hearing on body cameras

[kelli shewmaker]

Some of you may be interested in a hearing this Thursday about police body cameras & FOIA requests. Deadline to sign up to testify is COB today, info below. - Kelli

"As it stands now, D.C. police have only released video by its officers to defense attorneys and prosecutors. The department has so far denied all FOIA requests." - http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28975488/dc-councilmember-police-body-camera-footage-public

http://dccouncil.us/calendar:

Thursday, 5/7/2015 2:00pm Room 123

JUDICIARY PUBLIC ROUNDTABLE : (MPD) BODY-WORN CAMERA PROGRAM The Committee on the Judiciary, will hold a public oversight roundtable on the Metropolitan Police Department's (MPD) Body-Worn Camera Program, including policy and budgetary proposals for its expansion. The Committee invites the public to testify or to submit written testimony. Anyone wishing to testify at the roundtable should contact Kate Mitchell, Committee Director, at (202) 727-8275, or via e-mail at kmit...@dccouncil.us, and provide their name, telephone number, organizational affiliation, and title (if any) by close of business Tuesday, May 5, 2015.

[Donald Braman]

As a criminal law prof, I just want to chime in to say: 

(1) The privacy concerns are more significant than in many other data transparency contexts.  The video often catches citizenry unaware, and often at their not-best.  Right now, the blurring out of all the non-defendant faces is a major burden, though that may change as the technology develops. 

(2) That said, metadata on camera use probably doesn't have the same degree of privacy-related concerns.  A thoughtful comment on what kind of metadata should be made available and to what ends would be useful.  Sadly, I'm (figuratively) underwater today and can't draft it.  If someone else could, I'd be happy to review (or not, as you prefer!).   

Cheers, Don

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Code for DC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dc-cfa-brigad...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Don
202-503-4132
donald...@gmail.com

[Matt Bailey]

Of note on the point about technology developing - take a look at recent developments in Seattle, where an open source (I think?) solution for automated redaction is in development:

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/02/25/spd-launches-youtube-channel-for-bodyworn-video/

[Josh Tauberer]

On privacy versus transparency - It doesn't have to be either-or. In federal campaign finance, for instance, there's significant transparency for contributions but statutory limitations on how that information can be used (i.e. not for commercial purposes). A similar framework might be helpful here. Also it's worth keeping in mind that the goal isn't (or shouldn't) be transparency per se but the accountability of MPD, justice for those wrongly accused, equitable justice broadly, etc. The sort of access needed to accomplish each of those goals might be different --- there doesn't have to be one rule to govern all situations.

</two-cents>

- Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)

http://razor.occams.info

[Matt Bailey]

Josh, I strongly disagree on all points.

[Donald Braman]

Lots of folks working on auto-redaction (blurring faces / reducing to outlines).  FWIW, the bodycam manufacturers offer redaction as a for-pay service alongside video storage, search, etc.  I like the overredaction-to-youtube option; curious what others think of it. 

Also, for those interested, video data is currently treated like most other evidence in DC, and that is not automatically made available (not even to the defendant!).  Arguably, DC should pass an open-file discovery law; that would give the defense access to all evidence in a case file, not just what the prosecutor plans to present at trial. 

We're still fairly early on in the bodycam world to know what's best practice.  Still, I think we can at least speculate about what is better practice than either full-detail upload to YouTube & no FOIA until presented at trial. The default should be open where there aren't serious privacy concerns, and adjustment to most-open (like the overredaction option) where privacy is an issue.  I'm curious what kind of meta-data folks think should be associated with each file?  Location would often obviate redaction.  Is time stamp enough?  

 

--

Don
202-503-4132
donald...@gmail.com

[kelli shewmaker]

Okay, since it seems fair to assume that there is some interest...I called and confirmed that written testimony can be submitted until next Wednesday, 5/13, via email to kmit...@dccouncil.us, Kate Mitchell, Committee Director. Call her for more info at (202) 727-8275.

[Matt Bailey]

*ahem* People are texting and dming me wondering why I was so rude to Josh.  For the record I agree with him entirely - was just being contrary for lulz.

Josh + Matt = <3

[Jessie Posilkin]

Just a little hearing pro-tip: testifying at the hearing > written testimony > no testimony

That little greater than symbol can't quite express it, but testifying in person is generally far preferable to written testimony, in terms of making things happen or explaining what you want, especially when it comes to the intersection of council-members and technology. Not trying to make anyone feel bad here, but...there ya go.

[Josh Glasstetter]

Virginia has very different laws than the District, I realize, but Fairfax is a great illustration of what can go wrong when you give local governments too much control over how and whether video is released to the public:

• Fairfax County Sheriff's Office Refuses To Turn Over Video Of Tasing Incident
  
• Dash cam video still not released in Va. fatal shooting
  

Best,

Josh

[Keith Ivey]

In Virginia, even public access to video of legislative sessions has been a problem:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jaquith/liberate-virginias-legislative-video/description