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.
Article specifically mentions the term "pervert glasses"
US police and federal agents are not alone in their fear. Concern among the public and privacy experts over Meta’s smart glasses, widely dubbed “pervert glasses”, is growing. The technology enables its wearers to record people without their consent and has already been used to harass people.
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.
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.
That’s not snarky. I am asking for evidence based on the original comment that police like wearing comments. My own anecdotes differ but they are of course anecdotes. Asking for citations is neither snarky nor worth of posting a rules link.
You seem to be misreading what I said. I am pointing out that what I have are anecdotes and I would love to have some real data instead of folks just claiming what police like or dislike. I am sorry you feel the need to be slightly rude in your response too. Again I am not hand waving but simply saying it’s hard to believe cops like wearing them but I have no idea what they feel and I would love data instead of folks expressing ideas. Unions highly opposed the rollout of cameras and I know in the biased selection of videos we see, conversation is often muted. Sorry my post confused you, I am not claiming to know either way!
One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.
Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.
To add. It was not that long ago that most police unions were resisting the implementation on the grounds of collective bargaining. This was 15 years ago so I guess sentiment could have changed but I would be shocked with how often you see thin blue lines.
Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.
My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.
Interesting. I for one wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body. I would think it should improve outcomes for everyone abiding by the law. I just don’t know in the US how much local police appreciate wearing them. I go back to the 2010s when they started rolling out and it was a pretty large sticking point with most of the unions. Hence I would be surprised cops have changed that much.
> wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body
As I understand it, there is a tough balance. Given presumptive release, always-on cams might disincline vulnerable populations whose cooperation is socially useful.
> large sticking point with most of the unions
Any change the conditions of employment desired by the employer becomes a negotiation point for a union, no conspiracy to hide misbehavior needed.
Yea that is why most departments have sensible policy allowing the camera to be turned off for informants or tipsters who don’t want to be on camera. That’s how most of the camera policies are run. Always on for calls with special exceptions.
That assumes you appreciate unions. I think most like police and dockers unions are counter productive for everyone. But no conspiracy needed, it just sours the relationship
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. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
So no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.
There don’t seem to be recent studies. Mostly the reports go on to say that they are overall positive but that the overall positivity depends on department policies, rollout, etc.
It looks like it’s too early to tell for certain. There are reports and police accounts that cover the spectrum. From what I’ve read online, a plurality of officers think it’s positive. Some say it has changed police and citizen behavior others say it hasn’t impacted citizen nor police behavior.
The overall temperature is positive. My take is that it’s positive as well. Bad cops and bad civilians don’t like it. The rest have some trepidation over privacy and some other aspects, but never the less see it as positive.
> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.
People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.
Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.
I am going to need a citation there. Around my state, body cameras have been fought by police unions and have had to be bargained into CBAs by government, when really, they should be treated no different than uniform, PPE and equipment.
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?”
Everyone in this story is afraid of exactly the same thing, being recorded without consent, and each side is sure it only counts when it happens to them.
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)?
Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.
I mean, they need to be able hide any weaknesses that will allow prison breaks. A prisoner or their collaborators can use this footage to gain intel about these things and break people out. People who might deserve being in prison, like murderers and rapists and stuff
...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.
Without randomness, things can be easily hidden. That's why random searches too are a thing. Put in notice that "hey there be cameras/inspections at this time in this place" and you find everything in order on the footage, while shenanigans continue otherwise.
>probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
About as good of an argument as the prisoner who insists that cell searches for contraband must be announced a day before the search. Do you think the people running the jail would go for that?
>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.
>there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in
you're right. there's also an awful lot of very obvious good arguments for allowing recording and public access to recording, such as the incident where a prisoner was locked in a scalding shower until he was so badly burned that his skin "fell off at the touch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey). Like so many incidents of its kind, there was absolutely no hard evidence available to prove what happened and it ended up being yet another case where someone died horrifically and officially no one was found to have done anything wrong but several million dollars did change hands. If prison guards are torturing prisoners to death and getting away with it, the argument that they don't need surveillance needs to be a whole lot better than "probably good".
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.
- 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.
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.
Agreed. They’d love the message to be less pervert glasses and more protect your rights
Article specifically mentions the term "pervert glasses"
The article can be 100% written by the Guardian but with a seed planted by a “leak” from Meta.
They'll be fine. As the police often say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Exactly
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.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/police-...
Since 2016, 2 out of 3 US officers supported body cameras. That percentage increases after uptake https://ircommons.uwf.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Pol... with even skeptical Police unions & advocacy orgs gradually speaking up in favor of cameras https://fop.net/letter/abc-act-hr-3248/ https://www.policeforum.org/trending6jan24 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comments/1uf0d3a/did_the_dema...
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
Thanks for sharing! I had missed some of the updates on unions since I looked.
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
It's more mixed. They like it because shields them from frivolous complaints, and lets them document evidence against subjects.
They don't like it when management uses it for frivolous minor policy enforcement or they feel like it reduces their ability to use discretion.
But overall police officers who are given cameras tend to me more positive after using them.
You ever talk to any cops?
So no citations?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."; "Don't be curmudgeonly."
FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.
That’s not snarky. I am asking for evidence based on the original comment that police like wearing comments. My own anecdotes differ but they are of course anecdotes. Asking for citations is neither snarky nor worth of posting a rules link.
You seem to be misreading what I said. I am pointing out that what I have are anecdotes and I would love to have some real data instead of folks just claiming what police like or dislike. I am sorry you feel the need to be slightly rude in your response too. Again I am not hand waving but simply saying it’s hard to believe cops like wearing them but I have no idea what they feel and I would love data instead of folks expressing ideas. Unions highly opposed the rollout of cameras and I know in the biased selection of videos we see, conversation is often muted. Sorry my post confused you, I am not claiming to know either way!
[dead]
One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.
Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.
To add. It was not that long ago that most police unions were resisting the implementation on the grounds of collective bargaining. This was 15 years ago so I guess sentiment could have changed but I would be shocked with how often you see thin blue lines.
Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.
My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.
https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police...
Interesting. I for one wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body. I would think it should improve outcomes for everyone abiding by the law. I just don’t know in the US how much local police appreciate wearing them. I go back to the 2010s when they started rolling out and it was a pretty large sticking point with most of the unions. Hence I would be surprised cops have changed that much.
> wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body
As I understand it, there is a tough balance. Given presumptive release, always-on cams might disincline vulnerable populations whose cooperation is socially useful.
> large sticking point with most of the unions
Any change the conditions of employment desired by the employer becomes a negotiation point for a union, no conspiracy to hide misbehavior needed.
Yea that is why most departments have sensible policy allowing the camera to be turned off for informants or tipsters who don’t want to be on camera. That’s how most of the camera policies are run. Always on for calls with special exceptions.
That assumes you appreciate unions. I think most like police and dockers unions are counter productive for everyone. But no conspiracy needed, it just sours the relationship
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. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
So no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.
There don’t seem to be recent studies. Mostly the reports go on to say that they are overall positive but that the overall positivity depends on department policies, rollout, etc.
It looks like it’s too early to tell for certain. There are reports and police accounts that cover the spectrum. From what I’ve read online, a plurality of officers think it’s positive. Some say it has changed police and citizen behavior others say it hasn’t impacted citizen nor police behavior.
The overall temperature is positive. My take is that it’s positive as well. Bad cops and bad civilians don’t like it. The rest have some trepidation over privacy and some other aspects, but never the less see it as positive.
> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.
Why?
People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.
Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.
I think they’re only happy when they can control what will be released.
I am going to need a citation there. Around my state, body cameras have been fought by police unions and have had to be bargained into CBAs by government, when really, they should be treated no different than uniform, PPE and equipment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They elected Him because He willfully doesn't compromise, ever.
The panopticon is only supposed to look out, not in.
So when the government doesn't want to be tracked, suddenly it's dangerous
Sousveillance is one of the few acceptable use cases for these meta glasses that I can support.
Why did they do something wrong?
I am a little more concerned over creeps, stalkers, pedos and teenage bullies.
Everyone in this story is afraid of exactly the same thing, being recorded without consent, and each side is sure it only counts when it happens to them.
Hm. If these glasses can run custom software maybe they could even start recording automatically? :)
Cops should always behave is such a way that they don't care if they are being recorded.
Probably police officers will start to use them as well at some point in the future...
A lot of cops already have cameras on their chest (which they can freely turn off and mute). Meta glasses buy them very little.
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.
Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.
I mean, they need to be able hide any weaknesses that will allow prison breaks. A prisoner or their collaborators can use this footage to gain intel about these things and break people out. People who might deserve being in prison, like murderers and rapists and stuff
Who on earth is bringing smart glasses inside prison buildings?
...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.
Dashcam for your face.
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.
The rest of us fear that and nobody gives a sh*...
Who doesn't fear that...
Could be?
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
AirPods Pro will have them in the very near future
Fear not; they _will_ be used to secretly record them.
How long until a random person wearing Raybans in one of those states that banned recording within X-feet of an officer gets shot?
“Cops apprehensive about impending Orwellian state”
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.
Without randomness, things can be easily hidden. That's why random searches too are a thing. Put in notice that "hey there be cameras/inspections at this time in this place" and you find everything in order on the footage, while shenanigans continue otherwise.
>probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
About as good of an argument as the prisoner who insists that cell searches for contraband must be announced a day before the search. Do you think the people running the jail would go for that?
>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.
There’s probably an argument, I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.
>there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in
you're right. there's also an awful lot of very obvious good arguments for allowing recording and public access to recording, such as the incident where a prisoner was locked in a scalding shower until he was so badly burned that his skin "fell off at the touch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey). Like so many incidents of its kind, there was absolutely no hard evidence available to prove what happened and it ended up being yet another case where someone died horrifically and officially no one was found to have done anything wrong but several million dollars did change hands. If prison guards are torturing prisoners to death and getting away with it, the argument that they don't need surveillance needs to be a whole lot better than "probably good".
The police do not care. They already have iPhones stuck in their face the millisecond they pull someone over.
In a lot of videos they really really really care.
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.
[dead]
This is definitely marketing.
[dead]
[dead]
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.
Number one doesn't necessarily apply in the United States. A lot of our prisons (but not all) are privately run.
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.