DC Police Body Cameras Will Be Off For Inauguration Protests

originally posted by: EightAhoy

Control over recordings
Perhaps most importantly, policies and technology must be designed to e nsure that police cannot “edit on the fly” — i.e., choose which encounters to record with limitless discretion. If police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras’ role in providing a check and balance against police power will s hrink and they will no longer become a net benefit.

If the cameras do not record continuously, that would place them under officer control, which
would create the danger that they could be manipulated by some officers, undermining their
core purpose of detecting
police misconduct.

Source: ACLU PDF download, page 2

Thanks!

hopefully rioters will be shot

a reply to: infolurker

I Think the ACLU are a Bunch of Communists , and are trying to Subvert the Rule of Law in America under the Guise of Representing the Alleged Po People who they do not give a Rats Ahass about in Reality . Am I Wrong ?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
No NO Noooooooo. One of the biggest things that conservatives scream bloody hell about is the surveillance state. The liberals here are acting for all of us. The police will have the cameras off unless of until they are in action according to the video. so yeah, big deal. Sure there is wide visual coverage of this event, as absolutely well there should be.

The liberals are right here. Those cameras should be off because they have noting to do with the inauguration. The plan is a peaceful political protest, one of the most cherished rights of every citizen. It's that simple. Undo surveillance.

BUT The moment an officer goes into action mode, bOOM that camera goes on and let anybody who wants to sort out the mess later do it. Who did what, who said what who provoked who WHO GIVES A CRAP. Oh yea, the morons who will pour over all the examples to prove their points for the next two or three years.

It's all bogus. Stupid liberals and stupid conservatives screaming at them how stupid they are.

Well certainly your first paragraph is correct, the police can turn them on at the moment of any trouble, it's supposed to be something in the law on information gathering. How that, 'moment of trouble' is defined is a bit vague, but I'll take it that the principal will be confined to where the, 'moment of trouble' occurs. It is also stated that the police themselves will be monitored...by the authorities.
Conversely anyone can monitor the police, so no bad thing I suppose, but how would that stop information gathering by anybody?

It does seems a bit wacky to me...will it be the new norm? Something as simple as Going to the pub could be a whole new ball game!

Link is to NBC video, not yet on youtube.

www.nbcwashington.com...

Since when does the ACLU make decisions on Police Procedure?

Wonder if they'll shut off all, of the street cams. Washington DC is probably the most surveilled area in the US. Multiple cameras on every block. Cameras watching other cameras in some places.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

In this case, the right of a citizen to assemble without undo surveillance by big brother needs be protected, if only in principle and only for a minute.

And you say cognitive dissonance. I say not so, rather that it is paradoxical. We have two seemingly opposed concerns. One is the need to protect citizens from overzealous coppers and two, the right of citizens to assemble without undo surveillance.

Yes cognitive dissonance. Here is the stated policy of the very organization you are siding with (your ilk) which directly contradicts your (and your ilk's) argument.

Police Body-Mounted Cameras:
With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All
By Jay Stanley, ACLU Senior Policy Analyst
October, 2013

Control over recordings 
Perhaps most importantly, policies and technology must be designed to ensure that police cannot “edit on the fly” — i.e., choose which encounters to record with limitless discretion. If police are free to turn the cameras on and off as they please, the cameras’ role in providing a check and balance against police power will shrink and they will no longer become a net benefit. 

If the cameras do not record continuously, that would place them under officer control, which 
would create the danger that they could be manipulated by some officers, undermining their 
core purpose of detecting 
police misconduct.

Surely you don't want to continue this beating you are receiving in this debate.

Maybe the special snowflake rioters will finally get the beatings their parents never gave them.

a reply to: Alien Abduct You seem to think that we are in a debate here. I was under the impression that it was a discussion. But I guess the beating down I am getting is partly because I didn't know we were fighting. I thought it as a friendly evaluation of the coming events and the principles of American democracy. But as you seem to dwell upon my ilk, I take it that you assume that all of this ilk are your enemies.

From what I can see in your quoted post of the ACLU, that was put down in 2013. Granted I did not g to that depth as I was not seeking to win or to beat anyone down, just exchange information and opinions. But that post above was written about general police engagements and curbing excessive police misconduct. Three years ago. I find no indication that it was designed to cover such events as the coming protests, which, it seemed to me to be agreed upon by both the ACLU and the police that as long as the demonstrations were peaceful, the cameras would remain off and that should they become incited, that the cameras would come on. Is this not the case?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yes this does appear to be the case, however I do disagree.

While I can understand the ACLU's concern for privacy. I think it is well understood by nearly the entire population that when in a public place you being recorded is fair game.

With all the cameras there being used by the public...are you also concerned for privacy with those cameras?

I disagree with the police not having their body cameras on the entire time for reasons defined by the ACLU in my previous post.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm not vouching for anyone. The place will most likely be a mess. But the principle is sound. Were Clinton the winner, one would expect conservatives to show up and protest, and they would also say their protests would be peaceful. That illusion of 'right's must be protected until the word 'peaceful goes out the door. And sure, who knows what kind of stuff will go on when they are off. But you know, and I know generally how this all could go down.

You mean the way they didn't show up and protest Obama's inauguration either time?

Dc police should have cameras on them at all times!

The "L" in "ACLU" stands for "Liberties", not "liberal". They are not a political organization, they are a legal organization. Sometimes we may disagree with the standard they bear....but they are always interested in protecting peoples civil liberties. That can't be a bad thing, even when the civil liberty they protect is something you don't like.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

To me, it comes down to how are we framing the question, what is the emphasis of our opinions. Is our major concern retaining ,if we can, the remnants of quickly receding rights or might those concerns lean more to the undisputed necessity for certain levels of security. Or, might those concerns be simply that the other side lost, they are pissed and are going to try to completely disrupt this weekends proceedings in which case I'm guessing that the concern of some conservatives would lay only with the security aspect of the question.

We all know the vehemence with which a fair number of Anti-Trumpers hold the outcome of the election, but I for one also recognize the vehemence which a fair number of conservatives hold the liberals. It is easy for me to consider that should Clinton have won, and conservatives planned protests in the streets of DC that they also would not want the police cameras on them all the time claiming undue surveillance.

Though now, that I have tossed this one around for a day or so, reconsidered both sides of my concerns, I suppose as I have said through out the thread that the issue really is moot. Like the ACLU I was considering the question from an old paradigm, one where the need for security did not outweigh the need for private citizens to voice protest in public gatherings without undo surveillance. My hope that 'total surveillance was still a thing of the future and that only then would we give up the last of our rights, but now, I suppose, that Rubicon has been crossed