The other thing is that its coverage estimation was off by at least an order of magnitude. It is a transition zone species. So they cover trees that are at the perimeter of forests or stands along highways. Back in the 70s aerial estimations were not as good as today’s. Their visual extrapolations were thus way, way off. It’s still a pest but it’s not “swallowing the South”.
Marketing executives thinking “out of the box” is how. Ethics cannot contain them inside. They have breached the perimeter and now trample everyone for MRR.
In my experience the biggest cheaters were foreign exchange students who saw the six month to year stateside studies as a mere opportunity to have fun and pretend to study.
There will always be unethical students who cheat. At least the Kenyans were making a living from it. Now that's gone, and the money goes into the pockets of some of the wealthiest people on the planet.
So if I were an unethical hacker who hires Ukrainians to develop an APT for me and they know what I’m using it for, they are in the clear ethically because they’re using it to feed their children and arm themselves against russkies?
Well, when people get their news from entertainers, that’s when things are wrong. One should not be informed on important topics by people who have little understanding of things but have a lot of feelings about things in the world. If you give entertainers that much credibility then you get good along with bad.
I think we need to know the nature of the agreements (what did they agree to) as well as whether they are legally binding. Without that information we’re all left to guess.
I'm partial to the Goode Homolosine projection, next is whatever NatGeo standardized on. Of course, the best is an actual globe --but decent sized ones are too expensive and the beach ball ones are just not very well made.
Indeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.
Where do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.
That’s not snarky. I am asking for evidence based on the original comment that police like wearing comments. My own anecdotes differ but they are of course anecdotes. Asking for citations is neither snarky nor worth of posting a rules link.
You seem to be misreading what I said. I am pointing out that what I have are anecdotes and I would love to have some real data instead of folks just claiming what police like or dislike. I am sorry you feel the need to be slightly rude in your response too. Again I am not hand waving but simply saying it’s hard to believe cops like wearing them but I have no idea what they feel and I would love data instead of folks expressing ideas. Unions highly opposed the rollout of cameras and I know in the biased selection of videos we see, conversation is often muted. Sorry my post confused you, I am not claiming to know either way!
One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.
Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.
Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.
My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.
Interesting. I for one wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body. I would think it should improve outcomes for everyone abiding by the law. I just don’t know in the US how much local police appreciate wearing them. I go back to the 2010s when they started rolling out and it was a pretty large sticking point with most of the unions. Hence I would be surprised cops have changed that much.
> wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body
As I understand it, there is a tough balance. Given presumptive release, always-on cams might disincline vulnerable populations whose cooperation is socially useful.
> large sticking point with most of the unions
Any change the conditions of employment desired by the employer becomes a negotiation point for a union, no conspiracy to hide misbehavior needed.
Yea that is why most departments have sensible policy allowing the camera to be turned off for informants or tipsters who don’t want to be on camera. That’s how most of the camera policies are run. Always on for calls with special exceptions.
That assumes you appreciate unions. I think most like police and dockers unions are counter productive for everyone. But no conspiracy needed, it just sours the relationship
Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.
Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
So no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.
There don’t seem to be recent studies. Mostly the reports go on to say that they are overall positive but that the overall positivity depends on department policies, rollout, etc.
It looks like it’s too early to tell for certain. There are reports and police accounts that cover the spectrum. From what I’ve read online, a plurality of officers think it’s positive. Some say it has changed police and citizen behavior others say it hasn’t impacted citizen nor police behavior.
The overall temperature is positive. My take is that it’s positive as well. Bad cops and bad civilians don’t like it. The rest have some trepidation over privacy and some other aspects, but never the less see it as positive.
To add. It was not that long ago that most police unions were resisting the implementation on the grounds of collective bargaining. This was 15 years ago so I guess sentiment could have changed but I would be shocked with how often you see thin blue lines.
> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.
People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.
Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.
I am going to need a citation there. Around my state, body cameras have been fought by police unions and have had to be bargained into CBAs by government, when really, they should be treated no different than uniform, PPE and equipment.
The other thing is that its coverage estimation was off by at least an order of magnitude. It is a transition zone species. So they cover trees that are at the perimeter of forests or stands along highways. Back in the 70s aerial estimations were not as good as today’s. Their visual extrapolations were thus way, way off. It’s still a pest but it’s not “swallowing the South”.
reply