
Seattle Police hackathon to redact video streams recorded by police cams - theoutlander
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-police-hackathon-substantial-first-step/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geekwire+%28GeekWire%29
======
JshWright
I am far from an apologist for law enforcement, but this is a completely
reasonable effort that I would fully support.

As an example, cops show up on most EMS calls around here. I must admit, I
find it a bit disquieting when a cop wearing a camera walks in while I'm
providing care... Especially since HIPAA does not cover cops, so there is no
legal protection for the information that ends up on the camera, only
department policy. I would feel much better if I at least knew it was going to
be automatically redacted, with the original video only available under a
subpoena.

~~~
theoutlander
Just trying to wrap my head around what you're saying. Are you in favor of
this because it can also cover you from legal scrutiny for mistakes made while
providing care?

~~~
JshWright
It is ingrained in my head that the patient's privacy is of utmost importance
(second only to the actual care I'm providing).

Having a camera in the room just runs counter to that idea, and makes me
uncomfortable.

~~~
drivingmenuts
I was the sysadmin for a small medical practice for a while. Patient privacy
was the one reason I was (and remain) dead se against storing practice medical
records on the cloud.

If anything every got out, I would have been liable. I fully accepted that.
But I had full control.

If anything stored in the cloud ever got out, I still would have been liable,
but I wouldn't have had any control. For sure, the cloud storage provider
would have disclaimed liability and I'd still be the man on the spot.

------
jsprogrammer
There needs to be a focus on the architecture of the entire system. What
should be redacted and why? How do we ensure that only copies are redacted and
that the original is always available?

The code used should be free and open source. The hardware it's running on
needs to be known, inspectable, and tamper-proof.

It's probably a good idea to get these questions answered first/soon.
Proprietary and secretive code can stay entrenched for a long time and I'm not
sure we want that.

------
bsder
A nice idea, but the problem is that _any_ of the video is going to be
problematic.

The fact that I know that Video X at Specific date/time/place identifies
someone means I can now correlate other records with it. In the case of
witnesses, that's probably an issue.

They would be better having a discussion about controls on who can view such
videos. For example, lawyers and juries see things under seal all the time.
Also, it would be good for there to be a destruction date or a lockdown date
at which point it requires more paperwork to get at the video. So, the general
public can request within a year, legal requests to 3 years, judicial requests
to 5, and destruction after that unless involved in a case.

Yes, I want the cops on video to be required to release to the press. But I
also don't want to be front and center just because some cop walks by.

------
aswanson
There should be a hackathon/kickstarter to get these cams to a low enough
price where every officer in the country is wearing one, with no redaction.
Seriously, a beagle board black costs $45; a camera and associated housing,
battery, and software should not run the price over $1500-$2000, as Taser et.
al. are charging.

~~~
jrochkind1
The 'problem' they are trying to solve in this article, where open records
requests mean that all such video is public -- makes it clear that what you
are asking for is basically universal surveillance of everyone, available to
everyone.

Which, of course, is where we seem to be headed anyway, and I think a
significant portion of the audience on HN has no problem with it or is in
favor of it.

I think it's distressing.

~~~
cinquemb
What we have in our world today is closer to universal surveillance of
everyone, available to the few. The few, of which we know to due to the
declining information asymmetry over our collective human history, are just as
susceptible to all the things that make us human.

The reasons those on here give is along the lines of: because HIPAA, because
it may be embarrassing for me if I get caught on video in some compromising
way, because I might not get that job/promotion/etc (which seem to not be the
ones we hear parroted in the news i.e. terrorism, to justify current
asymmetries, not to mention no questioning of the utility of a job done by
people which people seem to implicitly equate to be the only way resources can
be allocated to people in any system).

I have yet to see those then go on to acknowledge in their plausible
theoretical scenarios (that probably already happen to some degree without
[sous]surveillance available to all easily) that because I may think I was
wrongly looked over/scrutinized, what would stop me from then doing the same
to those who would wield such over me in those same situations or anyone else?

I can see why it can be distressing if one is convinced that the way one grows
up, is normalized to, generally reinforced by their society at large (and
maybe less so as time goes by as society…changes) and finds solace in such way
of being, figures that is the way the world must be. The unswaddled babies and
young children uploaded to internet by their parents (and their parents
friends and relatives) without any say, will probably wonder why all the old
folks of their time care much when all they have known will be what is so
foreign us today.

------
williamstein
The guy (Timothy Clemens) who started this used to work with me on Sage and in
particular, the Sage Notebook ([http://sagenb.org/](http://sagenb.org/)), a
few years ago. Anyway, he was very into volunteering to help with open source
software.

~~~
sargun
What's the status of Sage these days?

------
rday
I know there are two sides to every story.

I know that more positive public interaction with the police is a Good Thing.

I just wonder why, as developers, we build tools that are used to oppress and
capable of supporting oppression.

Unlike people who built large infrastructure in the past, we aren't slaves. We
aren't starving indentured servants. So we have other options.

Why do we develop Prism. We do we develop tools to erode net neutrality. Why
do we start hacking at the tools to erase police action before we understand
the how and why behind the use of those tools.

Maybe its just been a long Sunday.

~~~
krapp
The people who built PRISM, no doubt, believed that what they were doing was
necessary for the good of the country, and probably still do. As you say - two
sides to every story.

~~~
alexqgb
It's also entirely possible that the people who built the system did not do so
thinking or believing that it would end up being used in the way it has been,
and that their good faith was taken advantage of by incapable or self-serving
managers unworthy of the trust that their positions require.

The human links tend to be the weakest ones.

~~~
rday
This touches on the rest of my half baked idea which I didn't write out. My
original post isn't intended to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely interested. If
somebody comes to you and says:

"Your code will, in the literal sense of the word 'literally', save people's
lives."

How do you pass that opportunity up?

On the flip side, when have tools of power ever been given up voluntarily? [ I
don't know how to say this. I mean this stuff is all a Pandora's Box. Once
it's here, it's here. ]

It's kind of like land mines. When you put them down you may have a very noble
and legitimate goal to save the lives of your troops. In 20 years, the mines
are still lying around for anyone to find. But does that necessarily
invalidate the immediate needs of the time? It would be tempting to simply
think "In 20 years we'll have the land mine problem solved, let's try to save
our lives today".

I really think I could argue it both ways.

[Update: Maybe a better way to express my thought(and stay on topic) is
relating to security vulnerabilities. You don't just pass around exploits to
people. Some of the people are genuinely interested, but others will do harm.

People who take the time to learn and solve problems themselves have a greater
respect for the tools they've built. People who inherit things don't
necessarily respect them the same way.

Seattle PD is trying to solve a tough problem, and I would trust them. I don't
necessarily trust them in 15 years though, when all these tools just kind of
"exist"]

------
remarkEon
"Li stated that hundreds of video files – including the 350+ terabytes already
archived by SPD – could be uploaded and audio-indexed."

I live in Seattle and have interacted with SPD a few times. Never have seen a
camera on anyone. That's a lot of data. Dashboard cams, I suppose?

------
smtddr
_> >However, Seattle Police officials also admitted that about 90 percent of
the video officers create probably needs no redaction at all. That’s because
members of the public have no right to expect privacy in their interactions
with police, unless they are juveniles or a witness or victim whose safety
might be at risk if their identity is known._

Even assuming this hackathon _(first-ever apparently)_ meant well, in the
context of recent events and the main purpose of these cameras being
introduced, this hackathon has horrible optics. Also, this quote implies a
separation of "members of the public" and "police" which is a very big part of
the problems we see today. The police are _(or at least should be)_ considered
part of the public _(more specifically, the community they work in)_ and they
themselves should not expect any privacy while on duty. This separation is a
catalyst to apathy.

~~~
indlebe
^^ Anyone care to provide comment on why this is getting down voted?

~~~
calvin
Tone. Sarcasm. Structure of the argument.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I disagree with that. I find it serious (as in, not sarcastic), reasonable (he
acknowledge the good intentions and did present a one-side, extremist view-
point), and made a unique, helpful point: that police ought not to view
themselves as separate from the public they protect and serve.

------
orasis
Ah, cool, so geekwire.com is an Onion subsidiary, I hope?

~~~
tomschlick
Why? There is a real need to protect sensitive information from being
released. Minors, Confidential Informants, video of the inside of someone's
house... all things that shouldn't be released except under special
circumstances.

~~~
yarrel
That's totally the only things this will ever be used for.

