Lefty Lawyers do 180 on police body cams

And why would they pull the information if they did not need it? My understanding of facial recognition software is that if you program it it detect specific faces, it does well. If you ask it to identify all the faces in the crowd, it sucks donkey testicles.

 

That would be the general idea.

 

Then we would have no need for chest cams on cops. Why would it matter if they have cams on anyway, everything the police experience during an encounter is evidence anyway. As for facial recognition being used only criminals should be concerned about that. I see no invasion of privacy, if you are pulled over there is no expectation of privacy and the cam can only see what the cop sees and anything illegal that is visible can bring about an arrest.

 

Facial recognition can be used on any cam even traffic cams so what difference do body cams make. Maybe the issue should be facial rec software.

 

The sword is sharp and cuts in both directions. Body cam footage will only highlight the losers arrested and their phony baloney claims of excessive force. It goes from "he said, she said" to what really happened.

 

Maybe the info would be pulled by individuals for nefarious purposes. If you create the potential for abuse, rest assured, abuse will occur.

Even if this is currently true, how long do you think it will remain so? These technologies get more sophisticated with each passing year. Policies regarding the use of such things need to be made with that understanding.

 

It helps to read the OP of a thread you are participating in. The issue IS facial recognition software. From the OP:

 

People don't understand how the justice system works. We're supposed to be given the assumption of innocence, so any evidence submitted is obviously going to be an attempt to provide evidence of guilt.

If a bodycam shows somebody being gunned down by a cop in cold blood, why would that evidence be submitted as evidence? The prosecution is legally allowed to see everything that is going to be introduced, but if it's not introduced, then it's not part of the evidence.

Now if the prosecution wants to target the cop and put him behind bars, then that evidence will be submitted. However, the district attorney's office needs to work with cops, so they are generally loath to prosecute police.

 

This may surprise you, but not everyone on a jury is just going to accept a cop's version of events in all cases. Chest cams help keep everyone honest.

Ah, the old "if you're doing nothing wrong, then the government should have absolute surveillance power" line. Good thing the Founders were wiser than that. You create the potential for abuse, and abuse is what you'll get.

Again, if you had actually looked at what people have been saying in the thread, most people are OK with the software being run on people who are pulled over or who are actively being investigated. The problem is "incidental" mass surveillance. For instance, say a cop walks into a strip club looking for a certain person, and in the process, films everyone there. No one is committing a crime, and yet, many there may not wish their presence to become common knowledge. But a rogue cop or hacker could use such identification of bystanders as blackmail, or simply "dox" them on the internet for lols.

 

I have trouble envisioning a nefarious purpose that outweighs the good that can come from these body cams. My understanding of the limits of facial recognition comes from someone who worked for a company that sells the technology because the confirmed faces are scattered over too many sources and databases that are not readily accessible, and ultimately I don't really care the risks. If flash mob thefts and riots and mayhem are the new normal, then the technology can one day be used to break the backs of the anonymity these criminals are hoping to have by being the faster runners in the pack.

 

You just made the case that chest cams are good and should be used in the first part of your post. As for the last part of the post you seem to be arguing against hackers not the use of chest cams. I have been to strip clubs before and I never cared who knew it. If a person worries about someone finding out what they are doing then maybe they shouldn't be doing it. There is no expectation of privacy in any public place.

 

If chest cam footage is used by facial recognition software it is used with local and federal databases of known criminals past and present and if it gets a hit then it will alert officers to who it is and then they can find out if those people are wanted. Seems to me the only people who should be concerned are the ones with outstanding warrants. Police have the right to look out on a crowd and make an arrest if he sees someone who is wanted for a crime, the only difference is a computer can do it more effectively.

 

I don't know about the "liberal lawyers" for whom you are, apparently, the spokesperson, but most Americans have consistently supported police body cams with restrictions to insure the public's civil liberties.

In New York City, the program was initially ordered back in 2013 after a federal judge ruled that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactics were unconstitutional.

It is finally being implemented after U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, nominated by President Obama and appointed in 2013, ruled that certain aspects of the pilot program were not final recommendations and the claims of those seeking to modify the law before implementation were premature. Any problems that arise will be resolved if and after they occur.

 

Ok, first off, the actual "bad guy" mob rioters, like black bloc ANTIFA, cover their faces. Those are the people you are NOT going to get with facial recognition.

But I can see that there is little use in discussing this further, as we just have a fundamental disagreement about what a free society looks like (or rather, whether we should have one at all). The divide is becoming clear: it's the real conservatives, who advocate for limited government and who know, like the Founders knew, that you have to keep checks on government power, vs. the pro-surveillance police state right wingers who tend toward fascism and who might as well be taking a dump on the graves of everyone who died defending freedom.

 

How much more simply can I put this? Body cams good, mass surveillance bad (which, incidentally, is the same case the lawyers in question are making). Walking outside your front door should not be an invitation to cyberstalking, either by hackers, or just by bad cops (you do realize that donning a government issued uniform doesn't mean that you are a good person, right?)

 

I do understand just putting on a uniform does not make a good person, but I also know not all cops are bad, only a very small percentage of them. Yes walking outside your front door removes your expectation of privacy, there are cams everywhere and most of them are connected to the internet so hackers could get access to them, also anyone can buy facial recognition software or even write their own.

 

k

Unlike the left, I've worked closely with them his week.

And they are better than average.

We have always knew his.

Im proud of em.

 

I have been a cop and still maintain friends in local police and Sheriff's offices and do understand how difficult the job is. I also have only seen a very small minority of bad officers and usually they do not last long on the job.

 

They can be gotten with a little ingenuity because eventually they will uncover their face and can be tracked using other cameras like stoplight cameras, etc. I am a "left-winger" BTW. I simply believe mob crime is a danger to society and a detriment to the cause.

 

Ok is seems to be fine with you to use facial rec on other cameras but not on chest cams, I see no difference. Mob violence can be discouraged if during a protest any person wearing a mask were arrested prior to the protest. I am sure there can be any number of charges that can be used to arrest them.

 

It is fine with me to use them on either. Quite simply it is going to happen anyway so why get bent out of shape about it. There are already numerous court cases that ratify use of technologies, no expectation of privacy in public places, the need to have ID's, etc. This would be just a new variation under existing law for already decided principles.

 

Nope their job is to arrest you its the DA's job to convict you and the Judges and sometimes the jury's responsibility to determine your sentence.

 

I have no problems either.

 

Horrors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the police might use the cameras to get a conviction???????????? Why not if a crime is being committed the thug should go to jail.

 

I guess it would make it hard to lie your ass off when there's video evidence that contradicts you'r claims. What's the name of that chick that started all the trouble after the Ferguson shooting? I think she was a prosecutor. Think about all the destruction that could have been avoided if there were police body cam footage to deflate her rabble rousing. She's a bigger criminal that the one that was shot.