Police and private cameras

[Revoltingest]

According to the article, they were previously allowed access with the permission of the owner of the camera, but not live surveillance. That was apparently not allowed before, but now it is.

Allowing cops live surveillance isn't prohibited AFIK.
A business (like all civilians) has the right to record
people in public. Perhaps SF has a local law against
voluntarily allowing cops to view it? If so, it seems
an over-reach by government.

 

[Revoltingest]

They can now look at live footage so they can see interpret fuzzy images (deliberately worse than someone who's drank too much) as guns and drugs that aren't actually there.

What law requires fuzzy images?
I'm just seeing a big nothingburger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Brings us on par with control as China does.

If there's no change in what cops, businesses,
or civilians can legally do, what's the new problem?

 

[Stevicus]

Allowing cops live surveillance isn't prohibited AFIK.
A business (like all civilians) has the right to record
people in public. Perhaps SF has a local law against
voluntarily allowing cops to view it? If so, it seems
an over-reach by government.

It could be. From what I'm able to gather from the article, once they get permission from the owner of the cameras, they are able to log in and conduct surveillance at will, whether they have probable cause or any particular reason at all. The article also mentioned that they're facing shortages of police officers, so they don't have the personnel to conduct stake-outs or on-sight surveillance. So being able to tap in to privately-owned security cameras and surveillance footage was touted as something to help deal with manpower shortages and can aid in public safety.

It may be that the article isn't intended to tell us anything new, but it may be just a reminder to all: "You are being watched."

 

[Revoltingest]

It could be. From what I'm able to gather from the article, once they get permission from the owner of the cameras, they are able to log in and conduct surveillance at will, whether they have probable cause or any particular reason at all. The article also mentioned that they're facing shortages of police officers, so they don't have the personnel to conduct stake-outs or on-sight surveillance. So being able to tap in to privately-owned security cameras and surveillance footage was touted as something to help deal with manpower shortages and can aid in public safety.

It may be that the article isn't intended to tell us anything new, but it may be just a reminder to all: "You are being watched."

Probable cause isn't needed to observe
people in public. Everyone has this right.
So where's the threat posed by this nascent
dunsel of a law?

 

[Stevicus]

Probable cause isn't needed to observe
people in public. Everyone has this right.
So where's the threat posed by this nascent
dunsel of a law?

Well, I guess some people don't like the idea of cops having access to cameras all over the place watching what people do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But say ****** and use the wrong pronouns and go to jail in some oppressive states .....

Teacher refusing to use student's chosen pronouns jailed for ignoring order

That didn't happen in America.
It happened in Ireland where they are more rightfully fed up with the abuses of "freedom of religion." (Seriously, even ties with the Vatican waned over sex abuse scandals)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What law requires fuzzy images?
I'm just seeing a big nothingburger.

It's the reality the video quality of those devices aren't always the best or more clear. The way the pigs have ben thrown a total, major, incomprehensible stumper of donut glaze I don't see how this can end any better.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That didn't happen in America.
It happened in Ireland where they are more rightfully fed up with the abuses of "freedom of religion." (Seriously, even ties with the Vatican waned over sex abuse scandals)

Let's try something a little closer to home.


New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen

https://www.educationviews.org/california-jail-gender-pronouns/

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's try something a little closer to home.


New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen

https://www.educationviews.org/california-jail-gender-pronouns/

Hasn't happened and 404 error.

Wiener's office noted that violations for residential care facilities under existing law rarely resulted in criminal charges, especially for minor violations. Criminal penalties are meant more for violations that expose a patient to risk of death or serious harm, his office said

Desperation isn't a good look.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Desperation isn't a good look.

No it isnt, but the fact this is already on the table and out there won't prevent this from going even further and taking the next step.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interestingly, my town - like I'm sure many others - prohibits private property owners from having cameras aimed outside their property. It's one of the things that's illegal under the "anti-fortification" by-law.

This isn't really being enforced in an era of Ring doorbell cameras pointing out at the street all over town, but I have to wonder if the fact that these cameras are technically illegal would stop the police here from having a similar program.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No it isnt, but the fact this is already on the table and out there won't prevent this from going even further and taking the next step.

Misidentification in the medical field is, as a default, something you can't do in any other situation. If someone gives a name of Steve and provider decides Steve looks like a Joe and calls him, you can't do that and not face consequences.
And when you are in the medical field it is NOT about you and your personal whatever the hell it is when you are working with patients. It's unprofessional, rude as hell, and grounds for discipline in any other situation. They don't really have any grounds to stand on with their claims religion anyways, so, yeah, they can bugger off. It's not about them.
And because misidentification is grounds for malpractice, and a big cause of medical mistakes, there's also legal grounds covering this.
But these selfish Christian snowflakes and other RWers want to cry and whine and demand special privileges to be exempt from the law and only for very specific circumstances (that they cannot justify using their religion).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I saw lets run off all these selfish arselings in the medical field field to the head arselings will have to seriously consider wage and salary increases along with better benefits for staff to attract better staff who do other things because as it is many positions in the medical field don't pay enough, so they get garbage employers amd selfish wankers who are on about me, me, me instead of attracting people to the field who realize it is called patient/client centered treatment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I guess some people don't like the idea of cops having access to cameras all over the place watching what people do.

Sure.
But how this law enhance previous capability?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the reality the video quality of those devices aren't always the best or more clear. The way the pigs have ben thrown a total, major, incomprehensible stumper of donut glaze I don't see how this can end any better.

I'm no fan of cops.
But I'm just not buying into the
claim of a threat to civilians here.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure.
But how this law enhance previous capability?

Well, maybe it doesn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm no fan of cops.
But I'm just not buying into the
claim of a threat to civilians here.

The judgement of things of what is clearly their very eyes is poor enough that I trust it less through the artificial eyes of a camera that may not have very good or clear visual quality. This because even if it was better than seeing it with their own eyes, we know they'd still be piggly-wigglies and vastly worse than anyone playing Led Zeppelin backwards.

 

[Revoltingest]

The judgement of things of what is clearly their very eyes is poor enough that I trust it less through the artificial eyes of a camera that may not have very good or clear visual quality. This because even if it was better than seeing it with their own eyes, we know they'd still be piggly-wigglies and vastly worse than anyone playing Led Zeppelin backwards.

Certainly cops mis-use info, both in error & with intention.
But they already have the ability to request this from
surveillance camera owners.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Certainly cops mis-use info, both in error & with intention.
But they already have the ability to request this from
surveillance camera owners.

Not live. That's what this bill changed, as it now allows them access to live private surveillance footage.