 Post 2070 modus operandi for corps |
  |
 Dec 29 2006, 05:03 AM
Post
#101
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116  |
Quite so. Though there was some other fluff that specifically stated that LS's medical benifits package under some circumstances gave them a legal free hand to do what ever the thell they wanted to do put your body back togeather. Which sort of also seems to point out that if they felt it was worth it, they'd very much make a 'robocop' out of a badly wounded but 'valuable' officer.
I'm trying to remmeber what book that was in though. It might have been New Seattle. Definately one of the SR3 books though. |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 05:10 AM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
well, having just read most of the LoneStar SB (thanks again OneTrick), it is in there for one. I think it's mentioned in a lot of other places though.
I'm acutally doing a game right now, 1 on 1 with the GM, with a LS detective - Homicide. It's a fun game. GM decided that the newest bit of ware they decided to implement across the board was eye cameras w/ recording units and 'little black boxes' so that they record everything you do while you're on duty ( just when you're on duty,yeah right,). Drives me nuts. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 05:50 AM
Post
#103
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Yeah that sounds just like something a mega would do.
Free cybereyes/eye enhancements for everyone!. Just sign here on the bottom line. 1 week later Boss: Ok Bob we've got to download all that data out of your eye today. Bob: Wha? Boss: It's in your contract, didnt you read it? Bob: Oh shit! |
|
|
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 05:58 AM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
It was great the way it was described. A lot of officers quit, or changed to KE (which picked up the program next), and a bunch started working on hacking the box. Even then, there was so many officers that it couldn't be properly monitored. It would all be handled by a system that would monitor for key words (linked to an earbud or cyber ear) and notify a monitoring person if key words (bribe for example ) came up. But it still came up so often that the attendants were busy as switchboards. I mean come on, the thing picks up every time a cop hears the word "bribe"... So you've got this great invasion of privacy that the corp can force on you because you signed on the dotted line, and it doesn't even do what it's supposed to most of the time. Classic.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 06:06 AM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Which is likely realistic unless you had some sort of AI sorting all the data for you. And I doubt any AI would keep that job up for long without going all Arcology Shutdown on your ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 08:47 AM
Post
#106
|
|||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
'Tis indeed.
That may possibly be the worst idea ever for an organization that gets sued all the time and will be compelled to produce pretty much every recording from every cop ever because as an agent of the government, that information is accessible under FOIA. Every two-bit whackjob, every ACLU chapter, every civil plaintiff in an excessive force case, every spouse in a divorce, custody, or DV case will have access to those recordings. Fuck. That. Shit. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 29 2006, 08:59 AM
Post
#107
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
And here, I always thought Lone Star didn't have to worry as much about civil liberties because they're not a government agency, but just another corporation. I'm sure their contracts with the municpalites they serve do specify some requirements in the area of civil rights protections, but being an independent corp, what's stopping them from tagging any eyecam footage as "Trade Secret" internal-use-only data? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 29 2006, 09:27 AM
Post
#108
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Because in fulfilling their law-enforcement duties, they are serving as public agent.
And even if they weren't, it would still be open to production in courts because it is potential evidence against the individual officer (especially if it's on all the time). Trade secrets constitutes a very narrow category which wouldn't apply in this case because it is used for commercial purposes. I think you're looking for the FOIA exception for law-enforcement purposes. However, while that is in the federal law, it is not necessarily in state sunshine laws, and even then is still subject to review by a judge to determine if it is meets the criteria. And then there is, of course, the fact that it could be used by the defense in criminal cases. The only way that it might be worked around is if every capture was transmitted directly to the legal department and not stored in the eye. Maybe. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 29 2006, 09:54 AM
Post
#109
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Hmm not to mention, at least in todays courts, such video footage most likely would be inadmissable as evidence.
Alot of it allready is these days, same with photographs because they could easily be altered. It sort of reminds me of that movie with Robin Williams. Final Cut or something like that. There's this implant that records everything you see from the mometn it's implanted to the day you die. The you have these 'cutters' that splice that footage into this sort of final memory of the person. Part of the cutter code was that you couldnt yourself have one of these implants. The character played by Robin Williams winds up to actually have one, without his prior knowledge. I think his parents died or something when he was really young and no one told him about it or assumed folk allready knew or what ever. In the movie these memory recordings of folk become ultra convtroversial becuase in many cases there's recorded proof of everything from muder to child abuse but it all just conviently gets 'edited out'. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 01:38 AM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
James: That was kind of the point the GM was going for. Basically implementing something that sounded good on the surface, supposedly to be able to provide more evidence, and really ends up just being a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 30 2006, 07:38 PM
Post
#111
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Yeah, but James' point is that this particular innovation would never have been implemented by the Corp because of the (very) probable negative aspects, most of which would be readily apparent beforehand to any Corp involved in either PR or Law Enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 31 2006, 02:50 AM
Post
#112
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Although, to be fair, it's not like there are corps and governments who have done similarly stupid things while the lawyers were jumping up and down with their hair on fire telling them that following through would be A Bad Thing.
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind next time I have a discussion about how virtually no family court "expert witness" ever has been subjected to the Daubert Test. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 31 2006, 06:05 AM
Post
#113
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
So, just how would you establish a chain-of-custody procedure for handling video evidence to prove that at no time did anyone use an edit utlity on the file to alter its contents?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 2 2007, 04:09 AM
Post
#114
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Well I really should have been more specific. It isnt admissable in many cases where its a federal offence or something like that. It's perfectly admissible in civil court. Thats why OJ was effectively cleared of murder charges, yet still was sued for every last penny in civil court. The standards for what constitutes as admissible evidence is much lower. Ironically while many types of evidence is inadmissable in murder cases and such. The ever failable 'witness' is still taken at face value. There was a fairly intersting and recent news article about it all. Of course these laws will also vary from country to country, state/province etc. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 2 2007, 06:30 AM
Post
#115
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Like Kesslan said, there are different stancdards. However, there are already rules of evidence in place that concern original video and electronic materials. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th June 2026 - 03:37 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.