January 6th Capitol Building Security Footage

[Bootstrap]

Forking from the Election Investigations thread, since this is not about election investigations.

The Capitol is NOT a private place and not owned by private people. It is often referred to as “the people's house” and is owned by the public. It was built and paid for with public funds collected from tax payers. It is maintained by the public’s taxes. The congress and others that use the building are working for the public.

Because the activities on Jan 6 were conducted on the public’s land, in the public’s building, against public workers who are paid by the public's taxes, etc, all the surveillance for that day should be released to the public and not just a few clips. Even the cameras that took the footage are owned by the public. It is very revealing and interesting that the Jan 6, committee is so against releasing what should be public information, to the public. It is about controlling their narrative/propaganda and the only way that can be done is hide the facts and information from the very people who pay their salaries, who pay for the facility they use, who pay their cushy perks, etc.

As far as I know we still live in a free Republic, not some socialistic/communist country that wants to control the people by only releasing the information that the government wants the people to know.

Apparently, the United States has been a socialist/communist country since its founding. Do you want to apply this to executive privilege? Does the President of the United States need to release all communication to all the people whenever asked? Or are there things that not everyone has the right to know?

Fort Knox is a public place paid for by public funds. Does the public have the right to see all video footage taken there? Do you think there might be a downside?

When I enter the United States from somewhere else, I have seen signs saying I am not allowed to take pictures or videos with my cellphone for security reasons. That's all paid for with taxes. Are they violating my rights when they do that?

Mike Johnson says that some of the videos cannot be released for security reasons. Is that outrageous? He also says that they will edit some of the footage, blurring out faces, etc. Is that outrageous?

Do you think that the public has the right to all communication between police officers in all jurisdictions at all times?

[Bootstrap]

security reasons (to not give away camera angles, camera locations, possible blind spots, etc. to others seeking to do harm).

The Capitol is a public building and anyone can go and and take videos and pictures. It's not like camera angles, etc. are a big secret.

The aerial views are not available to the general public. The general public cannot see the escape routes used to protect Congress. The general public cannot see all the faces on every camera in every place on January 6th. The general public cannot see where all the security cameras are and what angles they record from.

That's why the Capitol Police objected to releasing these videos.

And even Mike Johnson is saying he needs time to review the videos and edit them for security reasons. The Capitol Police loudly objected to any release without first giving them the opportunity to review them for security.

[Bootstrap]

More on this from ChatGPT ...

Releasing security footage from events like the January 6th Capitol breach poses several specific security risks, particularly when such footage is not reviewed and approved by relevant security agencies. Here are some potential risks:

1. Revealing Security Protocols and Layouts: The footage could disclose details about the security protocols, layouts, and response tactics of the Capitol Police and other security forces. This information could be valuable to bad actors planning to exploit vulnerabilities in security setups.
2. Identifying Security Equipment and Positions: Videos might reveal the locations and types of security equipment (cameras, barriers, etc.) and where security personnel are typically stationed, which could help bad actors plan ways to circumvent these measures.
3. Exposing Weaknesses in Response: Observing how security forces responded to the riot could highlight weaknesses or delays in their response, providing insights into how to create maximum disruption or evade capture.
4. Operational Tactics: The footage might showcase specific tactical approaches used by security forces, which could be studied and countered by those wishing to breach such security in the future.
5. Potential for Misinformation and Propaganda: Unreviewed footage could be taken out of context or edited to spread misinformation, inflaming tensions or undermining trust in security institutions.

In general, the release of sensitive security footage requires careful consideration to balance transparency with the need to protect critical security information. Uncontrolled dissemination could inadvertently provide a blueprint for future attacks or undermine the effectiveness of security measures.

[Bootstrap]

I guess they don't think the American people deserve transparency, accountability, and answers supported by facts instead of a predetermined political narrative, given by a select group of people.

Suppose we take this out of your predefined narrative, which I just quoted. What facts are we talking about here?

What facts depend on the release of all of the security video? Which conclusions do you think they may contradict? Do you think that ANY of the convictions of the people found guilty will be invalidated by this video? On what grounds?

Have any of the defendants in the trials claimed that they needed video that they were not granted in order to defend themselves? If so, who?

[Bootstrap]

Those who entered the capitol did it at their own risk, and I am sure they knew they would have been on surveillance cameras, making them part of the public domain.

Wait ... did you just claim that all security footage on cameras owned by the government belongs to the public domain?

Could you please show me some reliable legal source that makes that claim? It seems very, very surprising to me. See earlier messages in this thread.

FWIW, I think there is legal precedent on this topic:

There are relevant legal precedents regarding the release of government security camera footage under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These cases highlight the balance between public access to information and protecting security measures:

1. Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority: An Illinois appellate court found that the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) met its burden to prove that disclosing surveillance footage could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of its camera surveillance system. The court determined that releasing the footage could potentially reveal the location of cameras, any blind spots, the clarity of captured footage, and other information that could be utilized by criminals or terrorists to jeopardize public safety.

2. Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson County Prosecutor's Office: In this Ohio case, a reporter requested security footage of a shooting outside a courthouse. The county prosecutor’s office denied the request, classifying the footage as "security records" or "infrastructure records" and thus exempting them from public records requests. The Ohio appellate court agreed, holding that the footage was a security record because it showed the technical capabilities of the security camera and the response plan of the security forces at the courthouse. Consequently, the court held that the footage was not subject to a public records request.

3. TSA Compliance with FOIA: The TSA has faced legal challenges regarding its compliance with FOIA, particularly in responding to requests for digital records, including security footage. Cases have shown the TSA's reluctance in releasing such footage under FOIA.

4. American Immigration Council et al v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection: This case involved a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records related to immigration and border security. The lawsuit was filed due to the agency's failure to respond, illustrating the challenges in obtaining sensitive information under FOIA.

[Josh]

More on this from ChatGPT ...

Releasing security footage from events like the January 6th Capitol breach poses several specific security risks, particularly when such footage is not reviewed and approved by relevant security agencies. Here are some potential risks:

1. Revealing Security Protocols and Layouts: The footage could disclose details about the security protocols, layouts, and response tactics of the Capitol Police and other security forces. This information could be valuable to bad actors planning to exploit vulnerabilities in security setups.
2. Identifying Security Equipment and Positions: Videos might reveal the locations and types of security equipment (cameras, barriers, etc.) and where security personnel are typically stationed, which could help bad actors plan ways to circumvent these measures.
3. Exposing Weaknesses in Response: Observing how security forces responded to the riot could highlight weaknesses or delays in their response, providing insights into how to create maximum disruption or evade capture.
4. Operational Tactics: The footage might showcase specific tactical approaches used by security forces, which could be studied and countered by those wishing to breach such security in the future.
5. Potential for Misinformation and Propaganda: Unreviewed footage could be taken out of context or edited to spread misinformation, inflaming tensions or undermining trust in security institutions.

In general, the release of sensitive security footage requires careful consideration to balance transparency with the need to protect critical security information. Uncontrolled dissemination could inadvertently provide a blueprint for future attacks or undermine the effectiveness of security measures.

Is there a reason you keep cutting and pasting things from ChatGPT? Output from LLMs is not particularly authoritative and does not actually establish any facts. I have a tab open with Bing and my copy of Microsoft Edge also has Copilot - if I need to read AI output, I'll just go there and read it.

[Bootstrap]

Is there a reason you keep cutting and pasting things from ChatGPT?

Absolutely - it's the only way to keep up with all the "expert opinions" people express and provide anything like facts. Feel free to provide better facts if any of this is inaccurate.

Is there a reason you don't even respond to factual content or factual questions in these posts, whether or not I use ChatGPT or other LLMs to create summaries? I've said plenty without LLMs too.

[Grace]

The releasing of the surveillance footage should be all or none. But that train already left the station when the Jan. 6 Committee released some video footage and now there is no turning back. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The committee were the first to release footage and the Democrats, and the media were salivating over that report. Now that Mike Johnson is releasing more, they are having a fit. Did they think for one minute that theirs would be the only footage the public would ever see? How arrogant and presumptuous?

[Josh]

Is there a reason you keep cutting and pasting things from ChatGPT?

Absolutely - it's the only way to keep up with all the "expert opinions" people express and provide anything like facts. Feel free to provide better facts if any of this is inaccurate.

Is there a reason you don't even respond to factual content or factual questions in these posts, whether or not I use ChatGPT or other LLMs to create summaries? I've said plenty without LLMs too.

ChatGPT just parrots back what is the current, mainstream consensus on a topic, with a significant amount of political bias added in. I don't think that adds any value to a debate or discussion at all.

Once again, I am questioning why you think it's a bad thing that Speaker Johnson released additional footage. There is no evidence the footage he released was faked, edited, or is otherwise inaccurate in some way. The footage is there for anyone to review, and it tells a quite different story than the footage the 1/6 committee released that was highly edited.

[Bootstrap]

The releasing of the surveillance footage should be all or none.

Why?

Why not release relevant surveillance footage as needed, after reviewing it? I think that's what usually happens. Can you give me some examples where the government made all security footage from anything available to the general public? When has that happened? Ever?

I agree with the principle that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". But I don't understand how you are applying it here.

But that train already left the station when the Jan. 6 Committee released some video footage and now there is no turning back. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The committee were the first to release footage and the Democrats, and the media were salivating over that report. Now that Mike Johnson is releasing more, they are having a fit. Did they think for one minute that theirs would be the only footage the public would ever see? How arrogant and presumptuous?

But the government often uses some video from security cameras in court. And I have never, ever heard the claim that this meant that all of their security video therefore needed to be released to the general public, unedited. And I have never seen that happen. Why is that different now?