Post by account_disabled on Feb 25, 2024 4:23:22 GMT -5
structural changes in law enforcement. A few weeks ago, the city manager of the Miguel Hidalgo Delegation, Arne aus den Ruten Haag, began an operation called Vecino Gandalla, which consisted of going out into the streets armed with a cell phone and the real-time video transmission platform. Periscope to demonstrate illegal behavior by residents of the district. The proposal was received with considerable success by the citizens of the country's capital, since the official has faced both people who throw garbage in the street and arrogant bodyguards of dark businessmen. In fact, the last event earned the city manager a beating. What cannot be denied is the support expressed by social media users. The delegate in Miguel Hidalgo, Xóchitl Gálvez, said in a radio interview that said program was a creative response to a lack of budget. The initiative has caused a lot of empathy, because at some point we have all experienced impunity, abuse of authority and violence. By observing through that live broadcast, we see that in the end the offenders are subdued by the authorities and the law is imposed.
That is a breath of fresh air in a country where impunity is everywhere. Something very similar is done by Los Supercívicos, a group of characters who take to the streets to report illegal behavior by citizens or lack of maintenance of the city's infrastructure. Perhaps one of the first programs that the media used to make citizen complaints was Ciudadano Infraganti, which began broadcasting back in 1984. All of these efforts are an excellent media spectacle and fulfill Bahamas Mobile Number List two basic functions: to give the impression that the law is being followed, and at the same time to build the image of the officials. And although reporting antisocial behavior is important for healthy social coexistence, it does not necessarily imply a structural change in compliance with the laws. In turn, officials are recognized and applauded digitally. Two birds with one stone. Now, here we must ask the question of whether it is legal to expose citizens.
What about human and civil rights? Are individual guarantees being violated? Periscope is a powerful weapon: it gives authorities or citizens, invested as judges, the opportunity to expose those who break the law, but it also throws those who are exposed into a summary trial where their reputation and private life can be be affected. It's almost putting a digital stamp on them. In fact, the CDHDF opened a file with three complaints about the way in which the city manager displayed them through Periscope. In the document, available on the Internet, it is said that "although some of the behaviors attributed to people are socially reprehensible and constitute an infraction whose sanction is duly established in the regulations, it is also important to establish that with the use of the "Periscope application exposes the people, to whom it is displayed, to unnecessary violence that constitutes an additional sanction not provided for in any law or regulation, therefore human rights are violated." It is necessary to review that the conduct of officials does not violate basic rights of citizens and that their personal data is protected, as stated in Article 16 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Arco rights guarantee that there must be correct use of personal data, and in this case it is up to the INAI to make it effective. What is a fact is that although digital communication platforms are an excellent means of communication and social collaboration, they cannot be used by forcing the law to enforce the law.
