California agency blocks release of police use of force, surveillance training

I would go further. I would suggest demanding that all training of police officers be subject to auditing similar to how a college course can.<p>Now of course rules would be put in place to limit numbers, disallowing slots to be filled with affiliated persons, providing safety equipment should the course requirement for students, and a copy of all printed and electronically distributed material.<p>Rules to protect students and teachers from disruption could however include no electronic devices, phones, tablets, or such and professional dress and demeanor. Anyone auditing would not be allowed to interject during any class not interact with students. Observation is a powerful tool in itself.

It’s funny how copyright and privacy are often used to block inconvenient disclosure. Same in medical. They sell data back and forth but as soon as you request something that’s inconvenient, they use patient privacy as excuse to not disclose.

Making the association to K-12 public education, taxpaying parents cannot easily access all of the curriculum their student has&#x2F;is&#x2F;will engage with in a K-12 public school. The legislation (if any) and auditing process varies by state, but from a business perspective, K-12 publishers do not want to be on the hook for any real-life outcomes. Their customer is the school&#x2F;school district, not their constituents. Being able to see everything would open the cultural (relevance) and academic (rigor) floodgates of advocacy.<p>In addition to protecting the business model, I imagine these training companies do not want their educative materials associated with real-world police misconduct, or subject to any standards around what should or should not be taught.

I would argue freedom of information is more important than copyright claims. If you do work for the government it needs to be able to be pretty open what is done. I can see that there might be some exceptions but I would not think copyright is one of them.

If you want to claim a copyright, then good luck with the in the private market, but if you want that big, fat juicy government contract (i.e. taxpayer dollars) there should be concessions.

Puts the company in a weird position where they want to charge for access to their material, but laws are requiring them to release it publicly. Assuming good intent, it would make their business model challenging

Well, all the more reason to applaud hacker groups like DDoSecrets for file dumps like Blueleaks that are revealing how much utter BS and how much institutionalized corruption exists in Law Enforcement. Moreover, I&#x27;m pretty disappointed Jack Dorsey let someone at his company just ban their account [1].<p>A lot of good was done in having them publicly advertise what they had released. Hopefully this has a Streisan effect instead.<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zdnet.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;twitter-bans-ddosecrets-account-over-blueleaks-police-data-dump&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zdnet.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;twitter-bans-ddosecrets-accoun...</a><p>I&#x27;m gla

While I don&#x27;t disagree with the California law, it is reasonable for a company to hold copyright over it&#x27;s materials and products. I&#x27;m not sure a California state law can just hand wave away a federal statue and break the copyright, presumably violating the contract the police agencies made in the past with these companies. If they do so, the companies will probably sue the state, and they may win a bunch of taxpayer money.<p>To me, it seems like the California agency is the one in the wrong here, they need to be using training courses that are able to comply with the above law, rather than just slapping up a &quot;we cant comply sorry&quot; message.

A sample of what this kind of training can look like:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PwEYhIX4cbM</a>