This kind of thing just reeks as a meta marketing ploy. My eyes were opened when I started attending some marketing all-hands at my last FANG employer. They do this kind of thing all of the time.
Indeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.
Where do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.
Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.
Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Yet overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
Clearly, all Big Tech needs to do is to create some version of "Flock-powered" smart glasses and, all of a sudden, U.S. police will become Meta's biggest cheerleaders here.
>“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
I do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad
We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?
...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?
Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.
aren't these the same people telling us that AI-powered cameras on every street corner will make everything better for everyone? What do they have to fear from people seeing what they do? Why do the police fight so hard to ensure everyone else is constantly being observed but also to ensure that they are never being observed? Ostensibly, police act in our name and to our benefit. Why are we kept in the dark as to what they do?
This isn't about cameras in public. It's clearly established that people can record/photograph the police in public as long as they aren't interfering with them.
This is about cameras in secure facilites, such as in a prison or jail. Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
>Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
Earlier this year various elected officials tried to perform exactly that kind of public inspection of ICE facilities and met a lot of resistance. I know that some subset of these were just publicity stunts, but despite that, the fact remains that the public needs to be aware of what detention in those facilities is like and if the DHS makes choices that result in random cameras being the only way to do that, then they should reap what they sow.
- prevent or more likely perform but withhold and deny existence of recordings of policing
- give police total access to "private" recordings
is ludicrous.
Meta is literally a surveillance company which as a side hustle addicts people to feeds which destroy their mental health and social relationships and sense of self worth, in service of keepting them docile, consuming, and politically steered.
Every time I've interacted with the police while wearing sunglasses (when I was younger and lived near the beach) they've instructed me to remove them. I was told they need to see my pupils to get an idea if I'm under the influence. Not saying I agree with any of this, just saying the cops already have a way to negate the creepy sunglasses.
This kind of thing just reeks as a meta marketing ploy. My eyes were opened when I started attending some marketing all-hands at my last FANG employer. They do this kind of thing all of the time.
They'll be fine. As the police often say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Indeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.
Where do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.
Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.
Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Yet overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
Clearly, all Big Tech needs to do is to create some version of "Flock-powered" smart glasses and, all of a sudden, U.S. police will become Meta's biggest cheerleaders here.
I feel like this is a submarine ad for the glasses by Meta.
Yep, this doesn't feel organic at all. Meta must be pretty desperate if they are going to go against the blue to sell spyglasses.
That was my thinking. It is the first legit use case I've heard.
if it is it's genius marketing - they aren't pervert glasses, they're tools to fight the man!!!
The longer I typed in that sentence the more convinced I am youre probably right.
Imagine a world were you see glasses being sold out just to prove that police is acting against the law.
don't they know?
>“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
The irony of someone on Fox News arguing for compromise is thick.
The panopticon is only supposed to look out, not in.
Could be?
Probably police officers will start to use them as well at some point in the future...
I do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad
We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?
> What are they hiding
the privacy of prisoners maybe. A prison cell is not a public place (nor the hallways either) so there is an actual expectation of privacy there.
...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?
Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.
Yes I can imagine could be quite embarrassing for the abusers.
wait 'til they learn watches now can record them and upload in realtime via LTE
smartwatches are also just one or two generations away from having cameras
How long until a random person wearing Raybans in one of those states that banned recording within X-feet of an officer gets shot?
Why did they do something wrong?
Fear not; they _will_ be used to secretly record them.
I know that mass surveillance is inevitable, which is why I would prefer the circle to 1984. If they're watching us, we might as well watch them.
aren't these the same people telling us that AI-powered cameras on every street corner will make everything better for everyone? What do they have to fear from people seeing what they do? Why do the police fight so hard to ensure everyone else is constantly being observed but also to ensure that they are never being observed? Ostensibly, police act in our name and to our benefit. Why are we kept in the dark as to what they do?
This isn't about cameras in public. It's clearly established that people can record/photograph the police in public as long as they aren't interfering with them.
This is about cameras in secure facilites, such as in a prison or jail. Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
>Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
Earlier this year various elected officials tried to perform exactly that kind of public inspection of ICE facilities and met a lot of resistance. I know that some subset of these were just publicity stunts, but despite that, the fact remains that the public needs to be aware of what detention in those facilities is like and if the DHS makes choices that result in random cameras being the only way to do that, then they should reap what they sow.
“Cops apprehensive about impending Orwellian state”
The pretense that meta will not simply
- prevent or more likely perform but withhold and deny existence of recordings of policing
- give police total access to "private" recordings
is ludicrous.
Meta is literally a surveillance company which as a side hustle addicts people to feeds which destroy their mental health and social relationships and sense of self worth, in service of keepting them docile, consuming, and politically steered.
Every time I've interacted with the police while wearing sunglasses (when I was younger and lived near the beach) they've instructed me to remove them. I was told they need to see my pupils to get an idea if I'm under the influence. Not saying I agree with any of this, just saying the cops already have a way to negate the creepy sunglasses.
Why? As they say: no expectation of privacy in the public space, amirite?
Also, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
Is the inside of a jail cell a public space?
In at least two senses, yes:
1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.
2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.