504
NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'd much rather have some real accountability measures than the accidental accountability occasionally provided by broadcasting their communications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I don't think things like names of suspects or victims should be made public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being "convinced" in secret trials.

    You may disagree with this trade off, but it's baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Obviously nobody should disappear into secret jails, but victims and witnesses are not on trial, and should have their privacy protected.

    Having random people listening to police comms is no substitute for a competent regulator.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent