22
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/rant@lemmy.sdf.org

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/27222607

After my bicycle was stolen, the police could not be bothered to look at video surveillance recordings around the scene of the crime. Yet surveillance remains a form of oppression against everyone as police fixate on victimless crimes (drugs, undocumented people, traffic violations, etc).

So new rule:

If police refuse to review surveillance video at the request of a victim, the video camera must be removed.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Any video surveillance of public property should be freely available to the public, including cameras operated by public servants while operating on public property.

[-] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 2 points 1 month ago

Wasn't there a band in the UK that used a law that allowed them to request footage of themselves from surveillance to make a music video?

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

I suppose the nuance I did not elaborate on is the proliferation of private surveillance that is shared with cops. I vaguely recall something about Amazon doing a backroom deal to give the gov unwarranted access to private Amazon Ring cams, which is not something the general public can access.

In the context of my dream law, police failing to use their Ring access to protect victims would have to lead to loss of access to the cams.

[-] JennaClarke@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

The issue with surveillance often seems to be less about having the technology and more about how it’s actually used. If it’s not applied to protect people in real situations, then it raises real questions about accountability and purpose.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

When it comes to surveillance, the two characteristics are inseparable. That is, law enforcement /will/ abuse it while pitching the most seemingly legit cover story which is rarely the real purpose of the surveillance.

It’s always a matter of envisioning how it will be abused and working out whether it’s an acceptable evil compared to the likeliness of the legit use. IMO the answer is usually no, sadly enough. Snowden has put on display that surveillance users are in fact criminals themselves as they violate warrants and any kind of checks and balances.

There does not seem to ever be a realistic option to give cops a tool and expect it to only be used responsibly.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)

Rant

483 readers
65 users here now

A place where you can rant to your heart's content.

Rules :
  1. Follow all of Lemmy code of conduct.
  2. Be respectful to others, even if they're the subject of your rant. Realize that you can be angry at someone without denigrating them.
  3. Keep it on Topic. Memes about ranting are allowed for now, but will be banned if they start to become more prevalent than actual rants.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS