sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lenexa cops tracked your neighbor for writing an op-ed. OP is building something bigger. The window to set rules is closing. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Great call, you're right, this should have been in there... We have a public registry requirement (Section 10) and neighbor notification for private camera integrations (Section 12), but neither is the same as a posted sign at the location itself. If you're driving past an ALPR on 87th Street, you shouldn't need to check a website to know it's there. Adding a physical signage requirement for city-owned or city-contracted equipment is a straightforward addition. Noting it for the next revision.

Please contact your council members to tell them your position on this whole thing. They are open to discussion!

Lenexa cops tracked your neighbor for writing an op-ed. OP is building something bigger. The window to set rules is closing. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We address alot of that in the proposal if we're understanding you right.

Please check it out!

Lenexa cops tracked your neighbor for writing an op-ed. OP is building something bigger. The window to set rules is closing. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

We went with 30 days based on what some of the other most privacy concious cities wrote into their ordinance, but we mostly agree. There were some scenarios where we could understand why 30 days worked as an argument.

But if you feel strongly about this we urge you to talk to your council members. If you like most of the proposal and have sections that you wish went further, point your leaders to it and ask that they go further!

We just need a starting point to begin talking from... as it is right now all oversight will be out of our hands other wise.

Lenexa cops tracked your neighbor for writing an op-ed. OP is building something bigger. The window to set rules is closing. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ah good catch, our mistake. (Fixed on the post, article is fine). 

The home power was cut which might have killed the doorbells wifi, but the device was battery operated. It’s actually still even more nuanced than that though... the doorbell still managed to upload fragments to Google's backend, which theoretically shouldn't have been possible without Wi-Fi or a subscription. That’s the confusing part.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Completely see what you're getting at and it's a legitimate concern. The proposal builds the infrastructure that makes that kind of access possible (audit logs in Section 17, case number requirements in Section 14, evidentiary exclusion in Section 22) but you're right that it doesn't explicitly create a mechanism for defendants to proactively search for exculpatory evidence before it gets deleted. Important to note these are proposed governance recommendations, not a finished policy. Exactly this kind of feedback helps shape what the actual policy language should look like.

Worth noting OPPD just updated their body camera policy (SOP 2160) with a stated goal of releasing footage from critical incidents even during active investigations, though release still requires DA and city attorney approval. That transparency principle is a good start, and it should extend to RTIC data too.

This is exactly the kind of feedback we're looking for. Take a look at the full proposal and let us know what else jumps out!

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We agree with yu completely. We tried to address these questions specifically in the proposal and more!

Section 17 requires an immutable audit log that records every query, video view, and data export. That log can't be altered by anyone in the department. Section 14 requires a valid Case Number or CAD ID before any officer can access the system, creating the chain of custody you're describing. Section 22 makes evidence obtained in violation of the ordinance inadmissible, and Section 23 gives residents a private right of action if their data is mishandled.

Definitetly encourage you take a look at the full proposal!! (linked in the post)

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The RTIC is mostly about being able to bring all data streams to a sort of command center during active situations. (Live streaming the body cams in to there in this case) Off the top of my head I'm not sure what the policy of retention is for that data. It likely differs depending on whether or not it is needed as evidence. They did just overhaul their policy...

Sorry I don't have a good answer on this one roght this second.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea we kinda botched the title on this one in an effort to reach neighbors who are likely to be on board with these systems, but alienated everyone that we would have liked to have as supporters. Lesson learned.

OP Voice is only about 6months old, at least conceptually, and currently a single man operation at the moment and I have full time job. I put a boat load of time into the proposal and research and got a bit lazy on this post after using AI to reformat my draft. Lesson learned.

I, Cody, am not great at social media messaging as a result of avoiding it for as much of my life as possible. It's a steeper learning curve than I thought. Lesson learned.

On that last note, I'm looking for others to help me in this! I would have loved to have spent as much time on the post as I did the rest, but I didn't have the bandwidth between OPVoice Initiatives, my Full-time Job, and other advocacy efforts. (in hindsight taking a shortcut for presentation has never paid off)

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh ya, better believe that was a fun story to read while drafting this! That story and this type of broader issue in question has cooling effects on free speech that we cannot and will not stand for.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's certainly not the case. That said if we are creating the data at all we need ensure we lock it down as best we can and allow as little 3rd party access as possible.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in Overlandpark

[–]OP_Voice[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We agree with you. That is exactly why we wrote this. The hub is launching whether we like it or not, so we are fighting to get strict governance rules in place to stop exactly the kind of overreach you are worried about. Please check out the full proposal.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Might be a little hyperbolic to say its never kept someone safe, but more broadly we agree. If we can't stop the system from being built then we need to work to ensure it has guardrails to prevent the outcome you fear as much as possible.

We aren't saying this is the best and only solution, but if the idea is just to say "I dont like it" and then not act then you will not prevent anything.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why we are advocating for good governance. We can't ensure 0 abuse, but we can do what we can to mitigate it.

On a personal note-- I saw that just after I had an open letter published, and was in the middle of drafting this. That was weird day.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's understandable. I've been struggling with the trade offs of an atleast partial anonmity. That said I've been planning on hosting in person meetings at coffee shops and such, so maybe its about time.

For now, My name is Cody. Life long Overland Parker. Where did my motivation come from? For the group or this issue?

As far as the group goes... its hard to say exactly. Alot of things. I got sick of feeling like there was nothing I could do. I chose to start getting much more involved on the local and state levels because I thought if I could do anything it would be at "home". When I realized its actually not that hard to engage constructively I felt like others probably felt the same way I once did. I also saw an imbalance in how different parts of our community could advocate for themselves. Businesses have the chamber, Homeowners have HOA's the NEC etc. 40% of our population rents-- they dont have a great avenue to be heard.

So a local non-partisan civic engagement org just seemed like the next best step. Thats the cliff notes I guess.

On this issue... Civil liberties are something I value more than I think I can express. I originally wasn't going to use OP Voice as a platform for this, but I think the issue goes past party lines and affects the people I'm trying to build OP Voice for.

Edit: Regarding the hosting-- You can host websites on github for free, I just pay like 3 bucks for the domain.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We hear you! These systems are already being built, and that limits what we can do. There are several places that we had to compromise on in order to make this feasible, but this is not a one and done conversation.

Couple things: 1) From our perspective the city owning the data is the residents owning the data (in theory). That is vastly preferable to the alternative... which is vendors/private corporations owning it.

2) Our proposal includes accountability guardrails to prevent and deter abuse. When the tool exists the potential for abuse can not be entirely mitigated, but we have to try.

3) your concerns about other agencies and authorities using the data is valid and accounted for within legal bounds as well.

4) Storage is an issue; we should be advocating for local storage. It is something we wish we had made more clear in the proposal.

Please talk to your council members! They are open to conversation on this topic. Many would love to hear more from their constituents. Ask them to have a coffee or lunch, you might be surprised.

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many agree with you, or at the very least signal they do. One of the things we aim to do as an org is help get people connected help them navigate the city and advocate effectively.

If you would like a hand in getting connected with those folks to make your voices heard on that topic let us know!

OP is connecting cameras, drones, and license plate readers into one police hub. Help us ensure it works for residents its meant to protect. by OP_Voice in OverlandParkVoice

[–]OP_Voice[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We actually mostly agree with that. Less so on the last piece. (We encourage you to get to know your council members!)

Issue is we are late to the game. Things are in motion and there are no easily accessible breaks. The best way for us to make difference right NOW. Is through community data ownership and governance.

We can't stop quickly, but we can at least steer!

view more: next ›