Not sure what version they got. I think the public is on the upper side here, losing a bit of privacy and gaining more transparency. Results differ between countries:
A bit more than a decade ago I think body worn cameras would have been almost exclusively associated with spying. I think the important difference is whether the camera is used for transparency or for information gathering. A body camera used (or intended to be used) to monitor police is, in my mind, a body camera aimed at increased transparency in the policing process. A body camera used to collect data like license plates or used for facial recognition seems more like spying to me.
It really comes down to what their purpose is and how they're used in reality. Ostensibly, we are told they are used for police transparency and accountability, but is that really the case?
One 2016 study found that 92.6 percent of prosecutors' offices nationally in jurisdictions where police wear body cameras have used that footage as evidence in cases against private citizens, while just 8.3 percent have used it to prosecute police officers. [0]
In any case, they definitely are "surveillance" technology, which is the language EFF uses [1] (the usage of "spy tech" in the headline is editorialized).
OP here, I missed the earlier discussion. Didn't realize this was duplicate. The news article has link to the actual portal along with some extra information.
I posted this in the previous HN convo but reposting:
And this is just state surveillance. There’s a guy who’s building a private surveillance network in San Francisco, with the buy in of the District Attorney and local police departments, and a goal of complete surveillance of city streets.
It would be great if there was a call to action button on each entry on the map. Who do I call to complain about the license plate readers (or whatever)?
12 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 22.3 ms ] threadhttps://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/body-worn-cameras-what-e...
One 2016 study found that 92.6 percent of prosecutors' offices nationally in jurisdictions where police wear body cameras have used that footage as evidence in cases against private citizens, while just 8.3 percent have used it to prosecute police officers. [0]
In any case, they definitely are "surveillance" technology, which is the language EFF uses [1] (the usage of "spy tech" in the headline is editorialized).
0 - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/body-cameras-are-seen-...
1 - As in the "Atlas of Surveillance" https://atlasofsurveillance.org/
Link to previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23824845
And this is just state surveillance. There’s a guy who’s building a private surveillance network in San Francisco, with the buy in of the District Attorney and local police departments, and a goal of complete surveillance of city streets.
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nytimes.c...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/business/camera-surveilla...