Is that long enough to acquire written consent from involved parties to broadcast their image to millions of viewers? In some cases, yes. Tulsa, Oklahoma resident Randy Wallace was featured on the show in February and later criticized the police department for implying he was a gang member. In press interviews, Wallace admitted he signed a waiver when a production team member presented it to him.
The Tulsa PD later declined to renew its agreement to be involved with the show. The production, Wallace said, wanted permission to use his image and likeness. In the vast majority of cases, it seems, the face of the person being interviewed or arrested is not pixellated. I have seen people being filmed as UKBA staff force their way into their flat, while the person is still in their underwear.
The camera zooms in on the subject's face as he is being asked questions by the immigration officer. Another film follows a UKBA crew as they go to a detention centre to pick up a group of young men, who are then taken to the airport to be deported.
There are what are clearly first interviews with people who are being closely questioned about their families, their work plans and their domestic arrangements.
Allegations are put to people that seem to be untested and unproven, which are then broadcast. There is a real worry, as my colleague mentioned in her article, that staff may be playing up to the cameras. At no point in any of the films I have seen has the subject been asked to give his or her consent to being filmed.
Even if consent had been technically given, in such a stressful situation, we have concerns about how meaningful that consent could be. I was also shocked to read of a report from May in the press that the Home Office had at least in part funded the setting up of this series. It was reported that the former government had made a so-called "advertiser-funded" deal with the TV company concerned, which would help the company meet the costs of developing and making the programme.
The decision by the then government to contribute to the setting up of such a series was very heavily criticised as blatant propaganda, something which, if true, we would second. So what is the position, legally? The production company may have obtained the consent of the subjects of the film, after filming them but before broadcasting.
It would be interesting to hear from the production company concerned about how they deal with the matter of consent. But the capacity for police and police-affiliated organizations to spread misinformation was obvious during the protests in the summer of , when police departments repeatedly promoted inaccurate information. Some of that misinformation went viral, aided by sympathetic media coverage and the right-wing internet, hell-bent on reinforcing the belief that anti-racism protests are merely a conduit for a violent war on cops.
Media write-ups about the tweets got tens of thousands of shares on Facebook and continued to circulate even after the story was debunked. And this was just one example. The NYPD also circulated an alert to officers with images of coffee cups filled with concrete, which closely resemble concrete samples used on construction sites.
In fact, the bus belonged to a group of circus performers, who said the equipment police cited as riot supplies included juggling clubs and kitchen utensils. In short, police still lie despite being watched more closely than ever. There are hundreds of videos of police misconduct at the summer protests alone, some from the body cams introduced in reforms meant to hold them more accountable. Kelley-Chung is Black, and his filming partner, Andrew Jasiura, is white.
They were both dressed in the same T-shirt, carrying the same sort of camera equipment. They continued to arrest him anyway. Heat-sensing cameras and face recognition systems may help fight covid—but they also make us complicit in the high-tech oppression of Uyghurs.
Partnerships with law enforcement give smart cameras to the survivors of domestic violence. But who does it really help? The very first drone attack missed its target, and two decades on civilians are still being killed. Why can't we accept that the technology doesn't work?
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more. Thank you for submitting your email! It looks like something went wrong.
Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service technologyreview. Skip to Content. And if you want to know how they do it, you can ask a cop watcher.
Legitimate arguments, illegitimate situations There are lots of reasons why a police officer might not want to be on camera. A mine of misinformation No single video is going to change how police act, and experts argue that even large numbers of videos cannot change the culture of many police departments.
Deep Dive. Tech policy.
0コメント