Hacker News Reader

Comment by manholio | Hacker News Reader

The body cam footage is a good example, it's deeply hated by the police and a frequent source of incriminatory evidence against the wearer.

Since "you got nothing to hide", as the old saying goes, why not bodycam yourself and offer the authorities a great source of evidence they can use against yourself?

View on HN

I think that’s right, it’s a double edged sword. You would have to ask if you’re more likely to be wrongly accused or to be caught doing something wrong by your own recordings.

This guy has been recording himself publicly since 2002 after ending up on a no fly list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_M._Elahi

I think that’s taking it too far and would rather encrypt than publish it publicly, but doing it publicly does strengthen the alibi

You're missing an option: Wrongly accused on the basis of your own recordings. Imagine this real life situation occured, but it was your own recordings instead of surveillance cameras

> A key piece of evidence in the case is video surveillance footage showing Williams’ car stopped on the 6300 block of South Stony Island Avenue at 11:46 p.m.—the time and location where police say they know Herring was shot.

> How did they know that’s where the shooting happened? Police said ShotSpotter, a surveillance system that uses hidden microphone sensors to detect the sound and location of gunshots, generated an alert for that time and place.

(The defense argued ShotSpotter makes up data and hides behind opaque AI they refuse to rigorously test. Instead of responding, the prosecution dropped the case.)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh...

If I follow, the police would need access to the recordings to make the case, which would mean at least probable cause for a warrant. If Herring had a camera or mic on him running at the time of the shooting wouldn’t that contradict shotspotter? It seems more likely any data you have would create doubt rather than bolster the police case.

In general, the shotspotter and surveillance cameras already exist, so what do you have to counteract that? Doing things like leaving no paper trail because you pay everything in cash, or no location data because you keep your phone in airplane mode, leaves little crumbs for your defense, and may create the appearance of hiding something.

> If I follow, the police would need access to the recordings to make the case, which would mean at least probable cause for a warrant.

PC is a very low bar.

> In general, the shotspotter and surveillance cameras already exist, so what do you have to counteract that

It's not binary. Lots of areas, including the inside of your house, probably aren't covered by surveillance cameras.

Having done so, it completely changes the dynamic.

Especially when you know the criminal code, and can ask questions such as ‘officer, I’m pretty sure they are currently committing felony <blah blah> against me. I don’t want them to go to jail, but I do want them to stop committing felonies against me.’

All the sudden, it goes from ‘nothing we can do’ to action.

Bodycams are actually an example of a reform successfully cooped by police bureaucracy.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/16/police-pr-video-machi...

The American Jurors have convicted people based on a man's interpretation of a dog signalling that a dead body was on someone's property 5 years ago. Once people are that gulliable, they are beyond help.

https://www.science.org/content/article/should-dog-s-sniff-b...

"A jury of your peers consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Keep in mind that they're in an artificial environment designed to lead them to that decision. One of the judge's jobs is to ensure experts are appropriately qualified. Another of the judge's jobs is to restrict what the jury is allowed to hear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com