Why aren't we recording the Police?
Nathan and I tossed this back and forth for a while before putting this post together. Its important to us both, and we wanted to get it right.
Why aren't we recording the Police? We could outfit all on-duty police officers with life streamers which locally record everything they do, and push the stream to an archive in real time.
There are several natural objections to this idea which are worth discussing:
Secondly, the privacy of the public. The public currently has no legal expectation of privacy in the presence of the police, in that the officer can use anything that he/she observes. Worse, police testimony is given special privilege in the criminal justice system over and above the testimony given by other citizens. So, as it stands today, they can use anything they see, and they are permitted to make human mistakes about it; mistakes which lead to convictions.
Thirdly, the privacy of the police themselves. Why are we claiming that an officer of the law, with the power to deploy deadly force and detain the citizenry on solely their own discretion has the right not to be observed while doing it? Does anyone seriously believe this? Can you cite any legal precedent arguing that this is true?
I believe the primary objection here from the police is that they prefer a system with minimal overcite, so they can "get things done", which seems to be code for: abuse your rights.
There have been many documented accusations of the abuse of power by police officers as of late. Indeed, it seems as our capacity to record and communicate grows, we become aware of these abuses more frequently. It seems likely that this is merely the status quo, and we are uncovering more and more of it:
It is time for sunlight in these matters. It is time to fix this. It is time to record the police.
Why aren't we recording the Police? We could outfit all on-duty police officers with life streamers which locally record everything they do, and push the stream to an archive in real time.
There are several natural objections to this idea which are worth discussing:
- The cost of the equipment
- The privacy of the public
- The privacy of the officers
Secondly, the privacy of the public. The public currently has no legal expectation of privacy in the presence of the police, in that the officer can use anything that he/she observes. Worse, police testimony is given special privilege in the criminal justice system over and above the testimony given by other citizens. So, as it stands today, they can use anything they see, and they are permitted to make human mistakes about it; mistakes which lead to convictions.
Thirdly, the privacy of the police themselves. Why are we claiming that an officer of the law, with the power to deploy deadly force and detain the citizenry on solely their own discretion has the right not to be observed while doing it? Does anyone seriously believe this? Can you cite any legal precedent arguing that this is true?
I believe the primary objection here from the police is that they prefer a system with minimal overcite, so they can "get things done", which seems to be code for: abuse your rights.
There have been many documented accusations of the abuse of power by police officers as of late. Indeed, it seems as our capacity to record and communicate grows, we become aware of these abuses more frequently. It seems likely that this is merely the status quo, and we are uncovering more and more of it:
It is time for sunlight in these matters. It is time to fix this. It is time to record the police.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home