Washington DC Police To Turn Off Body Cameras During Inauguration Protests

WhatInThe said:
The Washington DC police will turn off their body cameras for/during the inauguration day protests.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ing-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html

Plenty an officer is probably happy as are the rioters that tend to show up at these things.
Click to expand...

I searched the news link, but didn't see anywhere the actual story or a reference as to 'why' the DC police would turn off their body cameras.

Why would they announce such a thing, in advance?
 

Reported nowhere else, so far, than on that NBC station. Not even being reported on NBC national coverage. Seems far fetched. Too many "what if's". What if there is a terrorist strike. Wouldn't authorities want any and all possible video coverage to help identify criminals? If an officer is attacked and has to retaliate for his own safety? Don't they want that on video? What if someone attempt to do harm to the new President or his family? They would be neglect is officers were close and did not have their cameras on.

This one will be interesting to keep track of.
 
jeez give em a break they only got them in Dec. maybe they don't know how to turn em on, or operate them
 
....continuing to find more on this yields:

Civil rights groups are concerned that the police will violate their rights during the Inauguration protests so they intend to record their behavior. Meanwhile, the ACLU is demanding that the police turn off their body worn cameras during the events.
D.C. Police say their policy is to only record when there is a police activity and they do not consider monitoring protests an activity.
Click to expand...
Article

Another source:

According to MPD's body camera general order this is not accurate. In GO-302-13 it says "Members shall activate their BWC when responding to a First Amendment assembly." I could not find anything in their general orders that says they are not to turn on their body cams during protests. It only says they "shall not record First Amendment assemblies for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct."So what I am gathering is that their body cams are supposed to be on during all protests but they can't use that video to identify people who are not breaking any law. Which seems reasonable to me. Am I missing something?
I agree with /u/warneral in this. Just my 2 cents.
Source: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_302_13.pdf
Click to expand...
source
 
The interest of the ACLU made me chuckle, I find it hard to believe that a passionate protestor who traveled across the country at great personal expense to express their beliefs in a public forum like the Inauguration wants, or has any reasonable expectation of, privacy.
 
Protester's rights seem to come up when searching.

It's a double edged sword. Yes it's a form of surveillance and what will be done with that data. It's not a coincidence that most states are using high definition camera's for ids and drivers licenses. It's not just for 'a' clear picture it's for data recognition software.

Not being a fan of the surveillance state I'll would go with it. On the other it should be equal treatment under the law. Why should the average civilian have their picture taken just walking in view of the officer's camera and yet a protestor and/or rioter not have their picture snapped? To top it off they are apparently coming up with rules or guidelines for photographing the police which still might not show what an officer saw and why they reacted a certain way.

Best bet is to come up with a policy that would delete footage if there is not incident and there is no request with a court order for that footage with in a certain time period.
 
WhatInThe said:
Protester's rights seem to come up when searching.

It's a double edged sword. Yes it's a form of surveillance and what will be done with that data. It's not a coincidence that most states are using high definition camera's for ids and drivers licenses. It's not just for 'a' clear picture it's for data recognition software.

Not being a fan of the surveillance state I'll would go with it. On the other it should be equal treatment under the law. Why should the average civilian have their picture taken just walking in view of the officer's camera and yet a protestor and/or rioter not have their picture snapped? To top it off they are apparently coming up with rules or guidelines for photographing the police which still might not show what an officer saw and why they reacted a certain way.

Best bet is to come up with a policy that would delete footage if there is not incident and there is no request with a court order for that footage with in a certain time period.
Click to expand...
Surveillance state, video privacy (particularly in public places)... that ship has already sailed. Federal, state, and local governments have more surveillance cameras than Carter has pills and most everyone is walking around with smart phones that have video cameras, know how to use them, and are looking for something interesting or controversial to record.
 
I thought they were to protect the police officer too. Videos with selected pieces may show but one side. Hope it is peaceful so they don't have to concern themselves over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top