Hey -- thanks for following up. I got frustrated editing the letter before;
I decided to forget about it for a while and try again with a clear head. I
did -- here's what it looks like now. I'm going downtown next week; I'm
thinking of dropping it off then. As always, I'll appreciate any critique.
I am writing to ask the Toronto Police Service to accomodate a few issues
related to video disclosure. The issues, in my view, arise because video
disclosure arrives in proprietary formats, and as proprietary software.
Free formats allow anyone to read the technical specifications, write
software to run the format, and use the format. Non-free (proprietary)
formats do not. By “free”, I mean those specific freedoms, and not
price.
The freedoms (and free formats) guarentee interoperability, a competitive
commercial market for playback, and also gratis options for playback.
Non-free formats are like trade secrets and impose a particular software
solution. With non-free formats, interoperatibility and market competition
exist at the format-owner's discretion. The format-owner can also decide not
to allow gratis playback options; this raises access-to-justice concerns.
Prorpietary software is a privacy concern, because lawyers must trust it not
to access lawyers' and clients' information on the computer. Disclosure as
proprietary software raises this concern. Disclosure in a proprietary format
raises the concern as well, because it encourages lawyers to use proprietary
software.
Free formats allow playback with free software, and also with proprietary
software. Free sofware allows public audits. The audits give lawyers a
reason to trust free software not to access lawyers' and clients' information
on the computer.
Here are two examples of free video formats: http://theora.org/ ,
http://www.webmproject.org/
The Toronto Police Service already provides document disclosure in a free
format (PDF). I am hopeful that the Service will adopt a similarly free
policy for video disclosure.
