Do Police Body Cameras Really Work?(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Do Police Body Cameras Really Work?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/do-police-body-cameras-really-work
80 comments
That's why some jurisdictions implement "guilty until proven innocent" against their police force, making turning off the camera (or "not noticing it just broke") and proceeding to beat someone up a rather bad idea.
There should at least be a bias against the officer's word from the judge and the jury if he intentionally stopped the camera from filming before a police action.
As it is, cops already get the benefit of the doubt almost all the time and when they don't deserve it.
As it is, cops already get the benefit of the doubt almost all the time and when they don't deserve it.
Do you have a source for this? I'm curious where they managed to institute this
My Ukrainian friend claimed it's the case with the new police force. They are extremely careful about turning those cams on before approaching anyone, even when they're helping an old lady through the street. I can't read the language to get primary sources myself, googling for English texts gave me only stories on how the judiciary system (not replaced) there is practically at war with the police (effectively rebuilt from ground after the last revolution).
Sadly, I can't see any western country doing it yet. Damn, in my home country there was a case of assault against police officer. A video got public showing the officer walking up to the guy, throwing him on the ground and proceeding to kick him. I believe the judge still took the cop's word.
Sadly, I can't see any western country doing it yet. Damn, in my home country there was a case of assault against police officer. A video got public showing the officer walking up to the guy, throwing him on the ground and proceeding to kick him. I believe the judge still took the cop's word.
The thing in Ukraine also has ridiculously tough responsibility for body injuries.
I can't comment on specific laws concerning police, but can on self-defense. Basically if someone tries to rob you and you break robbers arm you can be hold criminally liable.
This comes as a Soviet legacy, there's some push to change the laws in question.
I can't comment on specific laws concerning police, but can on self-defense. Basically if someone tries to rob you and you break robbers arm you can be hold criminally liable.
This comes as a Soviet legacy, there's some push to change the laws in question.
Not if every case in which it does would be scrutinized even more than usual.
Body cams are good but they like any other camera fail often at capturing the context, they work and fail at the same time since even the slightest sign of hostility and lack of cooperation can and is used by the police as justification.
The problem is way beyond what cameras can do, if you train your police to be bouncers rather than social workers you'll get violence.
Body cams are good but they like any other camera fail often at capturing the context, they work and fail at the same time since even the slightest sign of hostility and lack of cooperation can and is used by the police as justification.
The problem is way beyond what cameras can do, if you train your police to be bouncers rather than social workers you'll get violence.
It's the same effect that mirror has, only opposite. Mirror reminds you "you are visible" when turning camera off tells you "you are invisible".
> In places where they closely followed the instructions (use the camera during each encounter if you’re in a treatment group; don’t use it if you’re in a control group), the results were positive—a 37 percent reduction in use of force on average. But if you allow the treatment group discretion to choose when to turn it on, the result is 71 percent greater use of force. Thus the problem seems to arise mainly when officers are allowed to turn cameras on at times of their own choosing.
And suddenly, Brin's _The Transparent Society_ comes flooding back to memory.
And suddenly, Brin's _The Transparent Society_ comes flooding back to memory.
That quote seems to counter the 'nobody knows why' in the article subtitle.
If it backfires when Police can choose to turn them off that seems to suggest that they act as if having a camera protects them from being questioned. Since they'll likely record video evidence in their favor and just turn it off if they want to use force.
In the case with no camera things would be more balanced (though still skewed toward the police officer's testimony), but selective camera use strongly biases favorably to the police officer.
A camera that's always on should help get closer to the truth for the officer and the suspect.
If it backfires when Police can choose to turn them off that seems to suggest that they act as if having a camera protects them from being questioned. Since they'll likely record video evidence in their favor and just turn it off if they want to use force.
In the case with no camera things would be more balanced (though still skewed toward the police officer's testimony), but selective camera use strongly biases favorably to the police officer.
A camera that's always on should help get closer to the truth for the officer and the suspect.
Here’s where better technology could help. Body cameras could be automatically activated immediately when certain cues are triggered, such as when the officer enters a crime hot spot, leaves a police vehicle, takes out handcuffs or a weapon, turns on the siren, or makes a call for assistance on the radio. This way, the officer doesn’t have to think about activating the body camera in a tense situation.
I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will?
I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will?
This seems to be the most difficult issue with police body cameras, and I wonder whether it's even possible to solve it.
On the one hand, 100% on-time is obviously good for police accountability, and knowledge that the camera is always on is probably good for preventing potential violence against officers. Both of these are good things, and so far the evidence does support them.
On the other hand, there are genuine privacy issues for both officers and those they deal with, and there are plenty of non-threatening situations where I see no good reason to require recording. There are obvious situations like officers visiting the bathroom, where neither they nor anyone else using the facilities need anyone to have a permanent record of doing their business. However, there are also a lot of sensitive situations they might encounter while doing their job. I can hardly imagine what it would feel like to get a visit from police officers saying your child just got killed by a drunk driver, but you certainly don't need a camera in your face at the time making a record of your reaction to be kept on file forever. It's easy to imagine a chilling effect on useful information being volunteered discreetly as well.
On the one hand, 100% on-time is obviously good for police accountability, and knowledge that the camera is always on is probably good for preventing potential violence against officers. Both of these are good things, and so far the evidence does support them.
On the other hand, there are genuine privacy issues for both officers and those they deal with, and there are plenty of non-threatening situations where I see no good reason to require recording. There are obvious situations like officers visiting the bathroom, where neither they nor anyone else using the facilities need anyone to have a permanent record of doing their business. However, there are also a lot of sensitive situations they might encounter while doing their job. I can hardly imagine what it would feel like to get a visit from police officers saying your child just got killed by a drunk driver, but you certainly don't need a camera in your face at the time making a record of your reaction to be kept on file forever. It's easy to imagine a chilling effect on useful information being volunteered discreetly as well.
These are certainly things that need to be balanced, but we already have a system for dealing with sensitive records. I think the ideal system goes like this: recording always on (keep working on battery issues), and anyone can request any video, but the police can ask a judge to withhold video of a sensitive nature.
The trouble with that idea is that some people are increasingly (and IMHO justifiably) skeptical about sensitive records being made or kept in the first place. Merely having some system for managing such records in accordance with whatever rules apply this week is not sufficient to retain the confidence of those people.
There will be mistakes. There will be leaks. There will be abuses. The possibility or likelihood of these things happening will surely have a chilling effect, even if serious problems are rare in practice.
There will be mistakes. There will be leaks. There will be abuses. The possibility or likelihood of these things happening will surely have a chilling effect, even if serious problems are rare in practice.
I used to work for a body worn video manufacturer as an SE.
Your children comments are neglecting the battery cost (it's a lot cheaper to run a camera waiting to record than recording all the time). Device size is important to customers as is how often they'll need to refresh their hardware and both of these things are affected by required recording time.
>I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will? When the government in area mandates the technologies use in an 'always-on' way then this is easy to sell, otherwise you tend to find that the enforcement officers give a lot of resistance to being monitored, it's not because they're doing anything nefarious it's just because people don't like being watched 24/7 and they don't want video evidence of them checking their smart phone (because maybe they shouldn't be) or taking a shit (because who wants someone seeing that?) on the job.
Your children comments are neglecting the battery cost (it's a lot cheaper to run a camera waiting to record than recording all the time). Device size is important to customers as is how often they'll need to refresh their hardware and both of these things are affected by required recording time.
>I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will? When the government in area mandates the technologies use in an 'always-on' way then this is easy to sell, otherwise you tend to find that the enforcement officers give a lot of resistance to being monitored, it's not because they're doing anything nefarious it's just because people don't like being watched 24/7 and they don't want video evidence of them checking their smart phone (because maybe they shouldn't be) or taking a shit (because who wants someone seeing that?) on the job.
Both battery requirements and basic privacy expectations (officers are humans too) deserve some balancing versus the public's interest in always on cameras.
I wonder how much of a middle ground could be reached by turning off-switches into maybe-off-switches or very-very-low-quality switches.
While maybe-off could greatly reduce the "ready for mischief" effect of off switches while keeping much of the battery advantage, I doubt they will bring much relief in terms officer privacy: the great majority of all that toilet/smartphone footage won't ever be reviewed anyway, so reduction by one more stochastical factor won't make much subjective difference.
But low quality is an accepted privacy feature. Think blurred faces etc, it's everywhere. Of course the "nearly off" camera would low-res the whole frame instead of faces and preferably at a not only very low but also jittery frame rate. This could be enough to take the sting out of both battery drain and privacy intrusion, while at the same time yield sufficient information to determine wether the switch has been used in an acceptable deactivation situation or not (e.g out on the street vs at the office). Since this world not only reduce abusive camera deactivation but also make it easier to defend acceptable deactivation, this could even be sold as a plus to both sides.
I wonder how much of a middle ground could be reached by turning off-switches into maybe-off-switches or very-very-low-quality switches.
While maybe-off could greatly reduce the "ready for mischief" effect of off switches while keeping much of the battery advantage, I doubt they will bring much relief in terms officer privacy: the great majority of all that toilet/smartphone footage won't ever be reviewed anyway, so reduction by one more stochastical factor won't make much subjective difference.
But low quality is an accepted privacy feature. Think blurred faces etc, it's everywhere. Of course the "nearly off" camera would low-res the whole frame instead of faces and preferably at a not only very low but also jittery frame rate. This could be enough to take the sting out of both battery drain and privacy intrusion, while at the same time yield sufficient information to determine wether the switch has been used in an acceptable deactivation situation or not (e.g out on the street vs at the office). Since this world not only reduce abusive camera deactivation but also make it easier to defend acceptable deactivation, this could even be sold as a plus to both sides.
Officers are humans, too, and should get intense protection of their privacy whenever they are off duty.
When they're on duty, though, they are acting in the service of the public, not as private citizens. We need to be very careful about letting them have much or any privacy while they're at work. There's just too much opportunity for abuse.
No, I don't think this is unfair. It's certainly no less unfair than when restaurants like Chipotle and Steak n Shake use open kitchens. Having employees do their work in full view of the customers is not very different from requiring police to use body cameras from a privacy-at-work perspective, and is done for much the same reason.
When they're on duty, though, they are acting in the service of the public, not as private citizens. We need to be very careful about letting them have much or any privacy while they're at work. There's just too much opportunity for abuse.
No, I don't think this is unfair. It's certainly no less unfair than when restaurants like Chipotle and Steak n Shake use open kitchens. Having employees do their work in full view of the customers is not very different from requiring police to use body cameras from a privacy-at-work perspective, and is done for much the same reason.
How about always on recording but only a court can authorise viewing?
So if someone has a complaint the video is pulled out and watched, else it goes in a vault and is auto deleted after 60 days.
I'd happily pee while wearing one if that was the case.
So if someone has a complaint the video is pulled out and watched, else it goes in a vault and is auto deleted after 60 days.
I'd happily pee while wearing one if that was the case.
If we start allowing any deletion, police will simply find a way to stall until the deadline is passed. This has happened several times in Seattle with dash cams
I certainly would hate to be watched all the time in my job, I don't see why officers should be.
It seems to me that a compromise can be reached.
Probably the rules already exist about reporting the headquarters when they are starting a police action, you just have to add the requirement to start the camera.
It seems to me that a compromise can be reached.
Probably the rules already exist about reporting the headquarters when they are starting a police action, you just have to add the requirement to start the camera.
Are you provided a firearm, taser, mace, and baton as part of your job? Is your job funded by taxpayer money? Are you expected to be able to deal with stressful situations that could endanger your life daily?
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, I think it's an apple to oranges comparison.
If you answered yes to any of the above questions, I think it's an apple to oranges comparison.
it's a lot cheaper to run a camera waiting to record than recording all the time
That does not mean the decision to run the camera should be in the officers' hands though. It should be possible to design an algorithm that automatically starts and stops recording based on officer location (like "shut off the camera when the officer is facing a car dashboard").
Then there's also the option to continuously record audio, even when video recording is turned off. There's so many better alternatives than "give the police officer discretion over when to hide their actions".
That does not mean the decision to run the camera should be in the officers' hands though. It should be possible to design an algorithm that automatically starts and stops recording based on officer location (like "shut off the camera when the officer is facing a car dashboard").
Then there's also the option to continuously record audio, even when video recording is turned off. There's so many better alternatives than "give the police officer discretion over when to hide their actions".
>it's just because people don't like being watched 24/7
Unless you work at very odd hours, you probably aren't out on the streets 24/7. You are most likely on the streets for 4-6 hours a day, which really isn't that big of a deal. As for checking smartphones, maybe, just maybe, when police are out protecting people they shouldn't be hanging on social media or playing games on their phones? If you don't want to "get caught" using a smart phone, leave it at your locker. About shitting, maybe there could be a mechanism to turn off the camera for few minutes, so you could do your bathroom stuff in private and there really wouldn't be anyway way to abuse it since you'd see from the context of the video what was going on, e.g. if you are approaching a suspect, then video cuts off for a minute and next thing we see is bloodied suspect then obviously the cop should get penalized for that.
Unless you work at very odd hours, you probably aren't out on the streets 24/7. You are most likely on the streets for 4-6 hours a day, which really isn't that big of a deal. As for checking smartphones, maybe, just maybe, when police are out protecting people they shouldn't be hanging on social media or playing games on their phones? If you don't want to "get caught" using a smart phone, leave it at your locker. About shitting, maybe there could be a mechanism to turn off the camera for few minutes, so you could do your bathroom stuff in private and there really wouldn't be anyway way to abuse it since you'd see from the context of the video what was going on, e.g. if you are approaching a suspect, then video cuts off for a minute and next thing we see is bloodied suspect then obviously the cop should get penalized for that.
>social media / games
how about their private email and conversations? police work is very boring at times, lots of waiting. Cant leave a scene until detectives or shift relieve you. were supposed to believe that somebody shouldnt have privacy chatting or using smart phone then?
how about their private email and conversations? police work is very boring at times, lots of waiting. Cant leave a scene until detectives or shift relieve you. were supposed to believe that somebody shouldnt have privacy chatting or using smart phone then?
Comes with the job, there are plenty of other jobs where you can have your smart phone shit
Even with regular working hours, it's not without problems to record everything that happens during the shift on video. Starting with bathroom breaks.
It's not that difficult to take the camera off before going into the bathroom. And if you forget to put it back on after and then some questionable stuff happens afterwards, well, it's going to look very bad.
If you can remember to punch in and out for your shift, you can remember to take the camera off and put it back on around bathroom breaks.
If you can remember to punch in and out for your shift, you can remember to take the camera off and put it back on around bathroom breaks.
And when you take away or turn off the camera at some point, you have the problem that the camera wasn't on when someone thinks it should have been. The policeman is attacked in the bathroom. Or he or she gets an urgent distress call and rushes away and does not have time to fiddle with the camera.
There are no very simple solutions to this, no silver bullet.
There are no very simple solutions to this, no silver bullet.
So what was wrong with the "activate a mechanism (maybe a button) to disable the camera for few minutes"? Then there is no issues like this, unless of course the cop gets attacked in the bathroom, but that's not super likely, so let's not worry about it
Sure there are, there are going to be corner cases no matter how you slice it. But the people with more power should be the people held to a higher standard.
The guy who doesn't have commit access can't be blamed for breaking the build because if someone accepted his pull request without vetting it properly, now that's on them. See how this works? It's straightforward. More power, more responsibility. Don't like that? Don't become a police officer.
There are plenty of existing professions where people get to second guess what you do; doctors and nurses can be sued for malpractice, engineers who stamp drawings can lose their license and more if a building falls down, pilots can easily lose their life if they mess up badly enough.
I don't see how saying "there are SOME bad cops and there's no way to tell a priori who they are so for the sake of public safety everyone has to wear a camera because these incidents are relatively rare and that's the only way to be sure"
The guy who doesn't have commit access can't be blamed for breaking the build because if someone accepted his pull request without vetting it properly, now that's on them. See how this works? It's straightforward. More power, more responsibility. Don't like that? Don't become a police officer.
There are plenty of existing professions where people get to second guess what you do; doctors and nurses can be sued for malpractice, engineers who stamp drawings can lose their license and more if a building falls down, pilots can easily lose their life if they mess up badly enough.
I don't see how saying "there are SOME bad cops and there's no way to tell a priori who they are so for the sake of public safety everyone has to wear a camera because these incidents are relatively rare and that's the only way to be sure"
Nobody is going to view the footage unless there is an incident.
And if there is an incident then probably modesty should not take priority over revelation of the truth surrounding that incident.
And if there is an incident then probably modesty should not take priority over revelation of the truth surrounding that incident.
This is an excellent argument for having surveillance cameras not just with policemen, but in all (e.g.) restaurant bathrooms. Nobody is going to view the footage unless there is an incident.
But do we trust that? No. Do the police unions trust that? No. Do people who happen to be in a bathroom at the same time with a policeman trust that? No.
But do we trust that? No. Do the police unions trust that? No. Do people who happen to be in a bathroom at the same time with a policeman trust that? No.
Personally I wouldn't care if every public/restaurant/whatever bathroom had a camera, why should I? The stalls aren't going to have them, it would just increase over all security and it wouldn't take away any of your privacy, unless you are very weird about people knowing that you too visit the bathroom at times.
Unless you are up to something illegal public cameras shouldn't be an issue in the West where we still have rights to do normal stuff
Unless you are up to something illegal public cameras shouldn't be an issue in the West where we still have rights to do normal stuff
[deleted]
Policemen are public servants who are trusted with use of force in normal society. If they want to keep their privacy they should go and do something else where they don't get to occasionally legally beat up or shoot someone.
Has anyone experimented with turning cameras on when officer heart rate increases? Potentially with a notification sound and a button to explicitly turn it off if this triggers when you're taking a shit.
One of the concerns my local precinct was that body cameras would hamper the right to privacy of the general public.
Always On would mean a task force of moving cameras watching everyone(?)
Always On would mean a task force of moving cameras watching everyone(?)
I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political will?
I think you can easily fit a day's worth of video on an 8GB ssd, so I'd think the problem here is not really technological. Although storing that much video is a pain.
I think you can easily fit a day's worth of video on an 8GB ssd, so I'd think the problem here is not really technological. Although storing that much video is a pain.
Might battery the more limited resource when it comes to body cameras? After all, given that these are mounted on someone who has a job to do, they have to be pretty small/light and batteries for always-on devices that last that long tend to be pretty big.
>I think you can easily fit a day's worth of video on an 8GB ssd
I'm not a video expert but 8GB seems drastically inadequate for meaningful resolution / frame rate. I estimate roughly 291 Kbps which does allow you much resolution / frame rate.
I'm not a video expert but 8GB seems drastically inadequate for meaningful resolution / frame rate. I estimate roughly 291 Kbps which does allow you much resolution / frame rate.
[deleted]
Let's simply take what Netflix recommends: 3 megabit / second for HD video, that means 32GB for 24 hours. Not too bad given you can get a 32GB microSD for below $10.
Netflix gets to squeeze and optimize in advance, once, for hopefully many hundreds of thousands of streamings.
Police body cameras are going to be a lot more like the dash came I recently installed for a trip. 1080p at 30FPS and slightly blurry gets me about 5 hours to a 32 'billion byte' uSDHC card.
That isn't so bad, you can fit a normal shift in to a 64 GByte space, and if you double that up again you'd get almost a whole day's worth of time.
The battery is an issue for sure, but then again Police already come equipped with a belt that has a lot of other stuff, and are usually deployed with a moving vehicle OR are stationed in an area where they will have a regular chance to return to a break room (which is where a natural battery swap would occur).
Police body cameras are going to be a lot more like the dash came I recently installed for a trip. 1080p at 30FPS and slightly blurry gets me about 5 hours to a 32 'billion byte' uSDHC card.
That isn't so bad, you can fit a normal shift in to a 64 GByte space, and if you double that up again you'd get almost a whole day's worth of time.
The battery is an issue for sure, but then again Police already come equipped with a belt that has a lot of other stuff, and are usually deployed with a moving vehicle OR are stationed in an area where they will have a regular chance to return to a break room (which is where a natural battery swap would occur).
It's probably hard to close a sale if they can't be deactivated on demand.
There's an interactive piece from the New York Times that discusses this same idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-body...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-body...
Killing someone is more serious than tampering with evidence.
If it is claimed (and it is) that police officers sometimes kill people and get away with it, it's easy to conclude that they can also get away with tampering with evidence.
Therefore, I believe it's easy to conclude that body cameras will do nothing at all to curb the instances of police getting away with killing people.
Get ready for "malfunctioning and/or obstructed" cameras.
If it is claimed (and it is) that police officers sometimes kill people and get away with it, it's easy to conclude that they can also get away with tampering with evidence.
Therefore, I believe it's easy to conclude that body cameras will do nothing at all to curb the instances of police getting away with killing people.
Get ready for "malfunctioning and/or obstructed" cameras.
If you, as a police officer, are in court because somebody died in an altercation with you, and the camera was obstructed/destroyed, and there are any eyewitnesses at all that will testify to your bad behaviour, you are toast.
Most juries will assume you destroyed evidence out of malice, and the prosecution will go for that.
Most juries will assume you destroyed evidence out of malice, and the prosecution will go for that.
Do you have any examples of this happening? Because there are multiple examples of the opposite. The boy shot in Ohio with the toy gun is one, off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more.
Not when prosecution is a collegial DA who uses the missing video as a lack of evidence and declines to press charges.
>Get ready for "malfunctioning and/or obstructed" cameras.
This is sadly already happening.
https://www.google.com/#q=police+turn+off+body+camera
This is sadly already happening.
https://www.google.com/#q=police+turn+off+body+camera
That sounds rather defeatist, not to mention contradictory to the evidence presented by the article.
There are videos of police murdering people taken by police car dash cams. It seems they're not 100% effective at hiding the footage.
I agree with you, but isn't this more of a problem with the implementation of body cameras, rather than the idea itself? Normally these sorts of places create bureaucratic systems to enforce common practise and a set of standards, which can be easily circumnavigated if you know the right people. I don't see why the police department can't create a system which requires police to have functioning body cameras, and use software and hardware to enforce it properly, rather than just relying on trust.
It depends on whether the cameras are just for show (like most CCTV cameras) or whether the authorities actually care. In the Rialto experiment, the police chief was running the experiment as he was doing his master's degree with a prestigious university.
In places with a long and proud history of police brutality, with a tradition of covering it up at the top levels, the cameras are going to be bought just for show. Soon after officers will realize this and go back to their old ways.
In places with a long and proud history of police brutality, with a tradition of covering it up at the top levels, the cameras are going to be bought just for show. Soon after officers will realize this and go back to their old ways.
Bodycam rules:
- Footage where a only a small portion of the siltation is visible should be taken with a serious grain of salt. - They only work properly when you have 2 cops: there has to be one "recording" from a distance, at an objective angle. - Bodycams should not have an off function. If it was off or disabled somehow, this should reduce the police its credibility to probably below the defended.
- Footage where a only a small portion of the siltation is visible should be taken with a serious grain of salt. - They only work properly when you have 2 cops: there has to be one "recording" from a distance, at an objective angle. - Bodycams should not have an off function. If it was off or disabled somehow, this should reduce the police its credibility to probably below the defended.
It bothers me that those cameras aren't self-centering on the horizon line. So much of the footage is of the wearer's feet or (if they're fat) the sky.
A: We don't know, and the number of self interested parties pushing them will make it difficult to tell.
Everyone from Microsoft to various attorneys and activists are drooling over these things, because the one thing that is certain is that they will generate lots of revenue and create lots of litigation.
Everyone from Microsoft to various attorneys and activists are drooling over these things, because the one thing that is certain is that they will generate lots of revenue and create lots of litigation.
How are the cameras going to create more litigation? It seems to me that the officers would welcome evidence that would protect them from false accusations... although, as it is now they already have the advantage in a he-said-she-said situation. I can imagine that is an advantage that one would want to keep. They also have the opportunity to demonstrate how all the militarization is justified, or at the very least flood the media with footage of righteous kills in order to counter the latest story of somebody getting shot who shouldn't have been shot.
Most litigation isn't about people wrongfully killed or injured (which is pretty rare) -- it's about things like employee disputes, time abuse, workers compensation and other, less exciting things.
I think this article overlooks the multitude of benefits of body cameras. Sure, according to some research they may not reduce violence. But reducing he-said she-said situations can make a much better legal situation.
Future Americans will look back on this era were police are judge, jury, and executioner and say "what a primitive and violent society we once were".
Future Americans will, I hope, look back and say, what primitive and violent people the police had to deal with. Fortunately we today in the 22nd Century provide excellent education and intervention services for children at risk, so that they don't grow up to become criminals.
more like. "wow we figured out how to detect and rewire malevolent brain dysfunction through technology, so police were no longer needed."
Even when police have body cameras in the US, there are many problematic policies with them. Here's a short primer: http://www.joincampaignzero.org/film-the-police/
Personal highlights: footage should not be under the control of the force, and officers should not be permitted to review it before giving statements.
Personal highlights: footage should not be under the control of the force, and officers should not be permitted to review it before giving statements.
I bet the failure rates on these things are incredibly high!
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160127/archer-heights/what... Chicago Police do have a hight audio failure rate
[deleted]
Politicians and legislators should be the ones wearing body cameras.
Human ingenuity will figure out a way to have it record in a way that doesnt incriminate the police officer.
I find the interoperation problems of software alarming - you would think open source tools would grow in use at some point, even if just the basics (ie: postgres/postgis, or tools dumping csv out to other tools, or one or two REST apis).
If they reduce even one case of potential police brutality, then they work.
That's only valid if they also don't result in police avoiding confrontations with bad characters.
Body cams as a required accessory for police work is a terrible idea that will have very bad unintended consequences.
The very notion that you need to be monitored constantly during your shift to ensure you behave as you were trained to is demeaning and insulting.
We trust LEO's to carry loaded guns, mace, tasers, and other weaponry, and we expect them to risk their lives in the line of work, yet we also don't trust them enough to do their jobs honestly and professionally.
If we can't trust our law enforcement personnel to do their jobs without constant video surveillance, sometimes under very difficult circumstances amidst a hostile civilian population for example in the ghetto areas, then we basically can't trust them at all and should find a different model for controlling (or ignoring) criminal behavior.
The ongoing slowdown in police activity in the ghetto areas of Baltimore, Chicago, etc., and the accompanying uptick in violent crime should be a sobering indication of what's in store if we tell our police, "We don't trust you and we blame you if anything goes wrong, now get out there and risk your lives for us."
Put yourself in their shoes and think on this. "I'm honest, I have no reason to oppose video," you may claim from your safe, suburban sofa. But get out on the streets and deal with some of the tough customers they have to deal with, then let's hear how nice and proper you are. These characters only respect strength. If the police are hobbled and limited, they'll just laugh at them.
I prefer the Giuliani model of police administration. Back the police force, give them the authority to stop and frisk, to pick people up for loitering or breaking windows (the "Broken Window" policy), to establish total control on the streets. Then the criminal element will be cowed and subdued, and the police will be confident and enthusiastic, and this whole issue of police feeling they have to overcompensate and work around the laws will go away because they'll be working with the community, working with the government toward the same goals.
The very notion that you need to be monitored constantly during your shift to ensure you behave as you were trained to is demeaning and insulting.
We trust LEO's to carry loaded guns, mace, tasers, and other weaponry, and we expect them to risk their lives in the line of work, yet we also don't trust them enough to do their jobs honestly and professionally.
If we can't trust our law enforcement personnel to do their jobs without constant video surveillance, sometimes under very difficult circumstances amidst a hostile civilian population for example in the ghetto areas, then we basically can't trust them at all and should find a different model for controlling (or ignoring) criminal behavior.
The ongoing slowdown in police activity in the ghetto areas of Baltimore, Chicago, etc., and the accompanying uptick in violent crime should be a sobering indication of what's in store if we tell our police, "We don't trust you and we blame you if anything goes wrong, now get out there and risk your lives for us."
Put yourself in their shoes and think on this. "I'm honest, I have no reason to oppose video," you may claim from your safe, suburban sofa. But get out on the streets and deal with some of the tough customers they have to deal with, then let's hear how nice and proper you are. These characters only respect strength. If the police are hobbled and limited, they'll just laugh at them.
I prefer the Giuliani model of police administration. Back the police force, give them the authority to stop and frisk, to pick people up for loitering or breaking windows (the "Broken Window" policy), to establish total control on the streets. Then the criminal element will be cowed and subdued, and the police will be confident and enthusiastic, and this whole issue of police feeling they have to overcompensate and work around the laws will go away because they'll be working with the community, working with the government toward the same goals.
The police have created an environment where the people on the street know they are going to come in with overwhelming force.
The police have created an environment where everyone fears any interaction with the police because if the officer is scared they can and will kill you.
With no consequences for the police.
The police turn on the cameras and expect people to suddenly forget the above. Wont happen.
Paybacks on the police will be taken by certain individuals if they are given a chance.
Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at all times when they are working. If a cop is carrying his weapon he isn't off duty and should have his camera running.
The police have created an environment where everyone fears any interaction with the police because if the officer is scared they can and will kill you.
With no consequences for the police.
The police turn on the cameras and expect people to suddenly forget the above. Wont happen.
Paybacks on the police will be taken by certain individuals if they are given a chance.
Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at all times when they are working. If a cop is carrying his weapon he isn't off duty and should have his camera running.
"Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at all times when they are working."
Fine, but be prepared for the first-person video of me taking a piss in some conveniently placed foliage because I'm on a mail route with no bathrooms.
Fine, but be prepared for the first-person video of me taking a piss in some conveniently placed foliage because I'm on a mail route with no bathrooms.
well... im assuming you are more showered than the homeless bum i have to walk around pissing on market street most mornings ?
It would be a HIPAA/data retention nightmare for certain classes of public servants (namely public EMS services)
If I have to choose prior to an encounter "do I want this camera on?" and I choose "no", I have just reminded myself that I can act with impunity. I have just called to my own attention all the things I can get away with because no one will see it. Not only that, but I have also made a small conscious choice to defend myself from scrutiny. Which to me, seems like a small psychological commitment towards doing something bad.