#PoliceState
Police Video-Tape and Demand Female Passenger to Take Dress Off, Victim was Asked to Pay 50-100 thousands for “Pixelation Fee”
In recent years, the Police Force has purchased thousands of body-worn and hand-held cameras for frontline officers to record the law enforcement process. Last year during AntiELAB protests, they were also a “great tool” in collecting evidence.
On #Oct6 last year, the second day after the Anti-mask law was in effect, large scale protests took place in multiple districts. The police started searching bus passengers since the evening to arrest the fugitives. Ms. Chan, who was on her way home, was requested by the police to alight for a search. She stated that a female police officer conducted a full-body search on her without reasonable doubt and evidence. She was demanded to take off her white one-piece dress and be video-taped with only her black underwear on, in front of the public and a group of male officers. On the next day, she filed a complaint to the Complaint Against Police Office, but waited for 6 months for a reply.
According to the news report by RTHK, Ms. Chan applied to retrieve the video involving her personal data by citing the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, but the police rejected her application by saying that the video contained information of others. Chan told the Deputy Inspector that she could accept a “pixelated” version of the video, but was in return demanded to subsidise the Police Force to purchase needed computer softwares. “They said the whole Police Force had no software that could perform pixelating function, and I have to pay for all cost of software purchase.” She questioned why the Police could release pixelated videos on their Facebook page, and the Inspector explained those videos were handled by officers’ personal computers. Later, the police verbally notified Ms. Chan, that the installation of related softwares costed 20-30 thousand dollars, but she also needed to pay for wages of the officers who handled the pixelating procedures, so the total cost would be from 50-100 thousands.
Ms. Chan then demanded the police to list out the items of payment in black and white, and to provide a quotation of the software. However, there had been no response from the police who, a month later, denied Chan’s application claiming that the video involved inspection of criminal activities. “(The Police) rejected my request each time with different reasons, which obviously were not the true ones. They hold me responsible for purchasing software and officers’ working hours. It doesn’t make any sense. They have their salary.”
Source: Apple Daily #Apr10
#PoliceBrutality #SexualHarassment #SexualAssualt #HongKongPolice
#MeToo
Police Video-Tape and Demand Female Passenger to Take Dress Off, Victim was Asked to Pay 50-100 thousands for “Pixelation Fee”
In recent years, the Police Force has purchased thousands of body-worn and hand-held cameras for frontline officers to record the law enforcement process. Last year during AntiELAB protests, they were also a “great tool” in collecting evidence.
On #Oct6 last year, the second day after the Anti-mask law was in effect, large scale protests took place in multiple districts. The police started searching bus passengers since the evening to arrest the fugitives. Ms. Chan, who was on her way home, was requested by the police to alight for a search. She stated that a female police officer conducted a full-body search on her without reasonable doubt and evidence. She was demanded to take off her white one-piece dress and be video-taped with only her black underwear on, in front of the public and a group of male officers. On the next day, she filed a complaint to the Complaint Against Police Office, but waited for 6 months for a reply.
According to the news report by RTHK, Ms. Chan applied to retrieve the video involving her personal data by citing the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, but the police rejected her application by saying that the video contained information of others. Chan told the Deputy Inspector that she could accept a “pixelated” version of the video, but was in return demanded to subsidise the Police Force to purchase needed computer softwares. “They said the whole Police Force had no software that could perform pixelating function, and I have to pay for all cost of software purchase.” She questioned why the Police could release pixelated videos on their Facebook page, and the Inspector explained those videos were handled by officers’ personal computers. Later, the police verbally notified Ms. Chan, that the installation of related softwares costed 20-30 thousand dollars, but she also needed to pay for wages of the officers who handled the pixelating procedures, so the total cost would be from 50-100 thousands.
Ms. Chan then demanded the police to list out the items of payment in black and white, and to provide a quotation of the software. However, there had been no response from the police who, a month later, denied Chan’s application claiming that the video involved inspection of criminal activities. “(The Police) rejected my request each time with different reasons, which obviously were not the true ones. They hold me responsible for purchasing software and officers’ working hours. It doesn’t make any sense. They have their salary.”
Source: Apple Daily #Apr10
#PoliceBrutality #SexualHarassment #SexualAssualt #HongKongPolice
#MeToo