Civilian uses of body cameras?

[Forsher]

Not really. It tends to just keep people safe

No it doesn't. You aren't safe when some person or persons unknown are watching you.

The right to be forgotten is better phrases as "the right to gaslight" and "the right to mindwipe".

People have memories.

Then never leave your house. Close the blinds, lock the doors, and hide.

See the world you are advocating for? People who want to be able to go about their business without their movements and actions being tracked by the state simply cannot leave their homes.

The only person talking about tracking is you.

[A m e n r i a]

Bro I use body cameras for rafting lol, this is entirely unnessecary. It's not like the court is more likely to believe her over you when there's a lack of evidence.

[Floofybit]

Some info is better than none

Not always. If you have to interpret, then mistakes tend to follow.

If there's no info, you still have to interpret. You have to interpret a LOT more and that in turn leads to a LOT more mistakes

[The Black Forrest]

Not always. If you have to interpret, then mistakes tend to follow.

If there's no info, you still have to interpret. You have to interpret a LOT more and that in turn leads to a LOT more mistakes

It depends on the evidence the investigators find. Painting a picture of events if you will. Camera footage is not really unquestionable anymore. You saw this with Tucker Carlson’s edits of January 6th.

[Floofybit]

If there's no info, you still have to interpret. You have to interpret a LOT more and that in turn leads to a LOT more mistakes

It depends on the evidence the investigators find. Painting a picture of events if you will. Camera footage is not really unquestionable anymore. You saw this with Tucker Carlson’s edits of January 6th.

That's why the camera footage would have timestamps and check when the footage was edited.

[The Black Forrest]

It depends on the evidence the investigators find. Painting a picture of events if you will. Camera footage is not really unquestionable anymore. You saw this with Tucker Carlson’s edits of January 6th.

That's why the camera footage would have timestamps and check when the footage was edited.

Few people would even check that.

[Floofybit]

That's why the camera footage would have timestamps and check when the footage was edited.

Few people would even check that.

So the jury will send a man to his death unjustly because they didn't check the camera. That sounds like the legal system's problem, not the camera

[Asherahan]

Tell me you are American without telling me you are American.

[Floofybit]

Tell me you are American without telling me you are American.

Cheeseburger

[United Calanworie]

I'll say this again:

1. Cops are never punished, even if bodycam footage shows them torturing and killing an unarmed civillian
2. Cyclists are always to blame, even if bodycam footage shows that they weren't at fault
3. Saiwana says that bodycam footage will protect people from sexual harrasment and false accusations thereof

How do you reconcile 3 with 1 and 2?

I have a couple problems with one. First, you imply that cops can get away with anything they want and not get punished? The goal of the police force is to protect and serve so if they break this code by doing something unjust they will get punished, and the reason we don’t see it a lot is because most cops are good people. Second, torturing an innocent civilian? Yeah, maybe a single rascist redneck in Mississippi who somehow made the police force but 90% of the time cops are accused of hurting someone because of “racially-motivated” shit like that they aren’t and it just happens the guy who robbed a store or brutally beat his wife/girlfriend had a weapon and was attempting to strike the officer. Most cops are good, don’t let the few bad fool you.

lol. ok. 24-40+% of cops are domestic abusers. In San Diego, where 92% of domestic violence cases are prosecuted, only 42% are prosecuted when a police officer is involved. Most cops are not good. Here's my source. In case that's not enough, here's another.

It depends on the evidence the investigators find. Painting a picture of events if you will. Camera footage is not really unquestionable anymore. You saw this with Tucker Carlson’s edits of January 6th.

That's why the camera footage would have timestamps and check when the footage was edited.

Timestamps and metadata can be easily changed. It's not really a cure-all.

[Floofybit]

That's why the camera footage would have timestamps and check when the footage was edited.

Timestamps and metadata can be easily changed. It's not really a cure-all.

Could live broadcasts to multiple media stations, causing the data to be copied into multiple equal videos, reduce the chance of it being edited?

[United Calanworie]

Timestamps and metadata can be easily changed. It's not really a cure-all.

Could live broadcasts to multiple media stations, causing the data to be copied into multiple equal videos, reduce the chance of it being edited?

Doing that for a bodycam is entirely too much effort. You're talking about something like an inverted Plex media server, I don't even know if this technology *exists* for the most part.

[Saiwana]

I would suggest the use of hashing algorithms. SHA-3 256 is hard enough to beat. It is designed so that if software changes from the original file/copy in any way, the hash just doesn't match. Its considered to be reliable evidence of no alterations having been made in the world of digital software/IT. I'm sure a body cam can be programmed to hash its footage at a certain time towards the end of each workday.

[Bear Stearns]

I like how the #MeToo movement went from "Stop Catcalling!" to holy shit everyone in power is a child-sacrificing pedophile, and as soon as that happened you stopped seeing as much news coverage on it.

Normal people will still be flagged by HR for saying sarah in accounting has big jugs.