stopped!" Yes, certainly the NSA watching everyone all the time has made corruption and crime nonexistent.

So the bad thing that happens is that you make a really shitty strawman argument?  Or is it that you make a really shitty ~*slippery slope*~ argument?  Either way, it's a bargain at twice the price.

Besides, how does that make any sense? "Cops are corrupt, so let's have cops record cops so they can view their own corruption in HD" That... makes no sense.

 

The government is already almost exclusively in charge of regulating itself and eliminating corruption internally.  That's nothing new.

It's really not hard to imagine a NGO being charged with storage and maintenance of the data.  Problem solved.

[Rushy]

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Why do you think Apple and Google are doing this? It's because the public is demanding it. People like me: privacy advocates. A public does not want an out-of-control surveillance state. It is the public that is asking for this. Apple and Google didn't do this because they thought they would make less money. This is a private sector response to government overreach.

Then you make another statement that somehow these companies are not credible because they collect private data. Here's the difference: Apple and Google don't have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does, and to me it's very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution.

Yep.  Mass surveillance is not a privacy issue.

Quoting other people makes you right and me wrong? Wow. It's almost like you can't argue anything for yourself.

So the problem with mass surveillance is mass surveillance?  What are you, hourly?  I'm trying to figure out why you think mass surveillance (in public spaces) is bad, other than hurr but who's gonna store all the tapes?!?!?!

Yes? Mass surveillance in and of itself is a bad thing. I'm not sure why you need some auxiliary reason. Like I said, once you start bringing auxiliary reasons into it, your logic starts to break down when it comes to why I can't put cameras in your home. You can't say "you can't put cameras in my home because privacy" because then you'll have to tell me why privacy is a good thing that should be kept. If you're not doing anything wrong, then privacy isn't an issue, which is why mass surveillance is not a privacy issue and anyone who argues that it is will be easily kicked to the side.

The government is already almost exclusively in charge of regulating itself and eliminating corruption internally.  That's nothing new.

They're obviously doing such a great job at it.

[garygreen]

Quoting other people makes you right and me wrong? Wow. It's almost like you can't argue anything for yourself.

Quoting a politician talking about mass surveillance as a privacy issue indicates that privacy is a central issue in the public debate about mass surveillance.  You said that mass surveillance is not a privacy issue.  This is pretty good evidence that your statement, and the one about all politicians agreeing that it is not a privacy issue, are both wrong.

I've also already argued the point myself.  No one gives a shit about the police filming or photographing people in public.  That's already permissible.  The state can surveil citizens en masse in public.  Anything you do in public can be recorded by anyone.  That is the status quo.

Yes? Mass surveillance in and of itself is a bad thing. I'm not sure why you need some auxiliary reason.

Oh, I didn't realize that you were defining yourself to be correct axiomatically.  Well, yes, then, you are correct.

Like I said, once you start bringing auxiliary reasons into it, your logic starts to break down when it comes to why I can't put cameras in your home. You can't say "you can't put cameras in my home because privacy" because then you'll have to tell me why privacy is a good thing that should be kept. If you're not doing anything wrong, then privacy isn't an issue, which is why mass surveillance is not a privacy issue and anyone who argues that it is will be easily kicked to the side.

Public authority figures authorized to use lethal force against citizens should be required to keep as detailed a record as possible of their actions and activities in public spaces while on duty.  This seems like a clear brightline. 

How does this position inevitably lead to then why not film literally everything everyone ever does?!?!?!?!?! scenario?

There are already constitutional prohibitions on state surveillance in our homes.  Everything that you're talking about would be solved by judicial review.

[Fortuna]

We had our chance to reverse our near-authoritarian government's shady practices when Snowden leaked all of his information and we failed. Most Americans only care about when the next iPad is coming out, or crying that someone makes fun of you when you're fat and suing for gorillions. We're a nation of ten year olds.

[Rushy]

No one gives a shit about the police filming or photographing people in public.  That's already permissible.  The state can surveil citizens en masse in public.  Anything you do in public can be recorded by anyone.  That is the status quo.

I am one and I give a shit. I don't like the status quo.

Public authority figures authorized to use lethal force against citizens should be required to keep as detailed a record as possible of their actions and activities in public spaces while on duty.  This seems like a clear brightline. 

There are countless ways to enforce public security without mass surveillance.

How does this position inevitably lead to then why not film literally everything everyone ever does?!?!?!?!?! scenario?

There are already constitutional prohibitions on state surveillance in our homes.  Everything that you're talking about would be solved by judicial review.

Mass surveillance always leads to even more mass surveillance and it is impossible to draw it back. Especially when you're using the crazy idea that it is for your own good. And no, claiming the judicial system will solve this is nonsense. You are suggesting mass surveillance as the answer to something that the judicial system couldn't solve. Now you're telling me the judicial system will keep mass surveillance from getting out of hand. How do you not see how hilarious that is?

There are already constitutional prohibitions on state surveillance in our homes.  Everything that you're talking about would be solved by judicial review.

The constitution is a piece of paper that is easily ignored by the state. If this was a game of "its against the law" then why do we have this problem to begin with?

[lions_lair]

Do you really not understand the difference between indiscriminate electronic surveillance/data-mining and body cameras for on-duty LEOs? Because that's a pretty dumb comparison.

Right.

[JRowe]

For the past few months the notion of body cameras on all law enforcement officers (LEOs) has come up repeatedly on various sites. This is odd, considering not but a year or so ago, the entire country was up in arms about mass surveillance of everyone via the NSA, Facebook, and other organizations. Now we not only have the idea of creating a perpetual state of cameras watching from CCTV on the corner to cameras on LEOs, but many people are begging for more of it. Am I in the twilight zone? I'm guessing it is safe to assume that the people against mass surveillance aren't the same people wanting these cameras everywhere.

There's a difference between employees who voluntarily serve the government with the full knowledge that there may be oversight: and, in future, who would join the police force knowing that they are being watched, compared to indiscriminatory, choice-free surveillance.
In addition, there's actually a purpose to police body cameras. With the sheer number of crimes they've gotten away with lately, we need to react.

It's no different to the fact some workplaces have CCTV. As the police don't exist in any particular building however, there needs to be an adaptation. It should be legal to film them, but you just need access to google to see how badly that works in practise: you have police running after anyone they see with a camera out, breaking phones, deleting footage...

In addition, how would you trust the authority (that you already don't trust) to handle the cameras and subsequently huge amounts of data storage it would require? Even worse, who is paying for all of this new equipment? None of this really adds up to me.

Some police have tanks, I know at least one have a zamboni, I'm sure they can afford body cameras which are a fair bit more useful than freaking tanks.
The fact is, so long as the footage exists, distrust doesn't mean anything. If the footage is viewed in courts when a case comes up, for example, that would be evidence: if the footage is doctored or held back, that would be evidence something shady's going on. As for 'huge amounts of data storage', security cameras already exist. Similar system.

[Lord Dave]

Out of context amateur films always work great.   

It's one thing to watch police beat someone on the ground in a video.  It's another to learn that said person being beaten was on some kind of drugs and had to be taken down with brute force and subdued.

So always remember that the youtube video you see was filmed by someone who had to take his phone out and start recording after he saw something record worthy.

[Rushy]

Some police have tanks, I know at least one have a zamboni, I'm sure they can afford body cameras which are a fair bit more useful than freaking tanks.

Police districts don't buy those tanks and other vehicles. They are given to them by larger state and federal comittees which are just trying to ensure whatever defense company manufactures them at the time doesn't go out of business (and thusly stopping their large contribution to certain peoples' campaign funds). If you haven't noticed, most of both the federal and state governments in this country are in debt, meaning they probably can't afford to keep doing expensive things.

The fact is, so long as the footage exists, distrust doesn't mean anything. If the footage is viewed in courts when a case comes up, for example, that would be evidence: if the footage is doctored or held back, that would be evidence something shady's going on.

That's not at all how that would work. You can't use a lack of something to show 'something shady is going on'. e.g. "the police officer's camera didn't work while he beat me up therefore that proves he shouldn't have"

As for 'huge amounts of data storage', security cameras already exist. Similar system.

Security systems won't be liable to keep film for years and years. They are also usually of extremely low quality.

[JRowe]

It's one thing to watch police beat someone on the ground in a video.  It's another to learn that said person being beaten was on some kind of drugs and had to be taken down with brute force and subdued.

You know that's not always true, right? Listen to the coroner and doctors. When police use excessive force, they're going to make excuses. The amount of times they've claimed self-defense when the coronor reports "Shot in the back," is beyond a joke.

Police districts don't buy those tanks and other vehicles. They are given to them by larger state and federal comittees which are just trying to ensure whatever defense company manufactures them at the time doesn't go out of business (and thusly stopping their large contribution to certain peoples' campaign funds). If you haven't noticed, most of both the federal and state governments in this country are in debt, meaning they probably can't afford to keep doing expensive things.

They do buy some of the vehicles in question. Besides, compare the costs for long legal cases, funerals, compensations, overtime for any protests that occur... And then realize all of that could be very much reduced simply by implementing body cameras. The amount of legal cases will be reduced (less likely to perform a crime when they'd be caught), and those that do occur will hardly be long with direct video evidence to pay attention to. The deterrent nature of body cameras will reduce a lot of spending elsewhere: they pay for themselves.
And I'd argue saving lives and reducing police brutality (or, at the very least, allowing justice) is worth a comparitively minor increase in debt, even if that were the case.

That's not at all how that would work. You can't use a lack of something to show 'something shady is going on'. e.g. "the police officer's camera didn't work while he beat me up therefore that proves he shouldn't have"

No, but if the police refuse to turn over a genuine video, if the officer refused to turn on their camera (which would be against regulations), that would be a mark against them. Plus, depending on the system, if it's a live-upload then it's possible to see how the camera got broken, if indeed it was.

Security systems won't be liable to keep film for years and years. They are also usually of extremely low quality.

Why would this film need to be kept for years and years?

[Rushy]

They do buy some of the vehicles in question. Besides, compare the costs for long legal cases, funerals, compensations, overtime for any protests that occur... And then realize all of that could be very much reduced simply by implementing body cameras. The amount of legal cases will be reduced (less likely to perform a crime when they'd be caught), and those that do occur will hardly be long with direct video evidence to pay attention to. The deterrent nature of body cameras will reduce a lot of spending elsewhere: they pay for themselves.
And I'd argue saving lives and reducing police brutality (or, at the very least, allowing justice) is worth a comparitively minor increase in debt, even if that were the case.

I'd argue that trying to solve problems caused by an untrustworthy entity by trusting them to operate a system that determines whether to trust them or not is inherently a bad a idea.

No, but if the police refuse to turn over a genuine video, if the officer refused to turn on their camera (which would be against regulations), that would be a mark against them. Plus, depending on the system, if it's a live-upload then it's possible to see how the camera got broken, if indeed it was.

The punishment for turning off the camera will always be less than if the camera had captured some type of obvious wrongdoing. These cameras will be like the locks on your front door. They're there to keep the already honest people in check.

Why would this film need to be kept for years and years?

When your country has average case lengths such as New York City's estimated 900 days for a criminal case to be heard in court, then you end up keeping an awful lot of data.  In addition, the statute of limitations on many crimes is at least a few years, sometimes decades. To delete evidence that could be pertinent to cold cases seems like a bad thing to do.

[JRowe]

I'd argue that trying to solve problems caused by an untrustworthy entity by trusting them to operate a system that determines whether to trust them or not is inherently a bad a idea.

The punishment for turning off the camera will always be less than if the camera had captured some type of obvious wrongdoing. These cameras will be like the locks on your front door. They're there to keep the already honest people in check.

The key is accoutability. At least this way we can see who is breaking rules: and certainly, there'll be less of a punishment for turning off a camera: but at least there'll be something. That will necessarily dissuade some people; maybe it won't dissuade everyone, nothing does, but all that will remain is the kind of person who desperately wants to hurt someone that they'll happily take some punishment for it. That's a minority, and even they will face some charges. It's a start: and the crucial thing is, it's a shift in thinking as well.
There's no firm divide between honest and dishonest. Certainly, some people are honest, some people are dishonest, but I'd say the majority are in the middle ground: dishonest when there are no repurcussions, no danger, and honest when they might have to face consequences.

When your country has average case lengths such as New York City's estimated 900 days for a criminal case to be heard in court, then you end up keeping an awful lot of data.  In addition, the statute of limitations on many crimes is at least a few years, sometimes decades. To delete evidence that could be pertinent to cold cases seems like a bad thing to do.

Not every case goes to trial: sometimes confessions are given, for example. Further, the primary use of body cams is to hold police accountable: they'd still be successful if footage was only kept more than, say, a week/month if the police officer is suspected/charged/accused of brutality. Plus, not all of the footage will be needed: no one cares about a officer singing to themselves while driving around. If you want to be thorough, have someone take minutes of the non-major film, and only store the interactions: when the police officer finds or pursues or arrests someone.
Still, with the advances made in cloud computing, the existence of flash drives, even your extreme case is far from unwieldy.

Theory aside, body cameras are in use in the UK, and save £400,000 ($611,000) a year. The benefits seem to far outweigh any hypothetical negatives.

[Rushy]

The key is accoutability. At least this way we can see who is breaking rules: and certainly, there'll be less of a punishment for turning off a camera: but at least there'll be something. That will necessarily dissuade some people; maybe it won't dissuade everyone, nothing does, but all that will remain is the kind of person who desperately wants to hurt someone that they'll happily take some punishment for it. That's a minority, and even they will face some charges. It's a start: and the crucial thing is, it's a shift in thinking as well.
There's no firm divide between honest and dishonest. Certainly, some people are honest, some people are dishonest, but I'd say the majority are in the middle ground: dishonest when there are no repurcussions, no danger, and honest when they might have to face consequences.

A shift in thinking towards a state that records absolutely everything in order to impose its will. It is the next terrible step in the information age, where bureaucracy finally catches up. Its a step I intend to slow down as much as humanly possible.

Not every case goes to trial: sometimes confessions are given, for example.

Yes, it is well known that the government attempts to coerce countless people into giving plea deals so that they don't get a fair trial judged by their peers. I wouldn't exactly say its a good thing.

Further, the primary use of body cams is to hold police accountable:

The primary use of police is to hold people accountable. Let's step out of imagination land and realize that holding the people accountable who hold the people accountable is redundant.

they'd still be successful if footage was only kept more than, say, a week/month if the police officer is suspected/charged/accused of brutality.

That footage will magically disappear and nothing will change except where your tax money is going.

Plus, not all of the footage will be needed: no one cares about a officer singing to themselves while driving around. If you want to be thorough, have someone take minutes of the non-major film, and only store the interactions: when the police officer finds or pursues or arrests someone.
Still, with the advances made in cloud computing, the existence of flash drives, even your extreme case is far from unwieldy.

"Sorry, we can't pull that footage on account of we deleted it as there was nothing to see" Hah, okay.

Theory aside, body cameras are in use in the UK, and save £400,000 ($611,000) a year. The benefits seem to far outweigh any hypothetical negatives.

The UK is not full of sprawling suburbs. It is an urban country with a relatively small police force compared to their population. Hello Apple, meet Orange, the guy we're now comparing you to because you both happen to be fruits, and thus are exactly the same.