Can Technology Prevent Cops From Forgetting To Turn On Their Body Cameras? (fastcompany.com) 167
tedlistens writes from a report via Fast Company: Axon, Taser's growing police camera division, has announced a new wireless sensor for gun and Taser holsters that can detect when a weapon is drawn and automatically activate all nearby cameras. The sensor, Signal Sidearm, is part of a suite of products aimed at reducing the possibility that officers will fail to switch on their cameras during encounters with the public. It happens more than it should: Last year in Chicago, for instance, an officer apparently forgot to turn on his camera before fatally shooting and killing an unarmed 18-year-old named Paul O'Neal. Taser isn't alone in trying to address this and other technical and procedural issues with cameras, but reformers emphasize that just as body cameras won't solve problems with policing, new sensors won't prevent officers from failing to record. Fast Company adds: "Automatically-activated cameras won't be completely effective at providing oversight of police encounters: As happened when Baton Rouge police shot Alton Sterling last year, cameras can fall off during physical encounters, a problem that Taser has worked to address. They can also malfunction, or videos can be deleted. And civil liberties advocates complain that cameras are only as effective as the rules that guide their use: [...] the ACLU has complained that current city policy allowing officers to switch cameras off for privacy reasons gives police too much discretion over when to record. Other issues with cameras being resolved at the local level include the heavy costs of cloud video storage, and the question of whether officers are allowed to view their footage immediately after violent encounters -- a privilege not extended to the public."
Probably (Score:2)
See $subject. And why is this even a question?
Re:Probably (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's probably some subtleties in there, more granular than full-day coverage.
Perhaps the camera are remote activated at the start of each dispatch call, if they are not already on and cannot be turned off until dispatch closes the call. That way between calls, the camera does not have to b on when some poor schmoe in blue is taking a leak or eating his lunch. We all deserve some "off time".
Re: (Score:2)
"Hold it right there, scum! I said hold it... just a few more minutes... any second now..." *click* Pow!
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. As long as Cops do not get a "go to jail directly" card when their cameras are off in such a situation, this is not going to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. As long as Cops do not get a "go to jail directly" card when their cameras are off in such a situation, this is not going to change.
Even that isn't necessary, although I am on board. All that has to be done is to assume the cop is lying about every statement they make while the camera is off. We should have a legal requirement for this: the cop's word is never enough, there must always be evidence. (It doesn't have to be video evidence, but there has to be more than their word, which is provably not good.) Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Easily (Score:2)
Just shock them if they move while the camera isn't on.
Re:Easily (Score:4, Insightful)
But we all know, with government's history of naming acts and such to mean the exact opposite (USA-PATRIOT Act, anyone?), it would end up with government twisting it around 180 degrees to civilians receiving the shocks if they're not under surveillance, not police.
But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address. It's the entire culture and mentality that must be addressed.
It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?). It seems that since this change to quasi-military ranks and organization it has contributed heavily to a 'war' type 'us vs them' mentality. A military organization is good to occupy, pacify, and destroy. It's not good as everyday local domestic law enforcement in a non-wartime/revolution, peacetime setting.
The 'war on (some) drugs' also greatly exacerbates an already-bad problem.
Strat
Re:Easily (Score:4, Insightful)
> But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address.
Yes. I was following along with the tongue-in-cheek, but you are right. The militarization of police (and the parallel degradation of the judiciary, in part driven by the "justice is revenge" frame of mind, instead of something trying to hold society together... don't get me started on jails!) is absolutely scary.
Especially because many people seem to favor that, especially the revenge part. The whole monster has democratic support.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't countries which also have such ranks suffer from a similar problem? Your explanation doesn't seem to account for this.
Military ranks are not militarization... (Score:2)
Nor are ranks from California.
It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?).
http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/P... [richmond.va.us]
1807: The Richmond Police Department officially was established as one of the first formally organized law enforcement agencies in the United States.
...
1861: Virginia seceded from the Union. The president of the newly formed Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, established Richmond as the capital of the CSA Officers began wearing badges and were considered members of the militia.
1863: With the city's population swollen to almost 100,000 by the Civil War, the Richmond Police Department was overwhelmed. As a result, the Department was reorganized with 13 day officers, one of whom was designated the Chief of Police. The night watch was given one captain, three lieutenants and 40 privates.
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
As the oldest police department in the country, the Boston Police Department (BPD) has a rich history and a well-established presence in the Boston community. The initiation of a formal department began in 1838, when the General Court passed a bill allowing the city of Boston to appoint police officers. The department was structured after the model developed by Sir Robert Peele for the London Police force.
...
The first police force consisted of 260 officers and a chief. Each division had a captain and two lieutenants; sergeants were not appointed until 1857. In these early days, an officer on duty carried a six-foot pole, painted blue and white to protect himself, and a "police rattle" to call for assistance.
Ranks were there back in the day when police officers were armed with RATTLES. [archive.org]
Ranks are NOT militarization. Police all around the world have ranks. [wikipedia.org] Fire brigades have ranks.
Militarization is when regular police starts employing military weapons, [openthebooks.com] tactics [nytimes.com] and equipment [wikipedia.org] on daily basis. [aclu.org]
I.e. When police thinks that it actually needs those "5,638 bayonets ($307,769) and 36 swords and scabbards", or when campus poli [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It really started following the North Hollywood shootout which happened almost exactly 20 years ago.
A prime portion of that was the underarmed cops having to borrow rifles from a nearby gun store, as shots with pistols and shotguns did nothing to the two criminals involved. Reading up on that incident makes it easier to understand why they decided to militarize. Not saying I agree, just makes it less "They wanna kill us all now!"
Make it illegal to not turn them on (Score:3)
If they got nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.
Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on (Score:4, Informative)
We're not talking about average citizens. We hand these people a LOT of power. Essentially they have the power monopoly in the country (in most countries at least). They are granted powers above and beyond what the average person may do. But those powers are not granted to them as individuals but as their function, and they are not granted to be used at their whims.
These powers are handed to them so they can use them to protect our common interests.
The same applies to politicians, by the way. Oddly enough you never see anyone wonder why they aren't under surveillance, considering their ability to harm our interest is by some margin greater.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about average citizens. We hand these people a LOT of power.
Yes and no.
Police officers actually have remarkably little legal authority that citizens don't have. The details vary a little, but for example in my state, if you examine the statutes the only things they can do that you can't are (1) to use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect, with reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent harm, (2) they don't need to get a concealed weapons permit to carry a concealed weapon, (3) they can ignore traffic laws when they use lights/siren, (4) they
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> That doesn't mean the camera shouldn't be always on
It does present a privacy issue for police who are off duty and have not yet taken off their uniforms. When an officer is working double or triple shifts in an emergency, I'd concede them some private time in between those shifts without having to switch uniform, or even personal time on their way home in their own vehicle. As long as they've taken off their badge and are clearly off duty, I can understand it.
There are difficulties when they go "on" du
Re: (Score:2)
They can have all the private time they want, but if they are in the public toilet in uniform and something happens, it's better that 1000 poops be recorded and ignored than one fatal shooting be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Because records can be, and are, stolen. Some are even "stolen" legally, with Patriot Act warrants, and could put the officer's life and those of people near him at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cops have a right to privacy too, to some extent.
A much, much lesser extent.
Rules that determine when the footage may be used and for what purposes. For example: not to be used for job performance reviews, nor to check how many donuts each cop consumes on the job.
Bullshit. There is no reason why that footage should not be used for performance reviews. In fact, if it is made mandatory then that should have a significant positive impact on police behavior.
But they should also be certain that the videos will only be used as evidence in case of complaints or interventions where some violence occurred, and that they won't be done for publicly picking their nose or not being polite enough to a member of the public.
No. Those videos also need to be used as evidence to determine whether cops are telling the truth, every time they make a statement, because they are so prone to lying in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops have a right to privacy too, to some extent. That doesn't mean the camera shouldn't be always on, but it does mean that there should be some rules and regulations to protect the privacy of everyone being filmed, including the cops themselves. Rules that determine when the footage may be used and for what purposes. For example: not to be used for job performance reviews, nor to check how many donuts each cop consumes on the job. Only to be used for training purposes with the consent of everyone in the video (or properly anonymized). Proper process for using the videos in after-action reviews. Access to the videos to be regulated and audited. Etc. The cops should be certain that if they harass someone or use undue violence, it will be on film and can be used against them. But they should also be certain that the videos will only be used as evidence in case of complaints or interventions where some violence occurred, and that they won't be done for publicly picking their nose or not being polite enough to a member of the public.
Simple solution to the problem of them forgetting to turn the camera on: Make it so they can forget to turn it off.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between a police person and the private individual rights. Once the police person is off duty they are allowed their personal freedoms and privacy. However when they are on duty they are acting as part of the government and the community. While on duty they are granted extra rights and privileges, as they can cross the line to catch the bad guys. Also if hurt in the line of duty the punishment for the person who hurt them is often more severe as it is considered more than an attack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they got nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.
Really? Keep that in mind the next time a law enforcement officer asks you to unlock your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
If they got nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.
Really? Keep that in mind the next time a law enforcement officer asks you to unlock your phone.
THAT'S THE JOKE. Since the police are always using that line on citizens who just want their 4th amendment rights respected, I think it's only fair to turn it around on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing. Police are allowed by law to lie to, play tricks upon, and intimidate persons of interest in the course of an investigation. Persons of interest who use those tactics on the police, on the other hand, are in violation of the law. It's not symmetrical, so saying, "It's only fair to turn it around" is not true, and if it's a joke it's a poor one.
Re: (Score:2)
If they got nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.
Its a cop in the USA. If they do something illegal I'd assume nothing happens.
Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue only arises if the video is required for a future trial. Hell, high-def video of what she looked like when the officers arrived on the scene might even be used as evidence IN HER FAVOR.
If the video is never requested for trial (maybe nothing happened, maybe there was a plea bargain or whatever) it just sits and collects proverbial dust on a hard drive somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue only arises if the video is required for a future trial. Hell, high-def video of what she looked like when the officers arrived on the scene might even be used as evidence IN HER FAVOR.
Depends on the local laws. Here in Seattle there was discussion on this topic because such video was public info and discoverable by Freedom of Information requests.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because you really want video proof to put those bastards behind bars for a long time.
No, I don't think they should be shot on the spot. I want a functioning justice system, and that means that the cop shouldn't pass judgement or act as executioner.
What we need to do is to stop taking a cops witness-report as more reliable than any other.
They should use that camera to collect evidence that is more reliable than just their words.
If the video handed in to the courts contains gaps it should be treated as
Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. The system should be designed so that everything is recorded and encrypted with one of a rolling set of asymmetric keys. Nothing can be played back without accessing the decryption key, which should not be available to the individual police precinct without oversight. Everything recorded should be stored and, unless needed, deleted a month later. Any decryption keys that are not used within this period should be deleted without ever being released, so even if someone takes an unauthorised copy of the video, they can't decrypt it.
It absolutely should not be up to the judgement of an individual in a highly emotionally charged situation to decide what should be recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, proven police misconduct is so rare
Have you ever wonder why so much of the misconduct allegations have not been proven? If you are predisposed to think ALL the accusations are false, and ALL the police officers are saints ALL the time, you are biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, proven police misconduct is so rare
Have you ever wonder why so much of the misconduct allegations have not been proven? If you are predisposed to think ALL the accusations are false, and ALL the police officers are saints ALL the time, you are biased.
I saw no such predisposition. Ponder the difference between "rare" and "non-existent" or "so much" and "all".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, proven police misconduct is so rare
Have you ever wonder why so much of the misconduct allegations have not been proven? If you are predisposed to think ALL the accusations are false, and ALL the police officers are saints ALL the time, you are biased.
I saw no such predisposition. Ponder the difference between "rare" and "non-existent" or "so much" and "all".
Its essentially the same apparatus that investigates them as protects them. It cannot be relied on. Its like investigating top politicians for organised child abuse (as they are trying to do in the UK and not really getting anywhere).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's not like the recording is for the evening news, it's for evidence gathering. When I lie beaten up in a pool of my blood dressed in a pink elephant costume in a tutu because that's what turned my tormentor on, I sure as fuck want that recorded and secured as evidence.
If you show it to anyone who isn't concerned with solving the case I'll step on your balls while you're watching me do it, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you show it to anyone who isn't concerned with solving the case I'll step on your balls while you're watching me do it, though.
What if that's what turns me on?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that image would be evidence. Also often with abused victims they may protect the person who hurt them. So without that camera view of the officer walking into the scene of the crime seeing what he saw. The victim may lie in court accusing the officer of raping her protecting the actual rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes
No (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
You'll always have footage go missing and cams get shut off because it's part of the system. The public is complacent in the whole thing. So a higher up comes along and tells the techies to make the footage disappear and it does. Period. And we all look the other way when a black guy in a poor neighborhood gets shot and 3-5 officers have a camera malfunction instead of demanding they all get fired for not maintaining their equipment. Hell, even when they do get fired they just move to another precinct...
I'm reminded of long haul truckers. I couldn't figure out how they cheated their books with GPSes and electronic logs. The answer: They only spot check individual logs of individual drivers and they warn the driver being checked before hand. My buddy hated it because he never cheated a log so his driver manager made sure he was always the one to get checked. He eventually gave up the line of work because he couldn't find a way to do it without cheating and he's the paranoid type.
This is the same damn thing. We don't need more tech. We need to use the tech we already have.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard if camera video unavailable for any reason it should be no different than civil court if you refuse to produce records you assume they show things in the worst light possible.
This means by law a fatal shooting without camera footage means the cops is automatically tried and convicted for murder unless other footage is available so show his innocence. Oddly they will start insuring their camera's work.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard if camera video unavailable for any reason it should be no different than civil court if you refuse to produce records you assume they show things in the worst light possible.
This means by law a fatal shooting without camera footage means the cops is automatically tried and convicted for murder unless other footage is available so show his innocence. Oddly they will start insuring their camera's work.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard if camera video unavailable for any reason it should be no different than civil court if you refuse to produce records you assume they show things in the worst light possible.
This means by law a fatal shooting without camera footage means the cops is automatically tried and convicted for murder unless other footage is available so show his innocence. Oddly they will start insuring their camera's work.
Guilty until proven innocent?
That could actually work.
For everyone else its innocent until proven guilty.
For people like politicians, cops, lawyers its the other way around. I mean thats what ordinary people assume anyway, right?
Re: (Score:2)
No you just like civil court it's assumed to be what the other side says it is if you do not produce it.So if the sum total if 2 people down an ally then yes you would be fighting an uphill battle. If it's lost in some IT snafu again yes. You're not assuming guilt your assuming evidence if it's not produced. Cops intentionally do stupid things with data I say that working with many branches over my career. They fail to follow normal corp protocols for this sort of thing, make copy's asap lock them away
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like Guilty until Proven Innocent to me.
Also, in Civil Court it is still Innocent until Proven Guilty, just that the bar to prove guilty is lower.
No context (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Queue the wild wild west music.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on scenario, turning on camera(s) when gun is drawn could provide little to no context of actions leading up to shooting rendering video next to worthless in determining whether excessive force was used. Adoption of this tech by police departments would very likely encourage leaving cameras off and many recordings wouldn't provide anything of value.
What an incredibly fascist suggestion. Instead of leaving them on all the time to make sure they will get context, they will leave them off all the time to make sure they get no context? No, instead what is needed is a gun cam used in addition to a body cam, which cannot be turned off. The privacy issues are best handled cryptographically. It might well be that we need the footage from a cop's time in the bathroom.
"heavy costs of cloud video storage" (Score:3)
A 256 GB micro SD card weights 0.4g, is less than 2cm in width, and costs around $40. I have 1080p movies on my computer that are about 1 hr/GB. So I'm quite sure that one of these body cam devices could record a couple weeks of continuous footage and probably much, much more. That's plenty of time for legal action to initiate and the data to be uploaded if there is any debate over what has happened during an arrest. Privacy is not an issue if the data is stored encrypted. You just require that a judge has to sign off on it before the decryption key can be accessed by anyone (including the cop).
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure where you get a microSD card that is really 256GB in size (rather than a fake) for $40. More like $150, but that is just a minor detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And when the officer enters a locker room or rest room? Not in the course of their job but in the course of their life? Do they or anyone else in the room not have an expectation of privacy? Or since recordings could/should be subject to FOIA requests, what if a person (victim, perpetrator, bystander, informer, etc) being recorded also has an expectation of privacy or confidentiality? Or if the officer is officially off duty and is just a private citizen prior to starting his day, or has just ended it?
Not s
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that most states never stop a cop from being a cop there is no off duty. When they no longer have any more powers than any other citizen can they remove the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that most states never stop a cop from being a cop there is no off duty. When they no longer have any more powers than any other citizen can they remove the camera.
Just what powers do you think a beat Cop has that you don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Just what powers do you think a beat Cop has that you don't?
The power to detain. A citizen can only detain you by making an arrest, and that not even in all states. A cop can detain you without making an arrest. States which do not have firearms carry laws also permit the police to enjoy constitutional rights which are denied to everyone else. California is notable for this not least because it is the most populous state.
Re: (Score:2)
That little list of only the really common ones is enough, don't y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that most states never stop a cop from being a cop there is no off duty. When they no longer have any more powers than any other citizen can they remove the camera.
Just what powers do you think a beat Cop has that you don't?
The power to shoot you dead without being effectively investigated. Especially if you are non-white. Though in states with a 'stand your ground' law this point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Qualified Immunity [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How many examples do you need both legal and practical?
I would say we would all be better off if they had less powers than the average citizen. They are after all trained and equipped to deal with violent and deadly situations so should be held to a higher standard regarding the use of force that your average person not a lower standard they have now.
No (Score:2)
Disciplinary action can - along with a rule that if it's not on camera, and there's no corroborating evidence, the cop is assumed to be "confused and/or mistaken".
Not really (Score:2)
Simple (Score:2)
Movement-activated cameras that upload their video feed directly to mobile networks. If we are talking low-quality video or even stills if the connection is bad, and better quality when the situation improves or the officer gets to the car again, the battery doesn't need to be huge.
That depends (Score:2)
It can. Provided it simply turns the camera on instead of just reminding the cop.
Solving the Destruction of Evidence problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
"cameras can fall off during physical encounters"
Really? I wonder how often badges fall off during encounters. They're wearing a uniform. Make it a uniform standard to secure it in a field-proven way. Problem solved.
"They can also malfunction"
Make it the responsibility of the officer to check their equipment prior to going on duty, as they should do for ALL of their equipment. Any malfunction that impacts a legal case or fails to record a violent act will be thoroughly investigated by Internal Affairs and subject to 3rd party review. Cameras are evidence gathering devices, so any officer that purposely causes a "malfunction" will face charges of destruction of evidence.
"or videos can be deleted."
Cameras are the responsibility of the officer. Any reports of deleted data will be subject to investigation. If it is determined that the loss of data was not caused by malfunction, then the officer will face mandatory suspension without pay for 2 weeks. If the data loss interferes with a legal case, then the officer will also be charged with destruction of evidence.
If you're going to create a standard, then enforce the fucking thing. Otherwise, quit pissing taxpayer money away.
Oh come on... (Score:2)
You can't compare a piece of tin with a sensitive electronic device.
Even a fully ruggedized military-grade camera is still susceptible to various forms of damage or malfunction.
FFS, a drop of paint (or blood, or ketchup, or mud...) can make it completely useless as a video recording device.
Hell, turn it ever so slightly in a wrong direction and the recording is a useless shot of the sky or of the ground. Expose its sensor to a strong light and it's equally useless.
Even mounted on the head, so it records fro
Job requirement (Score:2)
Taser cams in New Zealand (Score:2)
In New Zealand, police Taser guns are fitted with a camera that starts recording video as soon as the Taser is switched on. Footage of some incidents has led to police being criticised for their excessive and illegal use of Tasers.
Weapon of choice: Are Tasers being abused? http://www.stuff.co.nz/good-re... [stuff.co.nz]
Police Taser use against man ruled excessive http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n... [nzherald.co.nz]
Re: (Score:2)
In New Zealand, police Taser guns are fitted with a camera that starts recording video as soon as the Taser is switched on. Footage of some incidents has led to police being criticised for their excessive and illegal use of Tasers.
Weapon of choice: Are Tasers being abused? http://www.stuff.co.nz/good-re... [stuff.co.nz]
Police Taser use against man ruled excessive http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n... [nzherald.co.nz]
Do you get ACC coverage if the cops tase you?
Forgot the air quotes (Score:3)
Can Technology Prevent Cops From "Forgetting" To Turn On Their Body Cameras?
The title is missing some air quotes around "forgetting" because it's very unlikely that they forgot to do it. Only way they will stop "forgetting" is if there are real consequences with real teeth. Like all charges get thrown out, evidence inadmissible, suspension from job without pay, etc. Otherwise you are going to continue to see a rash of camera failures with curiously convenient timing to the benefit of the officer.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be foolishly reactionary.
Just imagine you roll up on a scene where there is an armed and dangerous person. How likely are you to be thinking about turning on your camera and ensuring it's working before you're dealing with the problem?
Or, from another perspective... someone's pointing a gun at you, and you see a cop arrive but he spends 30 seconds or more in his cruiser pushing buttons before he comes to help you.
Something like a 'GoPro for guns' is probably the best possible solution. A little bull
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be foolishly reactionary.
Just imagine you roll up on a scene where there is an armed and dangerous person. How likely are you to be thinking about turning on your camera and ensuring it's working before you're dealing with the problem?
This is the problem. It shouldn't be 'oh better record this' or 'shit shoulda recorded that' they should have enough memory to be switched on when their shift starts and switched off when it ends. The sd card or whatever gets handed in and filed for a week or so, if anything of note happened or any complaints are made the footage can be looked at whatever steps taken. Basically the way a lot of cctv systems work. Yeah they'll probably still delete or tamper with them after the fact unless they make them ge
Re: (Score:2)
>they should have enough memory to be switched on when their shift starts and switched off when it ends.
The technology isn't there yet. Cops often work shifts that exceed 12h. Storage? Sure. Transferring it to central storage, cataloguing it all? Exists but is relatively expensive to do right. Lightweight battery to keep a decent camera recording for more than half a day? Not yet.
And they have the right to go to the bathroom or just take a lunch break without being on camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A more ideal solution would be to bluetooth the camera to the radio or the units laptop, and only use the camera 's storage for buffering, having the radio transmit the video to a centralized storage as data traffic permits. Turn the camera off it automatically turns back on after 3 minutes and chirps every 15 seconds while off.
Not sure it really matters (Score:2)
I'm an American white person and I don't consider myself a SJW but I'm sympathetic to the concerns of African Americans regarding their dealings with the police. I can understand, as best as is possible given my background, that they are really tired of seeing police shoot and kill unarmed African Americans. The police do this to white people too. They just don't do it in big enough numbers to attract the wrath
Re: (Score:2)
I read what the cop said in the infamous Ferguson, MO trial and his account of events was not credible. I'd put it at maybe 1 in 1000 that what he said really happened. I'm positive he's lying. But the jury completely bought it.
After the trial, the Officer's video was released and it showed Brown entering the Police car through the window and wrestling with the Officer.
It doesn't matter what color your skin is, a police encounter isn't a contest you will be allowed to win; this isn't the movies, it's real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I did mis-remembered, there was no video of Michael Brown wrestling inside the vehicle, but there was Brown's DNA from both blood on the inside door handle and tissue outside the driver's door, Brown also had the Police Officer's DNA on his left Hand [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
On average, twice as many whites are shot by police than blacks.
Thats an interesting statistic especially since there are WAY more than twice as many whites in the USA as there are blacks. 72% vs 12%
You are saying HALF as many blacks are shot by police than whites. Thats very disproportionate shooting of blacks by police.
Leave the cameras running all the time (Score:2)
Have each camera continuously record the latest X hours of activity, like a flight recorder. After an incident occurs, management would retrieve and replace every camera that could have caught the action. This policy would ensure that major events get recorded while automatically editing out all the hours of nothing happening.
voice stress analyzer (Score:2)
It must be decades ago that people were using a voice stress analyzer to detect lies, etc. They weren't perfect, might never be, but should be fairly reliable now. When a policeperson says "Hands up!", such a miniaturized detector would trigger the camera without requiring deliberate action. OTOH when the policeperson gives a happy sigh of comfort and joy while savoring a jelly doughnut or receiving a much needed massage from her partner, the camera would shut off, saving the department some embarrassment.
There's a very simple technology (Score:3)
It's called "not installing an off switch".
Re: (Score:2)
But with a built-in battery, you can make it so you can't deprive it of power unless you disassemble it or don't charge it ever. It is not necessary to make it impossible to disable these things; we merely have to make it difficult, and impossible to say, "Oops, it was an accident."
Re: (Score:2)
Make qualified immunity conditional on body cams (Score:2)
Why is this even a possibility? (Score:2)
Cops should not have access to disable their cameras during working hours. Either a central server needs to have their work schedules loaded to automatically turn the cameras on, or they should have to "punch in" to turn them on when they start their shifts. This is just a sacrifice of privacy we must *make* them accept, if they want to do this extremely privileged job. We can't keep pretending like it's a normal job and entitled to the same protections as people in other fields.
The ACLU is right, as usu
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a good thing, it should be very hard to find people willing to risk their life to serve the community. Making it hard to be abusive is a good thing. If we want to reduce crime statistically that's end the drug war not more cops, and yes I find that distasteful but idiots love to alter their body chemistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with their body cameras ON they only show THEIR angle of story. We all know how it is the perspective that makes the story.
The obvious solution is to have everyone everywhere recording everything they do, all the time. Wait, wasn't there a Black Mirrror episode where they did that?
Re: (Score:2)