Thread: OK its been awhile.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

"It's easier to do than people think" is true if we're talking about the technical side. Commodity hardware already exists. There are already systems that do similar stuff. The back-end storage and retrieval technology is mature.

I would guess that there are some technical hurdles. Power and local storage would be non-trivial. You'd also keep running into those classic engineering tradeoffs that come down to; "A, B, and C - choose two." There are lots of examples to offer, but my posts are generally too long and none of them are really my point.

"It's easier to do than people think" is probably not true if we're talking about the cost side. In my experience, data storage and retrieval have only small scale advantages. That is: doubling your volume won't quite double your costs, but it's close. I couldn't even begin to guess what happens to administrative costs. This isn't like expanding Pinterest where you just cut a larger check to Amazon. On top of all the technical and librarian work, there is a legal aspect as well. This isn't the same as storing selfies in some cloud-based hopper - it's only similar. Also; this isn't Google, or Facebook, or Amazon who treat 'storage' as a single fungible commodity. These are hundreds (thousands?) of separate police departments. If they do it separately there is no cost advantage. If they contract out to a large provider, the cost advantages go to the provider. It's expensive. There is no way to get around that.

My concerns are on the social side. You'd like to see someone outside the system be responsible? You'd like to make sure the keepers can't also be viewers? You'd like to think that 'password access' solves the problem of who can or can't see stuff? Me too! I'd love to see those. I want desperately to believe. But it never - ever - works out that way. Cops (and NSA guys) routinely abuse their data access privileges. They look up shit even when it is explicitly illegal to do so. They stalk women. They gather information on people they want to intimidate.

I think it's wrong for people to have their every move and action recorded and stored out of their control. The surveillance society is bad. I also think that applies to police officers. I don't want them to have to be aware that everything they do is being recorded and stored and made available to lawyers and prosecutors and departmental nit-pickers. It starts to turn them into performers. I think it's bad for cops to feel like they are special - separating them for special treatment and special punishment makes them less and less a part of the community they serve. It turns them into a protected class that uses their position to institutionalize their special treatment and eliminate special scrutiny and punishment.

In many places that's already happened. Those are the places where bad shit goes on and where we wish there was video to confirm (or reject) the accusations. But those are also the places where the police will make sure they can manipulate any new system that's put into place.


Æ

I agree with what you've said. I also feel it should be addressed that doubling your storage isn't close to doubling your cost. Much like building a computer the storage is a fraction of the cost spent. The same would apply here. As such there is just as much advantage of doing it separately seeing as the initial and the bulk of the cost has already been spent. Joining all of them together would cost far more because now you're talking about setting up a whole new system. Of which would be considerable seeing as you cant take the current one done until the new one is running.

When i said an outside source i meant the person being not attached to the police department. You really only need 1 for a fairly large area because downloading doesn't take long or you could do 1 per station. They wouldn't need to be an IT expert because afterall we aren't looking for someone with any real technical knowledge. He simply needs to be able to download and upload. My 5 year old nephew can do that.

Yes i would like the person to be outside the police department where they are placed. We can worry about what the NSA does at a later date but the goal is to minimize the amount of people able to access the data. We also both know its possible and fairly easy to set up a way to see when things were accessed. Camera systems already exist in police stations so its a safe bet a few cameras can be added to keep a watchful eye. The more people that get to see things like the better off you are. It's no different then why retail stores have their employees great people through out the store. It minimizes wrong doing from doing wrong.

Now you seem to be confusing big brother watchful eye being constant with big brother watchful eye only recording you when there is an interaction with an officer. Of which you should be use to already with dash cams. Cops already think their special and not in a good way. Obviously leaving it up to their best judgement has failed many times over now. Time to try something else. Im going to use a line they love and some around here seem to as well. There is no need to act because if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Funny how well it works in both directions.

Originally Posted by dex71

Minneapolis is already starting a body-cam program for their cops. If it saves even one lawsuit, it will pay for itself. Cameras may not be the perfect solution to every problem, but some info is better than none. It can, and is currently being done, and the more departments that start recording, the cheaper it will likely get. Either way, we piss away money on much less useful crap every day.

Not only can it be done it's working in every place they've been put into use.