• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Body Cameras be part of Public Records?

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I saw this discussed recently. So what do you think? Yes or no? I say no. Not because of police. I say no because of privacy concerns. What about you?
 
What are you talking about specifically?
 
American said:
What are you talking about specifically?
Click to expand...

Should you be able to go in and view the footage? Should the press have access to the footage? Or should it be sealed? If it is public record you are allowed to inspect the footage yourself. If it is not, then it would be treated as evidence and not viewable by the public I believe. The idea of not making it public record would be to protect privacy.
 
stonewall50 said:
Should you be able to go in and view the footage? Should the press have access to the footage? Or should it be sealed? If it is public record you are allowed to inspect the footage yourself. If it is not, then it would be treated as evidence and not viewable by the public I believe. The idea of not making it public record would be to protect privacy.
Click to expand...

What footage, whose cameras, and where are they used....that kind of specific?
 
American said:
What footage, whose cameras, and where are they used....that kind of specific?
Click to expand...


She's referring to small camera's that police wear as part of their uniform that record audio and all actions in front of the officer. Therefore it is not video of the officer as video of the civilian population/individual in front of the officer. Think of police "dash camera" but instead of being mounted on the dashboard of a police cruiser it is worn by the officer.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
She's referring to small camera's that police wear as part of their uniform that record audio and all actions in front of the officer. Therefore it is not video of the officer as video of the civilian population/individual in front of the officer. Think of police "dash camera" but instead of being mounted on the dashboard of a police cruiser it is worn by the officer.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Well it seems 911 calls to the dispatchers is public, so I guess this must allowed as well.
 
Yes, definitely.

Privacy concerns are a different question as that is the question of whether the videos are publicly available even if there is no case involved.

The only reason to oppose police having a video running is to protect false statements and perjury.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, definitely.

Privacy concerns are a different question as that is the question of whether the videos are publicly available even if there is no case involved.

The only reason to oppose police having a video running is to protect false statements and perjury.
Click to expand...

Which can be done without making the videos public record. Public record simply means available for public consumption. They would be available to the public even if there is no case.

If police stop you while you are drunk, and maybe naked, maybe you were having sex with your wife somewhere you shouldn't have been...do you really want that to be public record?

Sorry. You have no right to my private life and that includes my interactions with police.
 
stonewall50 said:
I saw this discussed recently. So what do you think? Yes or no? I say no. Not because of police. I say no because of privacy concerns. What about you?
Click to expand...

If the footage is of them on duty then yes it should be public record.Law enforcement personnel are employees of the people and as such we have the right to know what they are doing while they are on duty.
 
stonewall50 said:
I saw this discussed recently. So what do you think? Yes or no? I say no. Not because of police. I say no because of privacy concerns. What about you?
Click to expand...




No it should be kept only by the departments and they should only release what helps them justify thier actions. They can also claim it's "broken" if they want to make it easier.
 
jamesrage said:
If the footage is of them on duty then yes it should be public record.Law enforcement personnel are employees of the people and as such we have the right to know what they are doing while they are on duty.
Click to expand...

Do people have a right to see inside your home? Business? See your security systems? What about your car, where you live, your car, license plate, and all that? What about what you look like naked? Who you maybe get caught sleeping with? What you look like drunk?

All that is part of public record then?

And before you say: no...and that I am making an argument ad Absurdum, consider that these cameras would be on ALL the time. And then consider what police would be responding too. And what these cameras would be capturing.
 
stonewall50 said:
Do people have a right to see inside your home? Business? See your security systems? What about your car, where you live, your car, license plate, and all that? What about what you look like naked? Who you maybe get caught sleeping with? What you look like drunk?

All that is part of public record then?

And before you say: no...and that I am making an argument ad Absurdum, consider that these cameras would be on ALL the time. And then consider what police would be responder too.
Click to expand...


FOIA.gov - Freedom of Information Act


They should blur civilians that would violate 4th amendment rights. but yes, in homes there should be restrictions unless of course the homeowners says to release it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
No it should be kept only by the departments and they should only release what helps them justify thier actions. They can also claim it's "broken" if they want to make it easier.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

Some cops come to arrest someone in your home after a break in: I can go get that footage as part of public record. Then guess what. I know what your home looks like. And your security. If you are unarmed. Maybe even catch some personal information.

It NOT being part of public record does NOT imply the department can determine what is released. That is your strawman argument. And as stated in previous threads: it is clear you aren't interested in any opinion unless it is staunchly antagonistic to law enforcement.
 
stonewall50 said:
Strawman.
Click to expand...


Incorrect, it was mocking sarcasm, know the difference my friend.


Some cops come to arrest someone in your home after a break in: I can go get that footage as part of public record. Then guess what. I know what your home looks like. And your security. If you are unarmed. Maybe even catch some personal information.
Click to expand...

this would need permission of the home owner, or court order, 4th amendment and all that.


It NOT being part of public record does NOT imply the department can determine what is released. That is your strawman argument. And as stated in previous threads: it is clear you aren't interested in any opinion unless it is staunchly antagonistic to law enforcement.
Click to expand...

oh don't start crying already about the poor police..... in public space, it's fair game, in private space it requires court order or owner permission. Simple enough for you?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
FOIA.gov - Freedom of Information Act


They should blur civilians that would violate 4th amendment rights. but yes, in homes there should be restrictions unless of course the homeowners says to release it.
Click to expand...

Let's analyze why this is impractical/wrong/flawed on multiple levels.

1) Public record =/= freedom of information act. These are different. The differences vary state to state, and while they are LINKED...that is NOT the law that would be dealt with in regards to public record. There are 50 public records laws. There is one FOIA.

http://www.foiadvocates.com/records.html

2) Are you aware of how censorship works? Now I'm not 100% on it, but I did ask a friend who is a producer of a local sports network (not name dropping...she just understands the process). It requires a human to do the work.

Why is that flawed? Well. You are now asking for a department to hire someone to look at the footage and censor it. That means someone trained on the equipment. Oh. And let's not forget they have to review footage from (we will use Dallas as an example) 3000 officers. That equates to 24,000 hours of footage. There is 8,760 in a year. So you aren't just hiring 1 guy.

Oh. But wait. You say just incident footage would be reviewed? Not all 8 hours? Ok. So say a cop has 3 incidents in a day. They last 30 minutes. That is 4500 hours of footage for all the officers who go on shift within just a day (with some wiggle room).

3) How many home owners would let you release it? What if the homeowner is the one being arrested? Does the person being arrested have a right to say no?

The best course of action, as well as the MOST practical and intelligent, solution would be to NOT make it public record. Perhaps an independent reviewer? Footage would be flagged based on incident, the officers involved wouldn't have access to the footage, the prosecutor/da, and then the defense. IA could get copies as well. That would have to be worked out.

BUT...trying to censor all personal/revealing information would be impossible.
 
stonewall50 said:
Let's analyze why this is impractical/wrong/flawed on multiple levels.

1) Public record =/= freedom of information act. These are different. The differences vary state to state, and while they are LINKED...that is NOT the law that would be dealt with in regards to public record. There are 50 public records laws. There is one FOIA.

FOIAdvocates - Freedom of Information Requests/Appeals/Litigation

2) Are you aware of how censorship works? Now I'm not 100% on it, but I did ask a friend who is a producer of a local sports network (not name dropping...she just understands the process). It requires a human to do the work.

Why is that flawed? Well. You are now asking for a department to hire someone to look at the footage and censor it. That means someone trained on the equipment. Oh. And let's not forget they have to review footage from (we will use Dallas as an example) 3000 officers. That equates to 24,000 hours of footage. There is 8,760 in a year. So you aren't just hiring 1 guy.

Oh. But wait. You say just incident footage would be reviewed? Not all 8 hours? Ok. So say a cop has 3 incidents in a day. They last 30 minutes. That is 4500 hours of footage for all the officers who go on shift within just a day (with some wiggle room).

3) How many home owners would let you release it? What if the homeowner is the one being arrested? Does the person being arrested have a right to say no?

The best course of action, as well as the MOST practical and intelligent, solution would be to NOT make it public record. Perhaps an independent reviewer? Footage would be flagged based on incident, the officers involved wouldn't have access to the footage, the prosecutor/da, and then the defense. IA could get copies as well. That would have to be worked out.

BUT...trying to censor all personal/revealing information would be impossible.
Click to expand...



Your right, my bad, police should be able to dictate what is released or not, and censoring private information on a case by case basis is impossible. Body camera's are obviously useless.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Incorrect, it was mocking sarcasm, know the difference my friend.
Click to expand...

Implying that that was my argument. It wasn't.


this would need permission of the home owner, or court order, 4th amendment and all that.
Click to expand...

Right. Never mind that the cameras are on ALL the time and things fall through the cracks. The cameras are also capturing the outside of your home. Visible from public land. You are being filmed when stopped for xyz. I could track you with your license plate and car model. Oh. And your name and any personal information from a traffic stop.

I don't think you are fully aware of how easy it is to gather information without actually being on "private land." It isn't a magic barrier. Leaving private land doesn't magically make all your personal information secure. And the officer wouldn't have to request your information. Oh. And what if you aren't the one involved? Maybe a traffic stop happens outside somewhere I want to look at? Good lord. Google maps is bad enough.


oh don't start crying already about the poor police..... in public space, it's fair game, in private space it requires court order or owner permission. Simple enough for you?
Click to expand...

Until your personal information is capture in public space right? Then the cops violated your 4th amendment. Isn't that now this works? Make it so the goalposts can't shift where you can sue/charge the police no matter what they do?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Your right, my bad, police should be able to dictate what is released or not, and censoring private information on a case by case basis is impossible. Body camera's are obviously useless.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Not what I said. Why don't you quote me saying that? OH. You can't. How does it feel having to resort to deliberately lying about my position because your concept of public record vs FOIA is so ridiculously incorrect? Not to mention your complete ignorance on how censoring footage works? And how much that would cost in sheer man hours.

Don't worry. Your position is clear. Damn all cops and anyone who doesn't agree with you. They are all statists. Regardless of direct quotes that contradict that. :doh:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
No it should be kept only by the departments and they should only release what helps them justify thier actions. They can also claim it's "broken" if they want to make it easier.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
American said:
I thought he was trying to be funny.
Click to expand...

With an ulterior motive. He has accused me of being a statist multiple times. And he also has tried to imply that I'm saying only cops should decide which footage is reviewed. I didnt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom