Officers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be equipped with much-delayed body cameras by the end of next month, it was reported on Friday. But experts have questioned the transparency of a policy that allows the ICE director to restrict the public release of footage unless “it is in the best interests of the agency”.

  • BadmanDan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I feel like there was legislation passed federally after BLM that stated departments had to release body cam footage publicly if requested? I know atleast for police officers.

    Does that not apply for ICE?

  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    All they’ve done is state plainly what has always been every law enforcement agency’s unofficial policy regarding body-cam footage and made it official. ICE is what the police want to be but can’t be seen openly as, a fascist paramilitary occupying force. The only reason police keep up the appearance of transparency and accountability is because mass movements and the threat of them has forced them to. ICE is as yet unburdened by that baggage, though they got a taste of it after the surge in Minneapolis and they briefly had to pretend to change by firing Kristi Noem.

  • Malyca@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Somebody needs to be following Susan Collins and screaming this, with a sign, 24/7

  • cloudshouter@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    So if they don’t release it we can assume they were in the wrong. Now we need the media to start reporting like that’s the case. “ICE refused to release the video because it will make them look bad or show guilt, per their own statements”. Then the courts need to start ruling that way as admission of guilt when video and other evidence is withheld or destroyed.

    • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Because all anyone else has to stop them is words and stuff. The are no actual consequences, so they can make their own rules. They also have the support of the President who’s been leading by example himself.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    19 hours ago

    So it’s along the same lines as regular cops except instead of the hardware/footage mYsTeRiOuSlY “malfunctioned”, “corrupt footage” or “deleted” every time they are under investigation for excessive brutality or gross negligence the getapo ice can just say “fuck you, no”

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    ·
    1 day ago

    So, by the transitive property, if the footage is not released then it assumed to be not in the agency’s best interests?

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also every camera malfunction they try to claim, or footage gone missing, it’s all just an admission of wrong doing.

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        and what little might get released is carefully crafted to support their own (and most likely, totally bullshit) narrative. the rest of the clip, the rest of the videos from all the other cameras… they don’t exist.

    • ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      So now, as a potential grand juror, I can now be certain that anything a prosecutor says is absolutely not true unless they produce the video evidence unequivocally proving it so.

      Thank you for helping me make a better decision.

      (I know ICE doesn’t have jurors, but I assume this will be officially adopted by other departments.

    • T. Hex@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Logically, I don’t think so. They said basically that if something’s released, it’s in their best interests. So, Released(x) --> BestInterestsOfICE(x).

      You can’t derive !Released(x) --> !BestInterestsOfICE(x) from that statement.

      • DillDough@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yes you can actually. You’d be correct if they were supposed to release everything, like a daily upload to public channels of every single bodycam in the organization, but that is not and never has been a thing.

        You can derive that under the conditions that exist every time releasing footage becomes a consideration. Yes that is not how general logic works but general logic is not universally applicable.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Our taxes paid for that footage. It belongs to all of us. Period.

    We need representatives with some backbone

  • Xopher@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    Of course they won’t. The number one principle about ICE is that it can not and will not be held accountable to anyone but itself and the President.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    the transparency of a policy that allows the ICE director to restrict the public release of footage unless “it is in the best interests of the agency”.

    Lets see how made up department policy stands up to a FOIA request in front of a federal judge.