LEOs be careful out there.

[Roadkill]

I understand them in place to protect the officer, but what about victim privacy? If I'm a victim of a burglary I wouldn't want the video of the officer walking through my house subject to open records. Or if I have been the victim of a horrific crime. I wouldn't want my interview to be subject to open records. What about domestic abuse or rape victims? The initial contact with the officer would be recorded by the body cam. I know there are some provisions for juveniles or nudity etc. But if I need a cop for some reason, that is most likely going to be a situation I don't want to share with the rest of the world.

 

[JacobDaddy]

We need to get with out legislators and get the laws changed

 

[HFS]

I understand them in place to protect the officer, but what about victim privacy? If I'm a victim of a burglary I wouldn't want the video of the officer walking through my house subject to open records. Or if I have been the victim of a horrific crime. I wouldn't want my interview to be subject to open records. What about domestic abuse or rape victims? The initial contact with the officer would be recorded by the body cam. I know there are some provisions for juveniles or nudity etc. But if I need a cop for some reason, that is most likely going to be a situation I don't want to share with the rest of the world.

Yep, this is a sticky situation. What if the burglary victim or the officer happens to say, "Well, the thieves got the cheap TV/jewelry/electronics, but thankfully they missed the good stuff in the other bedroom!"

Police in Seattle sponsored a "hack-a-thon" (their description) to find computer experts to blur or edit out features from thousands of hours of dash cam footage, and now they're beginning a pilot program with cameras worn on the body. From a Seattle TV station:

http://q13fox.com/2014/12/19/techies-troubleshoot-seattle-police-department-video-problem/

Techies troubleshoot Seattle Police Department video problem
…the Seattle Police Department is turning to tech experts to find innovative ways to respond faster to public records requests for video.

University of Washington students, Microsoft employees, and other companies took part in the SPD “Hack-a-thon” on Friday.

“We are talking about getting tremendous amounts of video out to the public in a way everyone can grab,” Sgt. Sean Whitcomb told the presenters at police headquarters.

The city is focusing on ways to speed up the process of blurring faces of innocent people and transcribing audio.

Over a five-year period, patrol car cameras have captured 314,636 hours of video. The police department already has 1,612,554 videos saved on servers. And with the addition of body cameras, that number will increase.

“The ability to create digital records like this has completely outstripped the ability to redact and process them,” said Mary Perry of the City Attorney’s Office.

Due to Washington state privacy laws, video specialists often spend upwards of a half-hour removing faces and voices of victims, witnesses, and juveniles for just one minute of video.

“Protecting people’s privacy is so important,” said Mayor Ed Murray.

During the meeting, presenters showed police ways to reduce the time it takes to redact video and make it available to the public.

Starting this weekend, Seattle Police will launch a body camera pilot program. A dozen officers from the East Precinct will test out several different types of cameras over a 4-6 month period.

 

[twoguns?]

what about the undercover/covert officers, trying to blend in , gang units, tasks forces...Off duty officers.

And will We Civilians have the same record keeping abilitys, funded by the .gov?

 

[Glocktogo]

what about the undercover/covert officers, trying to blend in , gang units, tasks forces...Off duty officers.

And will We Civilians have the same record keeping abilitys, funded by the .gov?

Yep. It's not as simple and easy as some uninformed commenters would have us believe.

 

[RickN]

Yep. It's not as simple and easy as some uninformed commenters would have us believe.

And it is not as complicated as some are trying to make it. Uniformed patrol officers should be wearing them and it should be part of the chain of evidence whenever that officer is involved in any type dispute. Everything else is just an attempt to muddy the issue.

 

[jfssms]

And it is not as complicated as some are trying to make it. Uniformed patrol officers should be wearing them and it should be part of the chain of evidence whenever that officer is involved in any type dispute. Everything else is just an attempt to muddy the issue.

Oh yes! right Rick! you have nothing that's personal ur a open book guy. I would encourage you to let the states camera into your home. Rick you haven't given this much thought have you?

 

[pritch]

And it is not as complicated as some are trying to make it. Uniformed patrol officers should be wearing them and it should be part of the chain of evidence whenever that officer is involved in any type dispute. Everything else is just an attempt to muddy the issue.

The major problem is that in this litigious society, every word spoken and recorded by an officer would be twisted against them. How would you like every private word between you and a coworker or passerby to be used to paint you as a monster?
There is a lot of gallows humor and such to relieve pressure which the public would not understand.

 

[Glocktogo]

And it is not as complicated as some are trying to make it. Uniformed patrol officers should be wearing them and it should be part of the chain of evidence whenever that officer is involved in any type dispute. Everything else is just an attempt to muddy the issue.

Part of the simplistic crowd. ꜛ

 

[Dave70968]

The major problem is that in this litigious society, every word spoken and recorded by an officer would be twisted against them. How would you like every private word between you and a coworker or passerby to be used to paint you as a monster?
There is a lot of gallows humor and such to relieve pressure which the public would not understand.

Yeah, us poor rubes just can't handle it, so our betters need to keep us from hearing it.

'course, when it's the other way 'round, that's another matter. "Anything you say can be used against you" isn't just policy, it's (case) law, at least since Miranda; that is, we've so institutionalized the concept that statements can and will be "twisted against [the accused]" that it has become a required-by-law warning.

Heaven forfend that the Agents of the State be held to the same standard as the rest of us.