How does this square with FOIA obligations? I get ICE sidestepping transparency by avoiding creating the responsive footage in the first place, but once the body cam footage exists, what basis could they use to withhold it other than redacting footage for the typical reasons?
Jail, jail, jail. Nothing less will stop these Gestapo-esque thugs.
And if you’re waiting for the mid-terms, you’re already acquiescing to their plans.
Also, it says something — to me, at least — that I have to think seriously before posting this. All I’m calling for is timely criminal prosecution of what I think and believe are crimes. I.e. for a lawful process. Yet doing so puts me at risk of an overbearing, unaccountable response?
What I got from reading the article - but not the headline or the comments.
- ICE is moving to start using cameras (currently not using them) so this move overall increases the amount of footage that exists and can be released.
- Their stayed approach is analogous to other law enforcement approaches already in use.
So the headline should be "ICE to start using body cameras". I suspect this is in general good news for ICE - most police departments that once felt "forced" to use body cameras have found that the cameras have been good for their image. Incidents that could have previously been trumpeted as an unjustified police action now have the context of what the suspect was doing just prior that justify the action. I think ICE is betting on the same and the "look what our agents have to deal with" footage may get public airplay into their favor.
I've personally completely avoided the USA because of ICE, not because of principle of border policies purely from unpredictable treatment of people in custody with no recorse. Even if mistreatment are edge cases I've got no faith in the system to correct the wrong within itself. I've seen too many stories of legal americans and travelers not even getting bare minimum due process, or just being locked away for days no contact. I present and am read as a woman, if I get sent to male holding facility I'm just chum in the water. Which that decision could be made completely at the whim of the officer and the areas commanding officer, regardless of local laws.
They don't want to shake the support of moderates who are already part of their coalition and aren't paying that much attention. Those people won't notice the selectivity, even if they hear about it in passing, as long as they're not constantly confronted with it directly.
This is no different than any other law enforcement agency in the USA historically - it’s a curated source of positive PR that they get taxpayers to fund - it’s never used willingly as a source of truth when law enforcement is in the wrong.
If the public interest is divided, what should be ICE's interest? This applies to other enforcing orgs too. Should it take the majority even if the debate is close to a tie?
In most cases, what wins is the interests of people in power, for all domestic policing
If it's about hiding information from the public about domestic police actions, you can't really be arguing that's against the public's interest.
How would ICE being incredibly selective about what to release so it only paints the agency in a positive light be in the public's interest? How can the public make reasonable decisions on what's happening if we're actively hiding the truth?
If ICE is abusing people and murdering innocent people in the street, how is the "public interest" divided? Isn't the public interest to hold those who abuse their authority to commit crimes accountable? How would that go against the public interest?
ICE is damn close to an organisation of brownshirts. If they fuck with the elections in November, that's an organised effort to use violence to overthrow our Constitutional order. That would be treason.
We're not at the point of treason. But we have leaders credibly threatening to commit it. (I'd say Stephen Miller has commited treason. As in try-him-and-hang-him treason.
Anti-authoritarianism is a core part of the hacker ethos, so much so it’s even in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
How does this square with FOIA obligations? I get ICE sidestepping transparency by avoiding creating the responsive footage in the first place, but once the body cam footage exists, what basis could they use to withhold it other than redacting footage for the typical reasons?
> what basis could they use to withhold it other than redacting footage for the typical reasons?
The basis is "come and take it." A court order doesn't work on the brownshirts.
I mean, ICE is already sidestepping transparency by delaying FOIA requests to the Nth degree. Have a look:
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/list/?page=1&per_page=100&agenc...
Jail, jail, jail. Nothing less will stop these Gestapo-esque thugs.
And if you’re waiting for the mid-terms, you’re already acquiescing to their plans.
Also, it says something — to me, at least — that I have to think seriously before posting this. All I’m calling for is timely criminal prosecution of what I think and believe are crimes. I.e. for a lawful process. Yet doing so puts me at risk of an overbearing, unaccountable response?
This is some serious sh-t.
All enemies, foreign and domestic.
What I got from reading the article - but not the headline or the comments.
- ICE is moving to start using cameras (currently not using them) so this move overall increases the amount of footage that exists and can be released.
- Their stayed approach is analogous to other law enforcement approaches already in use.
So the headline should be "ICE to start using body cameras". I suspect this is in general good news for ICE - most police departments that once felt "forced" to use body cameras have found that the cameras have been good for their image. Incidents that could have previously been trumpeted as an unjustified police action now have the context of what the suspect was doing just prior that justify the action. I think ICE is betting on the same and the "look what our agents have to deal with" footage may get public airplay into their favor.
We'll see
Yes, I too benefit from controlling the publicity, messaging, narrative and history surrounding my actions.
I've personally completely avoided the USA because of ICE, not because of principle of border policies purely from unpredictable treatment of people in custody with no recorse. Even if mistreatment are edge cases I've got no faith in the system to correct the wrong within itself. I've seen too many stories of legal americans and travelers not even getting bare minimum due process, or just being locked away for days no contact. I present and am read as a woman, if I get sent to male holding facility I'm just chum in the water. Which that decision could be made completely at the whim of the officer and the areas commanding officer, regardless of local laws.
Where are you from?
There they go making “Abolish ICE” sound reasonable again.
Surely the well being of the public is in the agency's best interest! Right? Right guys?
So, presumably, not when they murder unarmed civilians in broad daylight? Or deploy chemical weapons around schools?
Not a good look. I don’t think that in a free society, the government has “interests” that are different than the people’s.
Acting like any other police officer at this point
im not sure why they would even bother with the cameras at that point.
It says why in the article... to make them look better by only releasing positive videos.
right, i read the article, and i disagree that selectively releasing "positive" videos would make them look better.
They don't care what you think. You're not their target audience.
yes, i am aware, thanks.
(that's why i wrote my opinion on a message board, instead of a letter addressed to the director of ice)
They don't want to shake the support of moderates who are already part of their coalition and aren't paying that much attention. Those people won't notice the selectivity, even if they hear about it in passing, as long as they're not constantly confronted with it directly.
Accompanied by childish memes, Bible quotes and the music of artists that loathe them.
This is no different than any other law enforcement agency in the USA historically - it’s a curated source of positive PR that they get taxpayers to fund - it’s never used willingly as a source of truth when law enforcement is in the wrong.
Accountability theatre, quite literally.
> im not sure why they would even bother with the cameras at that point.
Lots of data to feed into their Palantir systems to keep track of l̵a̵w̵f̵u̵l̵ ̵p̵r̵o̵t̵e̵s̵t̵o̵r̵s̵ terrorists.
>Lots of data to feed into their Palatir systems
i didnt think of that, actually, and facial recognition training and such actually sounds like a pretty plausible reason.
Big influx in politicsposting here lately, eh? Wonder what that's all about.
US midterms are coming up in November, politics are being thrust onto every corner of the internet at the moment.
The interests of ICE should be the same as the public's interest, same as any other domestic policing.
If the public interest is divided, what should be ICE's interest? This applies to other enforcing orgs too. Should it take the majority even if the debate is close to a tie?
In most cases, what wins is the interests of people in power, for all domestic policing
They should stop committing human rights violations, at a minimum.
There is no valid public interest in having secret police.
If it's about hiding information from the public about domestic police actions, you can't really be arguing that's against the public's interest.
How would ICE being incredibly selective about what to release so it only paints the agency in a positive light be in the public's interest? How can the public make reasonable decisions on what's happening if we're actively hiding the truth?
If ICE is abusing people and murdering innocent people in the street, how is the "public interest" divided? Isn't the public interest to hold those who abuse their authority to commit crimes accountable? How would that go against the public interest?
ICE will release body cam video when required by the courts, and FOIA requests.
Just saying, you could FOIA so much video in about 2 months...
Bets on whether they'll harass people filing such requests?
Treason! Hold them accountable!
Agreed. This is disgusting.
We have election in November, mobilize everyone you can and vote.
November is too late. We have courts. Mobilize the courts.
The turnout in my state's primary this week was an abysmal 20%. I hope that's not an omen for November, because we are doomed if so.
That’s not treason, just bad governance. They do need accountability though
> not treason, just bad governance
ICE is damn close to an organisation of brownshirts. If they fuck with the elections in November, that's an organised effort to use violence to overthrow our Constitutional order. That would be treason.
We're not at the point of treason. But we have leaders credibly threatening to commit it. (I'd say Stephen Miller has commited treason. As in try-him-and-hang-him treason.
Yes it would be, but that hasn’t happened yet.
This makes it easy to know when they murdered somebody - just check when they refuse to release the footage.
How is this a `Hacker` new?
Anti-authoritarianism is a core part of the hacker ethos, so much so it’s even in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
many users have been tricked into thinking that there is some urgent need for destroying their own civilization within their own lifetime.