NYPD Finally Releases A Body Camera Policy That Gives The Department Plenty Of Ways To Withhold Footage
Furnished content.
The NYPD has finally finalized its body-worn camera footage release policy. It's not much better than its initial public offering, which sought public input and then ignored every bit of the public's input to craft an officer-friendly deployment policy that left the act of recording to officer discretion.Even the vague promise of eventually releasing BWC footage to the public was too much for the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association to bear. The NYC PBA sued to prevent the release of body camera footage to the public. This lawsuit was pursued as PBA President Pat Lynch made claims about officers' resistance to body-worn cameras that were contradicted by NYPD officers' statements.Something the former mayor thought would be a "gotcha" tool to persecute otherwise fine officers has actually had zero effect on officer accountability or NYPD transparency to this point. It's not going to get any better either. The official policy [PDF] released by the NYPD still gives the public the shaft.The editorial board for the New York Daily News sums it up nicely:[V]ideo from the cameras cops wear — which, after all, the public pay for — should be presumed subject to release, with narrow exceptions clearly articulated by NYPD brass.To the contrary, [Police Commissioner Jimmy] O’Neill’s memo says “the Department will decide when to publicly release BWC (body-worn camera) footage of a critical incident within 30 calendar days.” Just a decision within a month? That's all the NYPD is promising: a "decision" within 30 days. It's not promising release within 30 days. It's just promising to think about it in a somewhat timely manner. That's the best New York residents are going to get from their Finest.The NYPD also has plenty of options allowing it to decide -- within 30 days -- that it won't be releasing anything at all. Exceptions abound.Any public release of BWC footage may be delayed, redacted, or in some cases, the Department may forego public release, in order to:a. Comply with federal, state, or local law governing disclosure of records or existing Department procedures,
b. Protect confidential sources and witnesses,
c. Protect a person’s right to a fair trial,
d. Protect the identity of victims of sex crimes, domestic violence and juveniles,
e. Protect the privacy, life or safety of any person, and/or
f. Avoid undue trauma due to explicit or graphic content. This all may sound reasonable and thoughtful, but in the context of this policy, it gives the NYPD multiple ways to withhold footage that doesn't show its officers in the best light. This policy covers release of recordings containing the use of deadly or excessive force and other incidents the Police Commissioner feels may "address vast public attention."Footage that is exonerative will be cleared for release. Footage that isn't will be withheld. The excuses are built in.Consider the death of Eric Garner. Officer Daniel Pantaleo deployed an against-policy chokehold and killed Garner. If body cam footage had been captured, this policy would have exempted it from release. Officer Pantaleo was criminally charged. "Protecting the right to a fair trial" would be invoked. Possibly the "undue trauma" exception as well.If an officer rapes someone, beats a domestic partner on camera (there is precedent!), or violates the right of a juvenile, this footage could be withheld under the "protect the victims" exception, even though it's a cop committing the crime. If this seems like an impossibility, let's not forget officers invoking victims' rights laws to keep the press from publishing their names while discussing their lawsuits and/or prosecutions. Sure, the public will call bullshit, but the NYPD still has control of the recordings.The exemption for federal law is another dodge. There are no federal agencies utilizing body cameras. In fact, until recently, partnering with a federal agency meant turning off body cameras or leaving them back at the station. Anything involving federal officers will likely be deemed unreleasable, no matter how high the level of public interest.This isn't even up to the level of "will this do?" This is the NYPD giving residents what the NYPD wants while pretending it cares about transparency or accountability.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 06-Dec-2019
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
The Fate Of EU Legislation Designed To Bolster Data Protection Beyond The GDPR, The ePrivacy Regulation, Hangs In The Balance
Furnished content.
Whatever your views on the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), there is no denying the impact it has had on privacy around the world. Where the GDPR deals with personal data stored "at rest", the proposed ePrivacy Regulation deals with with personal data "in motion" -- that is, how it is gathered and flows across networks. As Techdirt discussed two years ago, the pushback from Internet companies and the advertising industry against increased consumer protection in this area has been unprecedented. Some details were provided at the time in a report from the Corporate Europe Observatory. Unfortunately, that massive lobbying has paid off. Good ideas in the draft text produced by the European Parliament, like banning encryption backdoors or "cookie walls", have been dropped, as has the right of Internet users to refuse to accept tracking cookies. In the most recent version of the text (pdf) put together under the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union (one of the three EU institutions that has to agree on the final law), there's even a new bad idea:In some cases the use of processing and storage capabilities of terminal equipment and the collection of information from end-users' terminal equipment may also be necessary for providing an information society service, requested by the end-user, such as services provided to safeguard freedom of expression and information including for journalistic purposes, such as online newspaper or other press publications...that is wholly or mainly financed by advertising provided that, in addition, the end-user has been provided with clear, precise and user-friendly information about the purposes of cookies or similar techniques and has accepted such use This section would give the news publishing industry a special right, enshrined in the ePrivacy Regulation, to use tracking cookies to support advertising, even though the original impetus behind the new law was to stop precisely this kind of obligatory commercial surveillance. Following its lobbyists' success in obtaining a special link tax included in the awful EU Copyright Directive, this latest legal privilege is further testament to the power of the publishing industry in the EU.Judging by the most recent draft text, the ePrivacy Regulation has been almost completely gutted of any strong protections for Internet users. And yet it seems even what little remains is too much for some EU member states, as a story on Euractiv reports:The European Commission will present a revised ePrivacy proposal as part of the forthcoming Croatian Presidency of the EU, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton announced on Tuesday (3 December), after previous talks failed to produce an agreement among member states.The revamped measures will be made in a bid to find consensus between EU countries on the ePrivacy regulation which would see tech companies offering messaging and email services subjected to the same privacy rules as telecommunications providers. Although the new Internal Market Commissioner Breton is quoted as saying: "You can count on me to find consensus between each of us", others are not so sure. Some now believe that the entire ePrivacy Regulation will be dropped as being too hard to fix. That would be an incredible waste of years of work, a missed opportunity -- and a huge victory for the lobbyists.Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 06-Dec-2019
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|