I'm a little out of the loop on this issue. I'm trying to catch up, but from what I can gather, I don't see why any information that the BPD would be privy to can't also be seen by the city council or the mayor. none of the information needs to be truly public.
worrying about securing the information is a valid concern, but that's not the same thing as wanting the information to not exist.
bryanhealey t1_ixcg203 wrote
Reply to comment by TheLamestUsername in Now he brings it up: Councilor worries ordinance requiring info on police surveillance technologies could mean release of 'classified' information year after he voted for it by EnjoyTheNonsense
I'm a little out of the loop on this issue. I'm trying to catch up, but from what I can gather, I don't see why any information that the BPD would be privy to can't also be seen by the city council or the mayor. none of the information needs to be truly public.
worrying about securing the information is a valid concern, but that's not the same thing as wanting the information to not exist.