zlacker

Carefully selected video evidence, out of context, can be highly misleading.

>>ceejay+(OP)
True, but nothing about this stops someone from having their own cameras and selecting for themselves. The part that this restricts is the police selecting for themselves. So which do you trust less, the abusive partner or the police?

That's setting aside that this was also all about interior cameras, which are really a different subject from the exterior cameras. There are much stronger arguments for public requests for external camera feeds than interior ones.

>>_ea1k+Wa
> So which do you trust less, the abusive partner or the police?

"Which do you want for dinner, broken glass or razor blades?"

> True, but nothing about this stops someone from having their own cameras and selecting for themselves.

A lack of a time machine does; the post upthread says "after they broke up". You won't be able to go back in time and install a second set of cameras to provide the cops with the full context.

>>ceejay+id
> A lack of a time machine does; the post upthread says "after they broke up". You won't be able to go back in time and install a second set of cameras to provide the cops with the full context.

I feel like my point wasn't clear. Nothing about Ring's decision here stops the bad one from doing what they did in your scenario. If the bad person controlled the cameras (and it sounds like they did), they'd still do the same thing regardless of this policy.