NationStates

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:

Maowi wrote:OOC: I'm not just talking sharing. There is nothing in this proposal that means the police have to even look at the footage unless there's an allegation of some sort of crime. With these measures in place, your nation could even pass a law forbidding anyone from viewing the footage except in those cases, and still be compliant.

OOC: Besides the fact that it seems like the proposal doesn't even mandate that the cameras be set to record anything (or am I misreading it?), there is - regardless of current legislation - a significant risk of abuse w.r.t. privacy. In some countries, that may be worth it (e.g. the US) because the cameras provide a significant benefit, but in other countries like the one I mentioned, the marginal benefit does not outweigh (the risk of) infringing privacy.

I mean, I think it would be pretty blatant bad faith compliance to have the police officers going around wearing cameras which are switched off the whole time. Regarding the "significant risk of abuse" - if a state wants to monitor its police officers using the cameras mandated in this proposal, it could have done so anyway. This does not affect that, outside of the cases of misconduct.

Maowi wrote:

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: Besides the fact that it seems like the proposal doesn't even mandate that the cameras be set to record anything (or am I misreading it?), there is - regardless of current legislation - a significant risk of abuse w.r.t. privacy. In some countries, that may be worth it (e.g. the US) because the cameras provide a significant benefit, but in other countries like the one I mentioned, the marginal benefit does not outweigh (the risk of) infringing privacy.

I mean, I think it would be pretty blatant bad faith compliance to have the police officers going around wearing cameras which are switched off the whole time. Regarding the "significant risk of abuse" - if a state wants to monitor its police officers using the cameras mandated in this proposal, it could have done so anyway. This does not affect that, outside of the cases of misconduct.

OOC: I agree wholeheartedly with Maowi that would be operating in bad faith. It should be apparent that the cameras are meant to produce recordings as other parts of the proposal concern the very same. Further regarding the issue of privacy, if that issue is truly so great, it is a matter to be dealt with by separate legislation. Such cameras (and many others which violate privacy to an even greater extent and on a more regular basis) exist well outside of the mandates provided here and if there is a need to regulate them, it should not be up to this proposal (which has its focus on police forces and law enforcement officers) but to one more oriented toward that issue.

Isaris wrote:

Maowi wrote:I mean, I think it would be pretty blatant bad faith compliance to have the police officers going around wearing cameras which are switched off the whole time. Regarding the "significant risk of abuse" - if a state wants to monitor its police officers using the cameras mandated in this proposal, it could have done so anyway. This does not affect that, outside of the cases of misconduct.

OOC: I agree wholeheartedly with Maowi that would be operating in bad faith. It should be apparent that the cameras are meant to produce recordings as other parts of the proposal concern the very same. Further regarding the issue of privacy, if that issue is truly so great, it is a matter to be dealt with by separate legislation. Such cameras (and many others which violate privacy to an even greater extent and on a more regular basis) exist well outside of the mandates provided here and if there is a need to regulate them, it should not be up to this proposal (which has its focus on police forces and law enforcement officers) but to one more oriented toward that issue.

I disagree that it's an invalid interpretation, because there is literally no part of the proposal that madates the cameras ever be turned on. As far as I understand, GenSec doesn't normally take a purposivist approach to interpreting resolutions, so this proposal does not require that the cameras be turned on.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:

Isaris wrote:OOC: I agree wholeheartedly with Maowi that would be operating in bad faith. It should be apparent that the cameras are meant to produce recordings as other parts of the proposal concern the very same. Further regarding the issue of privacy, if that issue is truly so great, it is a matter to be dealt with by separate legislation. Such cameras (and many others which violate privacy to an even greater extent and on a more regular basis) exist well outside of the mandates provided here and if there is a need to regulate them, it should not be up to this proposal (which has its focus on police forces and law enforcement officers) but to one more oriented toward that issue.

I disagree that it's an invalid interpretation, because there is literally no part of the proposal that madates the cameras ever be turned on. As far as I understand, GenSec doesn't normally take a purposivist approach to interpreting resolutions, so this proposal does not require that the cameras be turned on.

OOC: I don't disagree there is a lack of that mandate. What I disagree with is a need for one. If it were mandated, then it would also be fraught with questions of when the cameras should be turned on. All of the time? Only when they are engaged with citizens? Only when they are outside of the station? Can they have any exceptions to whatever is mandated? I'm not opening that can of worms, nations can figure that out for themselves. I'm not trying to regulate to within an inch here, I'm trying to establish basic standards. It should be apparent to anyone acting in good faith that at some point the cameras need to be turned on as they certainly aren't going to be producing any recordings otherwise.

OOC: GenSec's opinion on what a resolution does or doesn't do is irrelevant outside of applying the proposal rules.

IMO Pope Saint Peter the Apostle is correct. Only the written word is the law. There is nothing here that requires that the cameras be turned on. To interpret the resolution as requiring same would be a jump unsupported by the text.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: GenSec's opinion on what a resolution does or doesn't do is irrelevant outside of applying the proposal rules.

IMO Pope Saint Peter the Apostle is correct. Only the written word is the law. There is nothing here that requires that the cameras be turned on. To interpret the resolution as requiring same would be a jump unsupported by the text.

OOC: To be clear, when I say, "at some point the cameras need to be turned on", I am talking about a physical need, not a legal one. The camera isn't going to produce anything unless it's turned on. That is physical fact. Nations which are acting in good faith will turn the cameras on in order to produce recordings. Nations are free to act in bad faith and be judged by the world.

Isaris wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: GenSec's opinion on what a resolution does or doesn't do is irrelevant outside of applying the proposal rules.

IMO Pope Saint Peter the Apostle is correct. Only the written word is the law. There is nothing here that requires that the cameras be turned on. To interpret the resolution as requiring same would be a jump unsupported by the text.

OOC: To be clear, when I say, "at some point the cameras need to be turned on", I am talking about a physical need, not a legal one. The camera isn't going to produce anything unless it's turned on. That is physical fact. Nations which are acting in good faith will turn the cameras on in order to produce recordings. Nations are free to act in bad faith and be judged by the world.

OOC: This isn't an unfixable problem. In fact, Cretox State published a suggestion on Discord that would work (you can contact them). I'd suggest withdrawing the proposal, fixing the issue, and then resubmitting the proposal.

Isaris wrote:a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

OOC: Other than the "turned on" thing, I'll be pedantic for a moment here:

Is this a "body-worn camera"? https://media.graytvinc.com/images/810* ... ixabay.jpg

It certainly qualifies as "a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device." Most modern police departments already record and save radio traffic for about a year. A tiny bit of rewording should clear up any issues:

a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable video and audio recording device with the potential to operate continuously, or a combination of devices to the same effect;

Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, to remain activated while said LEOs are acting in an official law enforcement capacity, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states, to remain active while said vehicles are being used in an official law enforcement capacity.

Edit: Pope Saint Peter the Apostle...

Cretox State wrote:

Isaris wrote:a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

OOC: Other than the "turned on" thing, I'll be pedantic for a moment here:

Is this a "body-worn camera"? https://media.graytvinc.com/images/810* ... ixabay.jpg

It certainly qualifies as "a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device." Most modern police departments already record and save radio traffic for about a year. A tiny bit of rewording should clear up any issues:

a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable video and audio recording device with the potential to operate continuously, or a combination of devices to the same effect;

Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, to remain activated while said LEOs are acting in an official law enforcement capacity, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states, to remain active while said vehicles are being used in an official law enforcement capacity.

Edit: Pope Saint Peter the Apostle...

OOC: What does "continuously" mean? At all times? Most devices operate on battery and as such have a limited lifespan. And perhaps nations wish to use the cameras to ensure police are only acting in an official law enforcement capacity? It would be fairly odd to then restrict them from having them on at other times, such as when the officer is on their lunch break. With regard to police radios, they are not a recording device, they are a communications device. They transmit audio, they do not record it.

OOC:
For the record, your definition is incredibly broad; for reference, it'd count the entire Imperial Military, good portions of Imperial Intelligence, and the entire Judicial system.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
For the record, your definition is incredibly broad; for reference, it'd count the entire Imperial Military, good portions of Imperial Intelligence, and the entire Judicial system.

OOC: Your entire military is a military police enforcing the law? That seems a bit unrealistic. Can you explain why this is an issue, at any rate? If you don't want to support the resolution for in-character reasons, that's fine, but the broadness of my definition is intentional, not a mistake.

Isaris wrote:OOC: Your entire military is a military police enforcing the law? That seems a bit unrealistic. Can you explain why this is an issue, at any rate? If you don't want to support the resolution for in-character reasons, that's fine, but the broadness of my definition is intentional, not a mistake.

OOC:
Regarding the Imperium, Internal Security, being the police of the Imperium, is just straight up a branch of the Military, and standard Military personnel can be transferred to and from it as-per Civil Oversight requirements. The duties of the Military include the enforcement of Imperial Law when it is deemed necessary, and they are not permitted to allow illegal activity to be undergone without intervening.

And, for the record, many modern courtrooms IRL do not allow cameras inside them at all, which this legislation would rather make difficult, and I would hope you understand the value of not requiring that anyone doing highly confidential national security type work, (Imperial Intelligence, to use my RP example,) keep video records of the entire thing.

Tinfect wrote:

Isaris wrote:OOC: Your entire military is a military police enforcing the law? That seems a bit unrealistic. Can you explain why this is an issue, at any rate? If you don't want to support the resolution for in-character reasons, that's fine, but the broadness of my definition is intentional, not a mistake.

OOC:
Regarding the Imperium, Internal Security, being the police of the Imperium, is just straight up a branch of the Military, and standard Military personnel can be transferred to and from it as-per Civil Oversight requirements. The duties of the Military include the enforcement of Imperial Law when it is deemed necessary, and they are not permitted to allow illegal activity to be undergone without intervening.

And, for the record, many modern courtrooms IRL do not allow cameras inside them at all, which this legislation would rather make difficult, and I would hope you understand the value of not requiring that anyone doing highly confidential national security type work, (Imperial Intelligence, to use my RP example,) keep video records of the entire thing.

OOC: Well it's a good thing it doesn't mandate that they be turned on or when then, isn't it?

Isaris wrote:OOC: Well it's a good thing it doesn't mandate that they be turned on or when then, isn't it?

OOC:
For court affairs maybe, but then what's stopping cops from just 'accidentally' turning them off whenever something happens, like they do in the US?

Tinfect wrote:

Isaris wrote:OOC: Well it's a good thing it doesn't mandate that they be turned on or when then, isn't it?

OOC:
For court affairs maybe, but then what's stopping cops from just 'accidentally' turning them off whenever something happens, like they do in the US?

OOC: What's stopping nations from providing their cops with devices incapable of doing that if that is a concern for them?

Isaris wrote:OOC: What's stopping nations from providing their cops with devices incapable of doing that if that is a concern for them?

OOC:
In other words, Member-States looking to 'comply' in such a way that means it doesn't do anything, have a free loophole that renders the entire draft useless in the Member-States it's meant to target.

Tinfect wrote:

Isaris wrote:OOC: What's stopping nations from providing their cops with devices incapable of doing that if that is a concern for them?

OOC:
In other words, Member-States looking to 'comply' in such a way that means it doesn't do anything, have a free loophole that renders the entire draft useless in the Member-States it's meant to target.

OOC: This proposal doesn't seek to regulate nations to within an inch, it seeks to establish basic standards that are agreeable to the majority, which are certainly better than nothing, which is what this Assembly has now for legislation regarding this topic. You really expect nations to provide these cameras, force their officers to wear them, and then not expect them to turn them on at some point? What else are they supposed to do with them? These cameras are useful tools for law enforcement too, not just for holding them accountable! You really think they're not going to make use of a tool they're being provided? And you've already pointed out great reasons why when they make use of it should be left up to them as well.

*edited

Isaris wrote:OOC: This proposal doesn't seek to regulate nations to within an inch, it seeks to establish basic standards that are agreeable to the majority, which are certainly better than nothing, which is what this Assembly has now for legislation regarding this topic. You really expect nations to provide these cameras, force their officers to wear them, and then not expect them to turn them on at some point? What else are they supposed to do with them? These cameras are useful tools for law enforcement too, not just for holding them accountable! You really think they're not going to make use of a tool they're being provided? And you've already pointed out great reasons why when they make use of it should be left up to them as well.

OOC:
'Basic Standards', with incredibly overbroad definitions, that don't actually require Member-States whose populations would most benefit from these laws, to enforce them in a way that is meaningful? I expect that Member-States that don't really give a damn about police brutality, (Say, were the United States a Member-State,) will enforce this law to the exact letter; and absolutely no further. And yes, I know for a fact that cops will absolutely never use the cameras except where they can benefit them personally.

You could drive a goddamn aircraft carrier through this draft, if you don't think that's a problem, I don't know what to tell you.

Tatarica wrote:OOC:
Interesting draft! However, OP should take a step back and analyze the input that's offered from outside the box the OP is in. OP should stop to "assume" that just because something is logical for them it means that it *has* to be like that. It only *has* to be as its written. Why push for a resolution that's only going to be repealed at a later time due to ambiguities?

OOC: Respectfully, I've analyzed a lot of input that's been offered from outside of my box in working on this proposal and even incorporated things that I originally disagreed with. Please see the various incarnations of my drafts. I've already stated that I don't disagree with the notion that it is as written. What I disagree with is the notion that what is written is a problem. I am pushing for this resolution because it has support from parts of the community whose support I value, including a player who donated stamps to me so I could campaign this weekend, Delegates of the World Assembly Legislative League, and Delegates of the United Regions Alliance. If the resolution is ultimately defeated because of these issues that I don't see as a problem, then I'll come back to this drawing board and work on it again. What I won't do is betray the supporters I value who are pushing me to campaign for this resolution now by not doing so.

Isaris wrote:OOC: Respectfully, I've analyzed a lot of input that's been offered from outside of my box in working on this proposal and even incorporated things that I originally disagreed with. Please see the various incarnations of my drafts. I've already stated that I don't disagree with the notion that it is as written. What I disagree with is the notion that what is written is a problem. I am pushing for this resolution because it has support from parts of the community whose support I value, including a player who donated stamps to me so I could campaign this weekend, Delegates of the World Assembly Legislative League, and Delegates of the United Regions Alliance. If the resolution is ultimately defeated because of these issues that I don't see as a problem, then I'll come back to this drawing board and work on it again. What I won't do is betray the supporters I value who are pushing me to campaign for this resolution now by not doing so.

OOC:
If you're willing to push a deeply flawed draft instead of pulling it back and making sure it's actually viable and functional, you're already betraying by putting their trust on a sinking ship.

Tinfect wrote:

Isaris wrote:OOC: Respectfully, I've analyzed a lot of input that's been offered from outside of my box in working on this proposal and even incorporated things that I originally disagreed with. Please see the various incarnations of my drafts. I've already stated that I don't disagree with the notion that it is as written. What I disagree with is the notion that what is written is a problem. I am pushing for this resolution because it has support from parts of the community whose support I value, including a player who donated stamps to me so I could campaign this weekend, Delegates of the World Assembly Legislative League, and Delegates of the United Regions Alliance. If the resolution is ultimately defeated because of these issues that I don't see as a problem, then I'll come back to this drawing board and work on it again. What I won't do is betray the supporters I value who are pushing me to campaign for this resolution now by not doing so.

OOC:
If you're willing to push a deeply flawed draft instead of pulling it back and making sure it's actually viable and functional, you're already betraying by putting their trust on a sinking ship.

OOC: That's your opinion of the matter and I'd kindly ask you to drop the subject if you have nothing of greater value to add to the discussion.

“There is a rather large issue with this draft, which is that the draft mandates that undercover police officers wear cameras at all times on duty. This defeats the entire purpose of such police operatives by destroying their cover and therefore crippling the effectivity of undercover policing.”

Kenmoria wrote:“There is a rather large issue with this draft, which is that the draft mandates that undercover police officers wear cameras at all times on duty. This defeats the entire purpose of such police operatives by destroying their cover and therefore crippling the effectivity of undercover policing.”

"Ambassador, I disagree that this is an issue. It does not mandate what devices have to be worn and there are several devices available which can be easily hidden. Such devices are already put to use by police forces in many nations when they put their law enforcement officers in undercover situations, commonly referred to as 'wearing a wire'. Police forces can accommodate the needs of their officers with such devices as are appropriate."

Isaris wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“There is a rather large issue with this draft, which is that the draft mandates that undercover police officers wear cameras at all times on duty. This defeats the entire purpose of such police operatives by destroying their cover and therefore crippling the effectivity of undercover policing.”

"Ambassador, I disagree that this is an issue. It does not mandate what devices have to be worn and there are several devices available which can be easily hidden. Such devices are already put to use by police forces in many nations when they put their law enforcement officers in undercover situations, commonly referred to as 'wearing a wire'. Police forces can accommodate the needs of their officers with such devices as are appropriate."

“I’m not denying that it is possible. I’m saying that it is an unnecessary security risk that endangers the lives of officers. It is possible to hide cameras, but there is always a risk that they may be spotted, potentially ruining an entire operation.”