zlacker

Copy and pasting from a related reply within the group:

``` 1) There's been no decision on redactions. We're still standing up proj mgmt tools after 1000 members in 4 days, much less "this will be in it, this will be in it"

2) Someone else, not the owner, was largely advocating for police inclusion b/c of the impact of the data. Again, no decision made here about "no cops/yes cops"

3) Law professor is the legal lead, with about a team of 5+ researchers (mix of law students, etc.)

4) True. Marketing = bad, is that the point?

5) True. The author explained it to the T, there wasn't much there there.

6) Creator of the group is with frac.tl, the rest of the 'leadership team' has zero to do with it.

7) So what's the deal.... too centralized around the creator's professional group, or too dispersed management to people away from people that aren't in her group. ```

>>dogman+(OP)
1: Your scraper must be anonymizing data that it gathers, removing identifiable information to prevent disclosure of names of arresting officers or cited citizens. https://github.com/Police-Data-Accessibility-Project/Police-...

5: It's still an SEO tactic that should raise flags. Here are the names of the past posters if anyone wants to dig:

Matt Meadows: https://web.archive.org/web/20191118214540/https://lawsuit.o...

Kristen: https://web.archive.org/web/20200527213804/https://lawsuit.o...

Ryan: https://web.archive.org/web/20200518181855/https://lawsuit.o...

>>chaps+v
That was built by a volunteer within the Slack on ~Day 2 as to give devs a target to start coding towards. It was paired with many public calls/disclaimers that no official words on the mission or final product would come before the next week once (1) was complete and input from the group was heard.

>>chaps+v
Why must officer names be anonymized? They are public servants and they are obligated to provide name and badge numbers during the course of their duty.

(Anonymizing citizens that were arrested/cited makes sense, of course)