DVRs for Cop Cars

AEton writes "News.com is reporting that IBM is developing digital video recorders for cop cars. The systems involve a digital video camera and reusable hard drives which police officers will take with them on their shifts; centralized servers with up to 3.5 TB of storage will hold recordings. The cameras continuously record and cache old video in a "Tivo-like" fashion; tapes will start from three to five minutes before the cop turned on the recorder. Unbiased, high-quality recording could have a compelling social effect; and at the very least, we're headed for HDTV Cops."

Comments

Einstein would be impressed.

[coupland]

"The cameras continuously record and cache old video in a Tivo-like fashion; tapes will start from three to five minutes before the cop turned on the recorder."

Not sure I understand, this means that after you press "record", the DVR travels three to five minutes backward in time and catches you in the loo a few minutes prior? Surely the video would spool to disk 3 to 5 minutes after it was recorded. Maybe I can use one of these after I get pulled over for speeding to travel back in time and brake in advance...

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Aviancer]

An interesting concept, but no.. what they're pointing out is that the video would be run ALL THE TIME, and discarded after 5 minutes. When the cop presses "record" the machine would save the video from 5 minutes before the record button was pressed in addition to all the current video until the "stop recording" command is sent.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[mjgamble]

Or it means that it is always recording a la Tivo and when you press record it starts the spooling to file from the beginning of the buffer.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Xentax]

Um, it sounds like the *central* tape will start from 3-5 minutes before the cop "actually" turns recording on -- just so they make sure they get a bit more than just what the cop feels like needs to be seen.

I don't really think this is a keep-the-cop-honest feature, because there are much better ways to go about it than that. I think it's just to help establish the context in which the cop used the recorder.

Xentax

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[pivo]

You obviously haven't seen TiVo. It's constantly recording the current channel, you can rewind even without explicitly pressing record. These would apparently work the same.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

It means that video is continuously recorded, with the oldest video overwritten, and that when you press "record", you don't really start recording. Instead, you just mark a spot in the video stream, and the software takes the time three (or five) minutes previously as the "start" time. Those video bits wouldn't then get recycled.

Makes sense. You're only going to hit "record" after figuring out something interesting is going on, and you can't hit the button immediately.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[coupland]

You are right, it took me a while to figure that out. People should MOD down the original. But question: Why only spool 5 minutes, why not keep an endless loop? If the drive will hold (for example) 3 hours of footage, always have 3 hours spooled and when the disk is full delete the oldest?

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[gwernol]

Not sure I understand, this means that after you press "record", the DVR travels three to five minutes backward in time and catches you in the loo a few minutes prior? Surely the video would spool to disk 3 to 5 minutes after it was recorded. Maybe I can use one of these after I get pulled over for speeding to travel back in time and brake in advance...

Basically the box will be continually recording into a looped buffer. When you hit the record button it will retrive the last 5 minutes from the buffer and archive that plus everything from the moment you hit record onwards. So you get the minutes before the button is hit as well as everything afterwards.

This is similar to the way TiVo works - it is continually recording TV into a 20 minute looped buffer (until you switch channels) so you can actually "rewind" to a point before you started watching a program.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[JahToasted]

You arrest some idiot at the beginning of your shift and then three hours later its deleted. Later the idiot cries "police brutality" and you only have a recording of your coffe break. See the problem?

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[The_K4]

Why not put in a HDD big enough for a WHOLE shift? Then make the drives external and changeable, at the start of a shift the cops insert the drive. It records the whole shift (including all radio traffic). At the end of the shift the WHOLE thing is stored somewhere. This could be seen as a bit of envasion of privacy, but could also protect them in court. There's no way that could really "edit" the tape with it showing.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[fernd1]

I think what he means is there is a continuously running cache of video. The trouble is how to sort through the useful video and the useless video. They wouldn't want video of a cop's four or five trips to the donut shop. That being said, a cop may not realize that something important is happening until three or five minutes after it has happened. Thus, technology comes to the rescue of our poor little piggy's a$$. You see, the video is already recorded, so while our little piggy dozes, the ever-vigilant camera records what is going on. All our protagonist, or should I say antagonist, has to do is press a little button and the last 5 minutes are pulled off of the cache and placed onto permanent storage, and simultaneously the system starts recording the live feed. Soon, they will be installing cameras in our home, and whenever the feel that we are in violation of whatever ridiculous law they pass next, they can come into our home and press a button and record the last 24 hours of our life onto permanent storage. Ah... Ain't it wonderful to live in a police state. 1984 here we come.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Eccles]

But question: Why only spool 5 minutes, why not keep an endless loop?

Could 5 minutes be stored in RAM? Less wear and tear on the hard drive if you only use it for actual recordings.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[ichimunki]

No need to mod down the original, it was actually kind of funny. :)

Why not keep more on the spool? Probably they will decide at some point to do so if five minutes or three minutes or whatever is deemed insufficient. But you don't really want to run your disk at always-maxed-out, I don't think. Especially since the amount of space available for spooling would grow smaller as you recorded. That's just a whole set of bugs waiting to find their way into code. Your code would have to account for the changing spool size during a shift. It would also make it harder to determine how much space is left on the device... and in fact, if you pressed record and it saved all three hours, how would you record the rest of the incident?

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[mmol_6453]

Why not? That's a lot of video. It'll eventually have to be lossless, thanks to the lawsuit-happy nature of the legal system, which means it'll be harder to compress. There'd also be too much labor involved in cutting out all the irrelevant video data.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[mmol_6453]

It's going to lead to interesting legal battles. Sure you can circumstantial video to bolster your case, but can you use it as your primary weapon?

I only say circumstantial because the recording was made while the officer didn't consider it important/wasn't paying attention.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking idiot.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[shepd]

>I only say circumstantial because the recording was made while the officer didn't consider it important/wasn't paying attention.

I dunno. I think it'll be treated like CCTV at your local mini-mart. All those cameras recording in the shops you visit, few, if any, actually have people paying attention to them during the crimes, yet the evidence is still considered quite strong.

What WILL be interesting is if the entire cache can be requested by those being arrested. The cop might only transfer the last three minutes to permanent storage if, say, he screws up your miranda rights or something at minus four minutes.

It shouldn't be minutes, it should be an entire hour previous, and it shouldn't be modifiable by the police.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[broller]

If the cop hit record when he started the shift then it should record the entire shift (plus five minutes!) But I doubt they've thought of that, so I wonder what will happen when the hard drive gets full in the middle of a bust.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[mmol_6453]

Who can you trust if you can't trust the government?

Seriously, though, I think you're right. If the transfer process isn't completely automated, then the occasionaly black-hat officer is going to erase his mess-ups.

Even if it is automated, the officer can do things like stand with his back to the camera (if circumstances allow) or obstruct the microphone. That's Darwin's evolution for you.

If, however, the hard drive is destroyed under mysterious circumstances, then the arrested individual has an excellent oppertunity to place doubt on the reputation of the officer who arrested him.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[hesiod]

> Soon, they will be installing cameras in our home
> Ain't it wonderful to live in a police state

You are an idiot and need a better handle on life, methinks. Please stop thinking your life is all that meaningful to the police/guv, it isn't. As long as you don't make waves, they'll leave you alone. There will not be a time like 1984, get used to it. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a statment of the future. Orwell's a great writer, but that doesn't mean he's correct.

And that Police State bullshit should be insulting to people who actually live in places more like 1984. If you are living in fear for your life every day from the government, then you can say you live in a police state. If you live in the U.S. and think that you live in a police state, you have probably never been out of your time zone, let alone your country. And definitely not to a third world country. If you have been to third world countries and still say this, then maybe you should reconsider your priorities.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[droidd]

In the area where I live the recorder automatically starts when the cop turns on his overhead lights and or siren and stays recording both audio and video of the events along with the radio traffic until the turn off the overhead lights.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

And we could store it all on those inexpensive 1,000,000 Terabyte storage devices.

Obviously at this point it is only feasable to store the video needed.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[fernd1]

Let's see... Thanks for calling me an idiot. :> You also wouldn't know sarcasm if it fell in your lap. I have been outside my time zone and overseas. The point that you that you make about third world countries is moot because there is no comparison between a third world country and a police state. Yes, third world countries may have corrupted government, and yes the living conditions in a third world country may be deplorable, but they will never have the resources to completely monitor and control their citizens. The fact that 1984 was fiction is also irrelevant, yes the situation is far fetched; however, it brings to light issues that are relevant to the deployment and use of DVR by the police. So... let's count the failures: 1. Failing to recognize sarcasm, 2. Assuming what I have done and where I have been, 3. Failing to recognize that a comparison to work of fiction would allow deeper insight into the situation. We could go on, but I think there is no need. So, who is the idiot, indeed? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quite to react in a condemning manner next time. I was just trying to use sarcasm to highlight some points that I thought were worth highlighting.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be seen as a bit of envasion of privacy, but could also protect them in court.

Public servants, while on duty, should not have any right to privacy (other than things like toilet breaks, but who's going to carry a DVR with them while they take a shit?). Everything they do while representing the police force should be a matter of public record.

And for the people whinging about terabyte storage devices - fuck off. A shift is only 8-10 hours long, you could easily store that at DVD quality on an 80Gb HDD. You would need some sort of compression, but if a regular 4.5Gb DVD can hold 2 hours of beautifully crisp video, a large HDD can easily handle 8-10 hours.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Fat Casper]

If you live in the U.S. and think that you live in a police state, you have probably never been out of your time zone, let alone your country.

If you think the US isn't getting way too close to being a police state, then you haven't read the document from which the government derives its authority, the Constitution. Call me a snob if you will, but I'm not from some third world shithole with a government that keeps itself in power by force. I'm from a country that kicked out the British Empire and founded a government filled with safeguards to protect themselves from it. Having been raised to believe I have certain rights, I won't apologise for grudging any loss of them, however minor they may seem to someone unlucky enough to have been born somewhere else.

I don't mean to sound like one of those jackasses who wants us to bring "freedom" to the rest of the world. I've never been to the third world, and don't plan on it. I see enough footage on CNN. If they want freedom, they can take it for themselves. I'll limit myself to moral, and maybe financial support. I know I'm lucky to have been born here; I'll freely admit that. Relativism be damned- I'll fight harder against a slighter government intrusion than it seems most of the world is willing to fight against more blatant (what you would call real) intrusions.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[ReTay]

"As long as you don't make waves, they'll leave you alone. There will not be a time like 1984, get used to it."

Do you realize the deep irony of that statement?
The only reason you had to look out in 1984 was if you made waves.
On second thought your right it is all ready here.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there 20 Gb memory chips these days?

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[dbrutus]

I'm guessing that the problem is at the server end. 365 days * 3 years * number of police on duty at any one time equals a very expensive solution. Keep the idea on file though and in 10 years it will probably become reality.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[rhuntley12]

Good idea, but with all the states in budget crisis, can we really afford things like this? Idaho's sales tax had to go up, they are taxing cigarettes more(thank god I don't smoke, just drink), and I believe laid off a ton of police not long ago...But all our cop cars have state of the art laptops! Hmm, maybe this is why the whole freeway in boise is "under construction" for the last year, on the main connector to downtown, yet there has not been a single thing done, other then laying down cement barriers and cones...Offtopic but I think I know why theres always cops on there too with radars, I bet they love the double fines.... Holy ramble

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[buck_wild]

Personally, with all the negative press the police have experienced, I think there should be NO option to turn recording off.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[SEWilco]

You forgot the wireless camera which each officer would wear, requiring twice as much storage if it's a two-man car (or a K-9 car). More if the car has several cameras pointing in all directions to record all the stupidity that the officer sees through any window or mirror.

Some of the cost could be offset by the sponsorships by AllPoliceVideoAllTheTime.Com and The COPS Channel. (Be sure to tell your TiVo to record "All Shows Within Six Blocks Of My House".)

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[The_dev0]

who's going to carry a DVR with them while they take a shit?

I take it you haven't had the pleasure of clicking on a tubgirl link lately...

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[devilspgd]

It's no different then the current system, all this suggestion was intended to do was extend the record buffer from 3-5 minutes to the maximum available free space (3 hours was used as an example)

I've always wondered why my PVR only lets me scroll back up to an hour when I actually have significantly longer then 1 hour available on the drive. Granted, it would be rare that I'd go back more then an hour, but it just feels like a limit for the sake of a limit, rather then a limit for any practical purpose. Same concept as voicemail limiting the amount of time you can store a message -- WHY??? Limit the size of the mailbox (Number of messages, total number of minutes, whatever), but what's the problem if I want to save a message for the next 10 years?

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[hesiod]

> The only reason you had to look out in 1984 was if you made waves

Oh, please. The "waves" in 1984 included using the wrong toothbrush -- I guess I just have a slightly better grasp on reality than you.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[hesiod]

> I was just trying to use sarcasm

There are flawed thoughts on both sides -- I'll leave those out since they don't matter, now that you have made this distinction. Usually, the usage of sarcasm is presented as a very over-the-top statement with wild conclusions. While I thought it was over-the-top, I noticed that you didn't seem to think so, therefore it didn't look like sarcasm.

Re:Einstein would be impressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably be harder to work - you'd be unlikely to want anything further back than 5 minutes before you realised there was a crime (probably rarely more than a few seconds). Saving more would mostly then be just wasting space.

It also reduces how much space you might have left, if the recording has to run for a while, or you're going after a few different crimes during the shift. If you saved the whole 3 hours then that'd fill the disk immediately. If not, you'd have to review the tape and work out what needs to be kept during the shift, hardly the best use of police time.

Excellent idea...

[xinit]

If you believe the paranoids, this will make it ever easier to generate evidence on the fly, without havingt o go to the extra step of encoding all that raw tape.

Re:Excellent idea...

[einer]

Which is why DRM is NOT a "bad" technology. It would make the above scenario impossible.

Re:Excellent idea...

[Eraser_]

Remember though, if those who control the keys are in on the conspiracy, then the evidence can still be generated.

Re:Excellent idea...

[WNight]

DRM is irrelevant. Simply signing the video as it was produced would be sufficient. All you get from DRM is a police officer with a useless PC. The video is already protected.

Sweet.

[grub]

There'll be a black market for geeks to hack these things so the cops can switch them off and not be caught hitting on hookers for "favours".

Re:Sweet.

[ackthpt]

There'll be a black market for geeks to hack these things so the cops can switch them off and not be caught hitting on hookers for "favours".

Yeah, well, if the system is built in such a way as there's a checksum value for the recording sent and stored at a separate location, this could be impossible to do. Modifying a tape signature is one thing, making it match an unknown quantity at a verification/validation site, which logs hits, could make such a thing beyond possibility. More like, "Clancy, now did ye fergit to take the lens cap off again?"

I can easily think of pros and cons for this, keep cops honest, but also reveal behaviour before of jury of how a person behaved during the arrest "I wuz a model poison durn my arrest, yerronner. The video o' me cuss'n an swingin' a bat wuz me evil twin Skippy!" Cons of course, some video may not be useable until after a person has been read their amended rights, "You have the right to stand still, behave and remain silent..."

The major downside is probably more video of people at their utter worst prior to and during arrest, a la Cops, "We've got another messy one here, Sarge, seems the guy tried to cut in line for the Matrix:Reloaded"

Re:Sweet.

[Soko]

There'll be a black market for geeks to hack these things so the cops can switch them off and not be caught hitting on hookers for "favours".

What? Some smart person would make them leave it on, so the boys in blue get a new revenue source. Internet pr0n generates lots of cash...

Come to think of it, there's lots of way they could reduce the tax burden that way.

- www.Rate-A-Ho.com
- www.Catch-your-hubby-in-the-act.org
- www.How-does-my-college-age-daughter-get-her-$BLIN G$.biz
- www.Hugh-Grant-up-close-and-personal.net

Soko

Re:Sweet.

[mmol_6453]

I've got a story:

A friend of mine saw a cop car on an offramp from the freeway, with his hazard lights on. He pulled over behind him and asked if he could help. The cop had pulled over because his in-car computer wasn't working.

My friend got it working, and bid the cop farewell. The cop wrote him a ticket for parking on an offramp.

My friend, being a tolerant guy, explained to the cop that there was one last thing he had to do to keep the laptop from breaking again...so he set it to self-analyze for 120 million hours--roughly four years. That model couldn't be easily rebooted...

Re:Sweet.

[randyest]

The major downside is probably more video of people at their utter worst prior to and during arrest, a la Cops

er, and how is this a downside? video of people at their utter worst is great entertainment. cops is the most enjoyable when the people are most insane. Psychoanalyze if you must, but I like it.

Re:Sweet.

[gpinzone]

You sir, are full of shit.

Re:Sweet.

[mmol_6453]

You have to look at it from the perspective of an eleven-year-old, which is how old I was when he told me. :) I've since learned enough to understand why it's unlikely, but what the hell..It's still got a funny theme.

You don't tell someone they're full of shit when they tell "The Three Billy Goats 'Gruff'" do you? It's kindof a tech-support fairy tale.

Will this be used fairly...

[Gortbusters.org]

Or can cops turn it off when they wanna go Rodney King on someone's ass

Re:Will this be used fairly...

[x1l]

no, they can just do it behind the cruiser, and put a sock on the mic.

Re:Will this be used fairly...

[DNS-and-BIND]

As a matter of fact, typically these video systems are used in the opposite manner, when people (or groups whose agendas require police brutality in order to advance) make false claims. The videos then refute the perjured testimony.

Also, our police chase shows will have much better quality, which can only be an improvement.

Re:Will this be used fairly...

[nharmon]

Actually, many law enforcement agencies do not give patrol officers authority to stop/rewind/eject media used in video recordings. In fact, I can name a few agencies where it's an evidence technician who takes the tapes from the vehicles, and signs them in.

There is a chain of custody involved, and it's best to keep that list as short as possible.

Re:Will this be used fairly...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have authority to beat up blacks but that doesn't stop them all.

We Need Good Watermarking

[AlabamaMike]

It strikes me that a really good watermarking technology is needed before this type of technology will be truly trustworthy. Imagine a Rodney King scenario, but since the cops have it on digital video they could "edit in" some attack footage before the beating starts. Call me paranoid, but it would be possible.
A.M.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Pharmboy]

It strikes me that a really good watermarking technology is needed before this type of technology will be truly trustworthy. Imagine a Rodney King scenario, but since the cops have it on digital video they could "edit in" some attack footage before the beating starts. Call me paranoid, but it would be possible.

It would be pretty damn hard to 'edit in' the person striking first, but there is an easier way. The cops can just carry a bulk tape eraser and a power inverter for the cig lighter, then wipe out the hard drive after they get midevil on someone's ass. Or a 5# speaker magnet. That should cook the hard drive if used properly. Then just say "I dunno what happened to the system, it should be there to prove I didn't do anything".

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[NanoGator]

"Imagine a Rodney King scenario, but since the cops have it on digital video they could "edit in" some attack footage before the beating starts. Call me paranoid, but it would be possible. "

Paranoid. :)

First off, if you do the math, it's about 700 megs per hour of footage, as opposed the 13 gig it'd take to losslessly compress it. In order to edit somebody in, the video'd have to be recompressed, and that would be noticable upon analysis.

Secondly, it is *very* hard to digitally add/replace somebody in a video. Professional studios have difficulty doing thing, it's inconcievable that the police could cover something up that way. They wouldn't have the talent on their own and the money needed to do it enough to not raise eyebrows would raise eyebrows.

It'd actually be easier to pull that off with plain old VHS camcorders. You can duplicate them without too much quality loss. (Or at least noticable.) The video's lower res and fuzzier so it'd be easy to mask effects. The higher the resolution and color accuracy of video, the harder it is to satisfactorally match it.

I wouldn't worry.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[nate nice]

That's my fear too. For most things this wouldn't happen...but with DV editing getting more and more advanced it may become impossible to tell if something is real or an edit. Let's happen to say you're a political activist the government is after you....all they have to do is make aa tape like this and it's over.

I hope we never become so reliant on technology like this we refuse to use common sense. Many unforseen dangers may lye ahead for us.

At the same time, perhaps this video will show some of the police brutality that goes on, and it is a lot. I understand they have a stressful, dangerous job and they have to always believe the person they are after could pose a deadly threat to them, but once apprehanded the *suspect* should be treated with dignity, regardless of their behavior directed at an officer. It's cowardly of police officers to kick, puch, spit upon or what ever else they may do to someone in cufts.

Luckily, most cops are "good cops" and are only trying to do a service...but, has anyone ever put out a report on the "gang mentality" of cops? The Gang Mentality is an ongoing sociology reseacrh topic, but it seems cops get in trouble when they are in groups and that group mentality kicks in.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[tuffy]

It strikes me that a really good watermarking technology is needed before this type of technology will be truly trustworthy. Imagine a Rodney King scenario, but since the cops have it on digital video they could "edit in" some attack footage before the beating starts. Call me paranoid, but it would be possible.

Wouldn't it be easier for the cops to simply not record the offending event in the first place? In the case of Rodney King, it was a third party recording that got them into trouble. Though on occasion cops have been known to be caught by their own cameras, it's unlikely one that stupid is going to do much digital video editing to cover up their misdeeds.

Besides, it's not as if tapes are immune to editing (digital or otherwise) either.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[mikeage]

What would be even better is if they had the footage of Rodney King at all of his criminal convictions, or maybe how he was drinking that night, or maybe as the police tried to subdue him using pepper spray and stun guns...

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably much harder to actually do the edit than convince a juror that there's some infinitesimal chance that the tape was edited...watermarking would be an additional assurance for legal purposes.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming the system will be similar to the digital systems for banks already in use (and the quality is amazing), there is a time base code on the frames which includes a crc sum of the frame, making editing without detection extremely difcult.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[DNS-and-BIND]

Funny the Rodney King scenario is mentioned...of course we all know that Rodney King attacked the police, who then delivered the beating. We all know this, right? It's what really happened.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

What would have been even better is if they beat him harder.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[einer]

It strikes me that a really good watermarking technology is needed before this type of technology will be truly trustworthy.

Or good DRM.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

What "we all know" is that the beating continued after he was motionless on the ground, hence the need for the video evidence of police misconduct. How it started is irrelevant.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[theonetruekeebler]

If you have a freshly erased videotape and a freshly beaten-to-death handcuffed suspect on the ground in front of you, you're going to have a difficult time explaining that particular coincidence.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[afidel]

Sorry, won't work. The data can and WILL be retrieved if tampering is suspected. Anything short of physical destruction leaves the data fairly easily recoverable if you have the right equipment. I doubt any decent defense attourney would fail to have the disk sent out to a data recovery service if tampering is suspected.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[gurps_npc]

more importantly, it is EASY to convince some fellow cops to protect you. It is VERY difficult to convince someone with that good computer skills not to squeal to the Press.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[kinnell]

The only reason there was a Rodney King video was because some passer by with a video camera took the recording without the police noticing. Analogue video tape would be just as easy to get rid of as digital video, and faking analogue video is no more difficult than faking digital video - just record the fake digital video using your VCR.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yup, it's ignorance and arrogance just like this that keeps the truth from coming out, and results in situations like the Blair scandal. "We don't need to know" is an awful way to think.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[LittleGuy]

Imagine a Rodney King scenario, but since the cops have it on digital video they could "edit in" some attack footage before the beating starts.

Like the Butcher of Bakersfield?

Hollywood aside, technology's there to fool it, depending how sophisticated and corrupt said police force wants to be. But I can't see a your ordinary Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane with a limited budget to have the ability to produce and sustain fraud on the order of the Cyprus Recordings.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Realistic_Dragon]

"In order to edit somebody in, the video'd have to be recompressed, and that would be noticable upon analysis."

Because of the way the quantizer _probably_ works (depends on the comrepssion method) you may as well just hang a guilty sign around your neck. It's pretty easy to pick up image areas where the recompression algorythm has picked a different set of pixels to group than the original encoding, as it causes a distinctive visual artifact.

"It'd actually be easier to pull that off with plain old VHS camcorders."

It's much harder than you would think - very few editing systems can transfer video with no spectrum clipping, and even then the ammount of data you can pull up with a decent analyzer is pretty impressive. (Particularly by looking at the frequencies present in shadows from one frame to the next.)

The guys they have working in video analysis labs are very good at this kind of thing, and faking a video that could fool them is hard enough without them being able to lay their hands on the original kit - once they have the lens available to map with a laser as well as the code to the compression algorythm then even Pixar or ILM couldn't pout together something that would fool them.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[SirGeek]

First off, if you do the math, it's about 700 megs per hour of footage, as opposed the 13 gig it'd take to losslessly compress it. In order to edit somebody in, the video'd have to be recompressed, and that would be noticable upon analysis.

Ok.. Why not have trunk mounted 8 CD CD-Burners ? Each hour is burned to CD media and then at the end of the shift, the "technician" takes the 8 CD's and burns them onto a DVD, the CD's are then destroyed and the DVD placed into "evidence" ?

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Pharmboy]

you should read the article. its about digital recording. on a hard drive. if you magnatize the hard drive, it quites reading, the head wants to stick to the platters, thus its "a bad drive".

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Pharmboy]

so, you saying if you take a magnet, and scramble a device that uses magnatism to store info, the info will still be there?

I dont think so. It will scramble all the bits to random values (0s and 1s, on and off), and can cause the head to scratch the platters as well. The data will NOT be there.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[RatBastard]

Have you ever sucessfully used a magnet to destroy a hard drive? Most bulk erase magnets don't have the power. Hell, most degausing magnets don't. The metal casing does wonders to protect the drive.

I have managed to use magnets to wipe a hard drive. It took a damned powerful magnet and a LOT of time. It's not as easy as everyone thinks it it is.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[afidel]

The navy did a study on this and even after placing a hdd in the huge degaussing coil that they use to to defauss ships after their tours they were still able to recover nearly 90% of data using Electron Force Microscopy technology. Unless the platter is physically destroyed the data CAN be recovered. Multipass data errasers are likewise not effective as the magnetic domains can be checked back 8 or more generations, combined with the fact that the head never passes over exactly the same spot and short of physical destruction you can't be assured of data erasal, so minor tampering like using a magnet will have virtuall zero effect.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Pharmboy]

Have you ever sucessfully used a magnet to destroy a hard drive?

Actually, yes. (i was really really bored, and it was a crappy drive anyway, and well, i was curious). Then again, it was a pretty good bulk eraser meant for 1/4 inch tape. I also said a 5# (pound) magnet. That would be a speaker magnet about 2inches thick, and about 8 inches or more in diameter. We sell car audio, I see those alot. I haven't trashed a drive with the magnet, but have used it to trash tapes. The bulk eraser does a better, more thorough job.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[andyring]

This concept has been around for a few years. In some railroad locomotives, virtually identical devices have been installed. They look out the front window of the locomotive, and also record whistle noises. This way, when Joe Sixpack says to the judge "Honest, he didn't blow the whistle, I didn't see him coming," they can pop the tape in and see that Joe pulled up to the railroad crossing, looked right at the train, and then decided to make a run for it before getting pulverized by the train, while the whistle was blowing. Those tapes are watermarked quite well, it was that intent so they would stand up in court.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the video footage is timestamped. Try to RTFA next time instead of wasting peoples time with questions that have alrady been answered.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[British]

Don't forget the other movie that had police surveillance: Blue Thunder. And you could remotely erase the tapes too!

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

All depends on how bad someone wants to get at the data. There's a whole bag of forensic tricks that can be pulled to get back to the original data. Stuff that's been overwritten, stuff that's been deliberately erased, stuff that's been burned, stuff that's been magnetized...most of the time with enough equipment and time the data can still be read. The magnetic particles don't just go all one way or the other, they have sort of a 'memory' of how they were once aligned. That's why most secure erase utilities overwrite the sectors in question with random data and use 30-40 passes...only then can you really consider the data gone. You've got to slam those bits around enough that they don't spring back anymore.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[NanoGator]

"Ok.. Why not have trunk mounted 8 CD CD-Burners ? Each hour is burned to CD media and then at the end of the shift, the "technician" takes the 8 CD's and burns them onto a DVD, the CD's are then destroyed and the DVD placed into "evidence" ?"

There are a few cons that make this an unattractive idea:

1.) The disc(s) would have to be loaded. (Uh why not go straight to DVD? Did I miss something?) People are human and they could be forgotten. A hard drive based video repository would be automatic.

2.) Security vulnerabilities. You'd need a clerk to keep track of the DVD's. Plus, if one goes missing, there'd be little to no info regarding what happened. If everything's stored on a central server, then access of a file would be logged. It's a lot easier to walk off with 'evidence' than it is to hack into a system and muck with stuff.

3.) Backups aren't easy to do. If the place burns down. That's it. With a central server, they could mirror the data elsewhere. If it's not practical today, it will be before long.

4.) Every time the disc is accessed, there's the potentiality of damage. If the disc is scratched while being taken to an investigator, it's dead.

Like I said, these are just cons, not intended as devastating blows to your alternative suggestion.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Greedo really didn't fire first?

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just say "I dunno what happened to the system, it should be there to prove I didn't do anything".

On the flip side, if you decide you want to fuck over a police officer, your first target would be the HDD, then you could make up believable lies of abuse, and the fact that the hard drive is dead would make that cop look incredibly guilty...

Your average cop isn't going to be savvy to the sort of tech that could irreparably destroy data on a hard drive, but your average tech-capable dishonest bastard (I'm thinking of the type of person who becomes a spammer...)

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever sucessfully used a magnet to destroy a hard drive? Most bulk erase magnets don't have the power. Hell, most degausing magnets don't. The metal casing does wonders to protect the drive.

Yes, but not with any magnet that one could reasonably carry around in a police car. The degaussing coil we have at work does the job, but then it ought to since it cost us $1700 and was purchased specifically for this purpose. Don't forget to wear gloves. The hard drives can get a bit too warm to be handle with bare hands.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Actually, yes. (i was really really bored, and it was a crappy drive anyway, and well, i was curious). Then again, it was a pretty good bulk eraser meant for 1/4 inch tape. I also said a 5# (pound) magnet. That would be a speaker magnet about 2inches thick, and about 8 inches or more in diameter. We sell car audio, I see those alot. I haven't trashed a drive with the magnet, but have used it to trash tapes. The bulk eraser does a better, more thorough job.

You trashed the drive heads, so the disk is now inoperable. It's a fair bet that quite a bit of data remains on the platters, and that can be recovered, usually for $1000 or less.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[rhuntley12]

Have the actual harddrive not exposed, have it build in the dash? or if it's removable have the casing inserted in the dash, so only exposed part is the front

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Anonymous Coward]

How it started is irrevelant? Your logic is irrelevent. Unfortunately, people like you are not irrelevent as many people elected as jurors are just as short-sighted! I could come up with many examples to make your reasoning quite stupid, but those who aren't stupid don't need the analogies.

Re:We Need Good Watermarking

[Chelloveck]

Why watermarking? Just superimpose a visible time/date stamp and a frame sequence number on the image before encoding it. That gets to be pretty tough to edit around, especially if you can do something like encrypting a hash of each frame (including the superimposed numbers) separate from the video.

It's not impossible to fake, but it'd be very, very tough. If you can actually stream the hash data out of the squad car on the fly (or at least within minutes of the video being taken) it'd completely impossible to fake without access to the physically secure hash database back at the station. Not to mention the off-site backups...

30-second skip?

[Wesley Felter]

Yes, but will there be a secret code that you can type into the remote to enable the all-important 30-second skip feature?

Awesome!

[TopShelf]

Just gotta remember my EMP when driving about.

Re:Awesome!

[NanoGator]

"Just gotta remember my EMP when driving about. "

"Sir, please turn off the vacuum..."

Re:Awesome!

[Pharmboy]

If they are using MS, it will probably crash anyway. BSD would be better if it wasn't dead.

In Soviet Russia, YOU record COPS. (huh?)

1. Film prostitutes
2. ?????
3. Profit!

Did I leave any out?</troll>

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask every cop you see to lift their hood so it can acutally penetrate.

Re:Awesome!

[huhmz]

Can someone explain the IN SOVIET RUSSIA thing please? It was before my time I suspect, I came in around Natalie Portmans clit i believe

Re:Awesome!

[n8]

It Refers to (sp) Yakov Smirnoff a comedian that was popular in the 80s. IN SOVIET RUSSIA was his catch phrase

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

his jokes went something like, in america, you watch TV, in soviet russia TV watches you.
i think one of them was in a simpsons episode which made them popular again

Re:Awesome!

[zakezuke]

"You want to see my web cam?"

I can see it now.

[American AC in Paris]

"...well yeah, Bill, I really like the new TivoCop Recorders they issued us, but I swear mine thinks I'm racist or somthing--you should see what it puts in my "Favorite Citations" list..."

Re:I can see it now.

[js7a]

I really like the new TivoCop Recorders they issued us, but I swear mine thinks I'm racist or somthing

Do you know the code to program in the remote to keep all those failure-to-use-turn-signals that I never pull over ending up on the duty sergant's blooper reel the next day?

HDTV COPS

[rk2z]

Finally I can see some guy in a wife beater in glorious 1080 line of resolution... maybe not

Re:HDTV Cops

[shepd]

>Its simple. It is the guy who is NOT wearing a shirt.

Yes. With the suspect's shirt off it is much easier to tell their skin colour!

Play the COPS drinking game:

- Every black guy arrested, have 1 shot.
- Every brown guy/mexican/white-wife-beater arrested, have 2 shots.
- Every asian guy arrested, down the bottle.
- Every white guy arrested for something other than wife beating, purge.

excellent!

[simpl3x]

"cops" will now be in high definition. will they record the busts in surround sound too?

Re:excellent!

[Pharmboy]

"cops" will now be in high definition. will they record the busts in surround sound too?

The cool part is with 5 channel audio, when they bust a skull with a night stick, it will sound JUST like they are in your living room!

Gives "Reality TV" new meaning.

Re:excellent!

[LittleGuy]

The cool part is with 5 channel audio, when they bust a skull with a night stick, it will sound JUST like they are in your living room!

Wait! They are in my living room!

Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! stupid homeland security Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!

Re:excellent!

[Pharmboy]

If you are watching COPS, and you notice the house on the TV looks JUST LIKE your house....no amount of Karma is gonna help you.

Re:excellent!

[UnknowingFool]

Do we get any extras like a graphic showing the percentage of males arrested wearing wife beater t-shirts vs males wearing no shirts?

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad girls, bad girls, whatcha gonna do.

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

But a LARGE enough Dogma, might.

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I'm way off topic here. . .

I was watching TV about the flooding near my house and a chopper was circling filming a dead body for live TV. I kept hoping they would pan away, so I could see what kind of damage there was in my neighborhood, when it dawned on me.

I stepped outside the door, and there was a chopper circling about 10 blocks away.

Re:excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatcha gonna do when they cum for you?

What if a Cop Goes to a Drive-In?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would the film industry come after him for recording the film?

Will this really work?

[El]

Uh, how well do hard disk drives actually work when in the trunk of a car involved in a high speed chase? This brings new meaning to the phrase "head crash", doesn't it? Seems like the lower-tech VCR would be more reliable in this case...

Re:Will this really work?

[The Jonas]

Will this really work

Yes, but I think the Hammerhead from Walkabout with vehicle mounting and the right accessories (removable storage, wifi, camera, etc...) is also a good choice. Sweet setup when one is driving around looking for "hotspots".

Re:Will this really work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the lower-tech VCR would be more reliable in this case...

This system is to phase out the analog system; as stated in the article. They do have ruggedized systems that can easily handle a high speed chase. And with the new digital system, the video can be captured in DVD-like quality. Ever see those fox worst video specials? It looks like amateur videos. You'd less likely see any suddeny snows and skips in this system. A VCR would more likely have trouble writing properly and cleanly in a high speed chase than a digital video system.

Re:Will this really work?

[mustangsal66]

I just bought a 40 gig maxtor drive (Cheap for a firewall) it came with a claim of being able to withstand 70Gs of force while running. I'd imagine a better build SCSI drive could withstand more. They currently have MP3 player mounted in cars that run utilizing hard drives Neo Jukebox, which is veru cool. I haven't had any problems with mine for about a year. I've done some serious offroading with it... It keeps playing...

Hard Drives are getting smaller and better engineered all the time. Think about how much abuse your laptop gets...it still boots.

ok..a crash at 70 MPH, may damage it, why don't they add a wireless interface to constantly upload recorded data (data to save). Use something in the 900 MHZ area so it does get blocked as easily. Throw repeaters on each tower the 2 way radio has them.

hmm... off to the patent office I go...

Re:Will this really work?

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

Uh, how well do hard disk drives actually work when in the trunk of a car involved in a high speed chase? This brings new meaning to the phrase "head crash", doesn't it? Seems like the lower-tech VCR would be more reliable in this case...

From the Western Digital page for one of their serial ATA drives:

Shock:
Operating 20 G (write), 65 G (read)
Non-operating 250 G


When I say "I'd like to see your VCR take 20Gs" I'm not being confrontational -- I really would like to see that. Shoot a video of the event and post it here, it'd be cool!

--

Somewhat Worthless...

[jetkust]

...Until they put digital cameras embedded on the foreheads of the cops themselves.

Not an invasion

[nurb432]

Whlie i am also 100% for privacy, they only turn them on during a traffic stop.. Sooo at that point you have given up your rights of privacy in relation to that particular event.

If you are then set loose, they wont keep the recording as it serves no value. they already recorded the transaction of your name/time/location.

it helps keep the whole incident straight, for BOTH sides..

Re:Not an invasion

[Pharmboy]

Whlie i am also 100% for privacy, they only turn them on during a traffic stop.. Sooo at that point you have given up your rights of privacy in relation to that particular event.

If you are then set loose, they wont keep the recording as it serves no value. they already recorded the transaction of your name/time/location.

it helps keep the whole incident straight, for BOTH sides..

Doesn't matter. The courts have found you don't have an expectation of privacy while driving down the road. They already tape now. A cop can pat you down to search for weapons without a warrant (a "Terry Stop" ala Terry vs. Ohio). The 4th amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, and to be secure in your possessions. The concept of the right to 'privacy' comes from the "Privacy Act of 1974" which is NOT part of the constitution. People SO often overstate privacy as a constitutional right, when it is NOT. I can sit on my porch and tape everyone on a public street all I want, so can the cops. You can't have an expectation of privacy in a public place this way.

Re:Not an invasion

[Cyno]

For BOTH sides, huh? But who gets to hold the remote?

Re:Not an invasion

[2short]

Of course, they don't have to turn it on at all. I suspect the cheif motivation for this system is letting the cop prove things did in fact go down the way he says. For purposes both of defending himself and of convicting you. No more your word against his. Of course, if it is your word against his, and he didn't turn the recorder on, or the tape got lost, your lawyer has some good material to work with.

Offtopic sig response:
What part of the second amendment would you prefer to omit?

Re:Not an invasion

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, please grow a freaking brain, and drop the paranoia, ahh-ite? The only time you'll wind up on the "Cop-Vo" is if you get pulled over. Then, with the video (and, presumably, audio) rolling, unless you do something illegal, it can only protect you.

I defy you to come up with a situation where you're acting in a perfectly legal manner, and they are somehow able to use your actions caught on video against you in any way.

Re:Not an invasion

[Cyno]

I'm not affraid I would act illegaly, although I know many ways to modify digital video and access data stored on harddrives. Good thing I'm not a cop, huh? ;)

But I might have my concerns if the officer could turn off the camera whenever he liked. I don't trust you or anyone else. You'd use your system against me every chance you got if it would make you money and you could get away with it. That's not paranoia, my friend, its perception, ahh-ite?

If I am going to be under surveillence as a citizen then I vote to put EVERYONE under surveillence especially the police, government, authority figure of your choice since they are holding the loaded firearm.

Re:Not an invasion

[Anonymous Coward]

...then I vote to put EVERYONE under surveillence especially the police...

That's the point of this system, isn't it? Both sides are under surveillance, not just you.

About Time

[rumpledstiltskin]

This kind of thing Long overdue in Austin

Re:About Time

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know, you can't spell "stupid" without UTPD.

Also, the Lacresha Murray was broken by the New York Times, and we all know what kind of reporting they're capable of.

I knew I should have patented that!

[pecosdave]

I've been coming up with an in-car multi-angled record to HDD system to. Only mine was because of cops, help me to get out of tickets like the one that speed trapped me from behind a line of bushes last week. I was planing to use Freevo or simular, a notebook some webcams and wireless lan so if the car got jacked I could get pictures of the driver and their surroundings. I was also trying to figure out how to get a finger print scanner hidden in an unsuspecting place, like the gear shift.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[Washizu]

"I've been coming up with an in-car multi-angled record to HDD system to"
"I was planing to use Freevo or simular, a notebook some webcams and wireless lan"
" I was also trying to figure out how to get a finger print scanner hidden in an unsuspecting place, like the gear shift."

Batman, you should really start posting anonymously.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[Muad'Dave]

Me, too! I was planning on using a conical mirror to record 360 degrees. My reason for using it would be to:

1. Show my insurance company that the other guy really did drive into my car.
2. Show the cops what a particular idiot did.
3. Use my ham license to transmit the video on demand via 440/1200 Mhz, to catch-a-thief.

I would _love_ to have this stored encrypted and incorruptable, so that it'd be admissible in court _and_ so that cops would write tickets based on it.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman??? I thought he was the Green Hornet!

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[pecosdave]

Ham, thats better than my plan of just hoping they dropped by a Star Bucks or an open node and have the Wi-Fi upload to an FTP server like mad. I also considered a cellular card, communications was my biggest concern.

The nice thing about recording it yourself:

If it doesn't benefit you, you don't have to volunteer the evidence.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[2short]

How would this get you out of tickets? I wasn't aware that speeding was legal if the cop hides behind bushes. Or even if he isn't there at all, for that matter.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[pecosdave]

Speeding isn't legal, cop or not.

Speed trapping isn't legal in most states (hidden out of view)

Two wrongs doesn't make a right but you might be able squirell your way out of a fine with it. That and having a video record of someone side swiping me was slightly more important.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thought would be APRS... using a ham radio to transmit your GPS location. I have thought about using this on my truck. If someone were to steal the truck/car, your APRS node could connect to an igate. All you would need to do to track your car would be go to a website, and lookup your callsign..

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey wait a minute!

<Michael Keaton> I'm Batman! </Michael Keaton>

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[ichimunki]

Are you kidding? Driving is a god-given right! And it's entrapment. If he knew the cop was there he wouldn't have been speeding. Him thinking he was being ignored by law enforcement is practically like them pressing his accerelator for him! He was set up, plain and simple. He's just lucky he wasn't listening to mp3s at the time, can you imagine what a ticket for going 345 MPH would do to his insurance rates?

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[randyest]

Speed trapping isn't legal in most states (hidden out of view)

HUH!?!? Please provide a link, source, additional info on which states etc. I can't believe this, but I'm hoping it's true, so please back up this claim.

Re:I knew I should have patented that!

[rhuntley12]

Heh cops trapping you into tickets freaking suck. I almost got one yesterday on the connector here, thats "under construction" with double speeding fines, luckily my car I have set my max mph timer to start beeping when I hit 64, it starts beeping, I slow, look up and a cop standing there with radar pointed at me....Talk about adrenaline jump

Hmmm...

[Kiriwas]

Would this new device be more susceptible to an EMP device? I realize that when the HERF gun story went up, a great number of people were joking (or at least i hope they were) about shooting and cops tailing them so they won't get pulled over, but in the case of a serious crime caught on "tape" would this all digital device be more susceptible to a device like that?

Already on Motorcycles

[theonetruekeebler]

A motorcycle is a rather space-constrained and high-vibration environment, and a conventional tape-based system simply wouldn't cut it. A company here in Wheat Ridge, CO has done several installations for the Colorado State Patrol's Harleys. They also borrowed a BMW R1150RTP from us and did a demo installation on it.

The system works just as described: The system is always recording to a programmable-length buffer; once the officer cuts his disco lights on, the buffer becomes a permanent file and current events are appended to it.

I didn't ask any questions about how easy it was to erase files off the system, but I remember seeing a keypad on the unit and the guy I brought the bike to did enter a code before he got into any of the menus. It would be easy enough give those codes to the station chiefs, but not the patrol officers.

Re:Already on Motorcycles

[|<amikaze]

Cops erasing the footage is pretty irrelevant. If a cop pulls someone over, kicks the crap out of them, and then proceeds to erase the footage, it's pretty obvious that he didn't want anyone to see it. It doesn't prove anything, but it does raise the "reasonable doubt" thing.

Lights, Camera,...

[Joe the Lesser]

Unbiased, high-quality recording could have a compelling social effect;

Unfortunatly, I somewhat doubt these will be available to the public w/o editing.

Re:Lights, Camera,...

[Jerf]

Unfortunatly, I somewhat doubt these will be available to the public w/o editing.

Unfortunately? Sure would violate the privacy of anybody pulled over, esp. anybody who wasn't actually guilty. The police officer should be accountable, but the detainees, who may be completely innocent, should be protected too.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[kook04]

No you won't.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[simtra]

How can you have an invasion of privacy. You are out in public, on a public road. I could place my video on the side of the road and record people and not be invading anyones privacy.

Besides departments are currently recording people now but on VHS tape. Hopefully with the hard drives could be able to record better quality then the tapes that are used over and over.

EMP Weaponry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time you geeks started developing EMP weaponry against the cops.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Latent IT]

You expect privacy while out in public? Are you serious?

Unless the police car is located in your living room (at which point, you have bigger problems) it has nothing to do with privacy.

Unbiased?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbiased, high-quality recording could have a compelling social effect

I think it bears saying that there is nothing about this which supports the notion that it will be unbiased. What you choose not to record can be every bit as important as what is actually recorded. If the Rodney King tape consisted only of a car chase, would it have been unbiased account of events?

Re:Unbiased?

[SuiteSisterMary]

If the Rodney King tape consisted only of a car chase, would it have been unbiased account of events?

Yes. But it wouldn't have been a complete account of the events.

Major difference.

No...

[TamMan2000]

It would make the above scenario impossible.

I think you meant it would make the above situation difficult...

Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[A nonymous Coward]

Imagine several years from now, when most police departments have this system, and routinely record everything. Along comes a case like Rodney King, arrest is made, flashing lights, radio calls, etc ... and the recorder wasn't running. Pretty damning evidence, I'd say. Th epublic will say so too, the lawsuits will be settled for bih chunks of change, and the bad cops will at the very least have to be a lot more careful and pick their rage times more carefully. They will either leave the force, or hold themselves in check on duty and beat up people off duty, in which case they will probably go to prison.

This is going to do wonders to get rid of corrupt cops.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[bofkentucky]

A suspect on PCP will make any cop look like a bad cop...

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it's a totally aggregious beating, a law enforcement officer won't go to jail for beating someone up off duty. They look after their own and will most likely let him/her go home.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how noones followed Mr Kings illustrious career after that tape?

He was busted like 3 more times for drugs, and recently convicted for aggravated assault on his ex-wife.

He was a violent dangerous person, and the tribunal was right to acquit those cops.

But heres a case where the video was tampered with. Every time they'd show it on TV, they'd show the same punch over and over again so it looked like he was being hit repeatedly. He was hit once.

Kind of like in WW2, Americans got some footage of hitler doing the little slap your boots together at attention, they doctored the footage into a loop so it looked like he was doing a goofy little happy dance, celebrating Frances cowardly surrender. It was done purely to inflame the audiences of the day.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[Cpt_Kirks]

IIRC, it was the Brits who made shnickegrubber(sp) "dance a jig".

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[dbrutus]

True story (scary though) I watched that little jig dance for the first time in E. Europe in the early 90s with a bunch of cousins. I had heard of the faked jig and to my eyes it was obvious. Nobody else in the room spotted it. Everybody else thought it was undoctored footage.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[The_dev0]

I reckon IHBT, but there is NO JUSTIFICATION EVER for paid public servants to commit crimes against civilians. Are you saying because he was a low-life he somehow deserved a beating from a government-sponsored peace force even though they were not aware of his history at the time? Or are you trying to justify the behaviour of those that feel they are above the law? He was hit more than once, and was outnumbered heavily by armed officers. We may all know he is a deadbeat, but so are you (In somebody's eyes, anyway). Do you deserve random beatings by those who are paid to protect you from violence in society?

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[JamochasWitness]

Amen. So many ignorant people with all the answers. I used to be "anti-cop" (when I was a youngster) until a close family member of mine became one. He actually has to deal with these thugs on a day-to-day basis. When someone is on PCP and on a violent rage, you are allowed to protect yourself and subdue the "suspect" with equal or greater force if necessary. People on PCP do not respond to force the same way a sober person does! Do you think you could do better? I doubt it. Think about that the the next time you kiss your child good night.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[intermodal]

You're damned skippy it will. I don't think they were out of line to beat the living shit out of him at all, considering the PCP was making it necessary.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[intermodal]

I agree there's no justification to commit crimes against civilians, but this wasn't a crime. this was an arrest. Subduing a man on PCP is different from cuffing a drunk.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[The_dev0]

But you forget that it isn't the police's job to do it. That's what the justice system is for. If someone is that fucked up and on our roads risking lives, they deserve to be arrested. Arrested, and that's the extent of their powers. The police should have incapacitated rodney king, not beaten him repeatedly after he hit the ground. Whether fucked up on drugs or just picking up shopping while tired, nobody deserves a hiding from the group of trained enforcers who get to eat because of their victim's taxes.

Re:Nope, cops wouild lose in that case

[intermodal]

I disagree. PCP makes a person rather untameable. Risking their own ass to take down someone artficially enhanced to where they are going to be unsubduable by normal means changes such rules. Ergo, it is the police's job to beat the living shit out of a man on PCP. Let's see you arrest someone on PCP without doing what they did, and then we'll talk about this "not the police's job" business.

But it doesn't fix the big problem

[mykepredko]

I'm sure that digital technology will help out with some of the current issues but what about the situation in which the cop and the offender are out of the frame? I've seen a number of tapes where the suspect has been taken out of the frame and has later sued the police for brutality and/or violating their rights. Ideally, the camera would follow the action, even if it was not directly in front of the car.

myke

New tactic

[redtail1]

Uh huh...

"You're under arrest! Please step behind the cop car, away from the cam... er, the headlights."

Digital editing anyone?

[RdsArts]

Unbiased, high-quality recording could have a compelling social effect;

Or, FilmGIMP could take off like a speeder with pot in law enforcement circles.

I'm not bitter, I'm just right.

Re:Digital editing anyone?

[stratjakt]

Actually, it's pretty easy to guarantee digital evidence. An audit log of checksums would be kept, and if it came down to it, someone like me (since I do cop software) shows up in court to testify to the authenticity of the evidence prevented.

Any evidence can be 'faked', and in court it always boils down to "his word against mine". The slicker (and better paid) the lawyer, the further out on a limb with out and out lies he'll go to get you off. Just ask OJ.

A See a Loophole

[vjmurphy]

"tapes will start from three to five minutes before the cop turned on the recorder."

The cop should not have to do anything for it to record: there should be some automatic method, like the car door opening.

Yes, they'll get a lot of donut shop footage, but heck, otherwise, the cop could just not turn the thing on, nightstick the hell out of someone, then just drive off.

Re:A See a Loophole

[stratjakt]

the quote from the article is wrong (as usual).

The buffer always holds the last 5 minutes worth of video, when the cop flips on his siren, the video gets written permanently and added to until it's turned off.

It does, in short, come on automatically when the cop makes a stop.

Re:A See a Loophole

[ctr2sprt]

The cameras come on with the cruiser's lights and siren. So there's your automatic method.

I don't think the primary purpose of this camera is to keep cops honest. I think it may occasionally have that effect, but the cops can always find some way to disable or destroy it. But that's OK, because really, the majority of cops are pretty clean. The cameras will be most useful as evidence against people the cops arrest.

I'm one of those pathetic losers who watches all the police chase shows, and in one a cop pulled over a car with two people in it. He smelled pot and took them out to search them. The driver came out without an argument, but the passenger bolted. While the cop chased him, the driver took a bag of pot out of his pocket and threw it into the woods where the cop couldn't see. Cop caught the passenger and hauled him back, searched both, found nothing. He brought them both in to the station (the driver had a suspended license or something) and, while reviewing the tape, caught the driver throwing the pot away. Went back to the scene and found the drugs no problem, since he knew exactly where to look.

Or the other case where a cop pulls somebody over and then just gets shot. The cop walks up to the driver's window and gets shot right in the head. It's happened before and it'll happen again, and while the cameras won't save the cop, they can at least pretty much guarantee the conviction of the guy who shot him. Higher-resolution cameras let you see more detail, like facial features and eye color, that can allow even more convincing positive IDs.

Anyway, I think this is the real reason they want the cameras. All the other benefits are great, of course, but they're just bonuses.

Re:A See a Loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

TV is not reality. What you see on cop shows is a pretty narrow view, showing cops as honest and clean. The reality is, unfortunaly, far from that.

Tonight on "COPS:DE (digitally edited)"

[Sunkist]

You...doing shit you didn't.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Bold Marauder]

I agree with this post. People who cry the loudest that "I'll sue" or "I'll leave the country" (remember that one from the war, kids?) are usually the ones who are the most "full of it".

Very simple.

[InThane]

When the cops are done beating the subject, they then wait five minutes, then hit the "record" button. It's a "feature" for the "discerning law enforcement professional." If it kept five hours of tape, then they could be held liable for all kinds of abuse...

Re:Very simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful???? Oh please...this is a troll from a simple mind.

Re:Very simple.

[hidden]

According to the article, the system comes on (and grabs the last couple of minutes) whenever they turn on the flashers/siren

it doesn't say when the system shuts off again.

Re:Very simple.

[Ra5pu7in]

So they hit "record" at the end of five minutes. Later, when they are being charged, the tapes is reviewed and the recording starts with a guy in cuffs. The very fact that the process leading up to that was not recorded would make the entire recording suspect. In fact, not recording from the moment the suspect is pulled over or approached - i.e. as the cop gets out of the car - would be highly suspect.

Sure, a dirty cop could try scripting what goes on for those five minutes before he hits "record", but careful review of the recording is likely to show up inconsistencies. Besides, what suspect is going to spend five minutes re-enacting his arrest? Something like this: Cop takes cuffs off, walks back to the car, backs up several blocks and drives forward counting off five minutes before hitting "record" and getting out of the car. What suspect is going to stand around acting like the cop just drove up during this little five minute idiocy?

Re:Very simple.

[dafunn]

>So they hit "record" at the end of five minutes.

No, there is no "hitting record" here. Read the article - the recording starts when the lights go on.

How long will the hard drives last

[simtra]

The last time that I used a hard time, you should be trying to avoid knocks, bumps, and high G's.

Last time I checked, this is what cops do when they are trying to catch someone. I can see it now, "Oh we saw that the person we were going after throw the gun out the window back on Main street. Let's look at the tape so we can remember where."

"Dang, the hard drive crashed again."

Re:How long will the hard drives last

[pecosdave]

Notebook 2.5" drives and IBM Microdrives seem to handle it just a little bit better than SCSI/Full sized IDE drives. My Guess is they'll use one of those or something custom.

Re:How long will the hard drives last

[stratjakt]

You haven't seen a real field laptop, or have much experience with 'military grade' components. The shit can take a beating, let me tell ya.

I write cop software, and am working on a mobile reporting package right now. The little motorola in car box I'm testing with is pretty damn indestructable.

The HDD is quite small compared (storage wise) and slow compared to your average nerds desktop. This says to me bigger components and lower densities. Same with the screen, it's 640x400, smaller and thicker and more rugged than anything I've seen.

It isn't off the shelf best buy shit, that's for sure.

The keyboard is backlit too, and frankly looks pretty trippy if you're into that kind of thing.

If you have about 10 grand to spend, you can probably get one too.

Re:How long will the hard drives last

[2short]

What you said.

I saw a demo of a military-grade pc at a trade show once. They had a nice little display showing drive seeks, reads and writes. The guy set up some big file copy, so the display was going nuts, then calmly climbed up on the desk and kicked the thing off. Three foot drop to the cement floor and a loud crash (this thing was heavy). The drive just didn't care.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[theonetruekeebler]

Better yet get down on your knees and thank your lucky stars that this exists. It will be awfully hard for a cop to beat you to death for resisting arrest if there's a camera pointed at him as well. And no more pulling people over for "weaving" (e.g. driving while black) then searching their vehicle for drugs. Believe me, this absolutely works to your advantage.

I'm guessing that within ten years it will be impossible to prosecute anyone in court unless the entire arrest is recorded.

How long

[Timesprout]

Before they by pass recording altogether and just transmit directly to those crappy reality cop shows so we get to see the 'action' live as it happens

Natcherally...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbiased, high-quality recording...

Will turn out to have mysteriously broken down immediately before the cops get into an altercation. Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose and all that.

Does it have a "Civil Rights Skip" feature?

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Bad boys, bad boys, whacha gonna do!

[facundo]

The COPS TV show is really going to take advantage of this technology improvement.

Re:Bad boys, bad boys, whacha gonna do!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the TV program should pay for it too. They will benefit the most.

FINALLY!

[!Xabbu]

Chase imagry will be much crisper on 'Worlds Worst Drivers part 500,000'...

Day of Protest

[moehoward]

Next Tuesday, everyone stake out the local Krispy Kreme with your video camera for 8 or 10 hours and just record every cop that walks in. It will drive them crazy. Right???? Ok. Maybe not.

I'm tired of the super-surveilance-society we are turning into. Now, they are going to give financial incentives to be monitored (cheaper tolls if you pay tolls electronically).

We all act differently when we know we're being watched. If anything, the super-surveilance-society has taken away our right to act a bit goofy every now and then.

I despise every camera I see. From the shopping mall to the workplace. Get rid of every one of them.

Please visit my webcam at www.irony.com/myneighborswindow.

Re:Day of Protest

[maxume]

The camera isn't there to keep on eye on the cop. It is there so that when he writes you a ticket and you lie about yelling and screaming at him about it, he can say 'did so' and play the video. Then you have to shut your mouth and pay up...

Re:Day of Protest

[SoCalChris]

I'm tired of the super-surveilance-society we are turning into. Now, they are going to give financial incentives to be monitored (cheaper tolls if you pay tolls electronically).

The Orange County Toll Roads already do this. I'm pretty sure the toll is cheaper because they don't have to maintain the toll booths when you use the FasTrak, but it could still easily be used for monitoring. I got my statement from them about a year ago, and it showed I went between two of the toll booths that are about 6 miles apart in just over 2 minutes. Obviously, I wasn't going 180mph, but it would be easy for them to try and use that against you.

Re:Day of Protest

[moehoward]

Sounds like that system doesn't have a thing to worry about....

Someone needs to start a Web page with all the mistakes like the one you found. Then, when they send you one of those automated tickets saying that you didn't pay or whatever, you can download all the proven errors in the system to establish reasonable doubt.

I don't use the electronic thingy where I live. But, paying manually sucks because I rarely get the little happy green light popping on to let me know I can pass after paying. The light is usually broke and they don't bother having a gate here (thereby proving that they expect the system to be broken more often then not). But it ticks me off thinking that even though I paid, it is entirely possible that the little license-plate-cam is going to turn me in anyway. What proof do I had I paid? None. The camera only catches the license plate, not my hand tossing money followed by my middle finger.

Re:Day of Protest

[SoCalChris]

Luckily, in California it is illegal to issue a speeding ticket based on how long it took you to get between two points, so they wouldn't have been able to issue me a ticket anyways. If they did, I could fight it and easily win.

Their system has made some mistakes though, and issued me four tickets that were totally unjustified. When I got married, I added my wife's car to my account on their website. About a month later, I got a toll violation notice. I called, told them what happened, and added the car again, and was told not to worry. About 4 months later, I got 3 more tickets for toll violations, and a fine of over $1,000 for being a repeat violator. Again, I called them, and added the car with them over the phone, and was told that the original toll due would be subtracted from my account, and the violations would be removed. About a year later, I got another nasty letter saying that they were about to garnish my wages. I'm still fighting them over it.

Re:Day of Protest

[moehoward]

Again, a centralized list of these sorts of complaints would be priceless. I'm sure the state hired a company to manage this (maybe not), but at least the legislature would think twice about funding such a mistake-prone system.

Issuing tickets and enforcing the law is not a system that can be automated. It requires judgement and wiggle room. An automated system will never have that.

Fact is, I'm still amazed at all that reasonable, rationale men and women would allow the tollway to exist in the first place. What a fricking mess. Micropayments at 80 mph that we enforce with automatic cameras. What a brilliant plan.

Re:Day of Protest

[buckminsterinsd]

Hey Moe,

A wiseguy, huh? Youse spoketh this:

Again, a centralized list of these sorts of complaints would be priceless. I'm sure the state hired a company to manage this (maybe not), but at least the legislature would think twice about funding such a mistake-prone system.



Actually the opposite is true! The folks in charge are only interested in maximizing the revenue for their coffers.

For example, here in sunny San Diego they farmed out the contract to install, maintain and operate the red light cameras that catch the jackrabbits that blow off red lights. The company get a percentage of the tickets the system wrote to offset the increased operational costs. Some smart attorney starting fighting all the tickets and what did they discover? The company was tweaking the yellow light times so as to increase their revenue by increasing the number of violations. The lawyer proved this by measuring the legth of the yellow light at monitored lights vs. stop lights without the cameras.

The judge saw the evidence, thru all the cases out and banned the use of the cameras.

Something similar happened when the local governments took over parking enforcement (and the revenues produced) All of a sudden, every parking place was time limited but no parking meters. That requires a capital investment and more importantly you can write more parking tickets (and make more money) without those pesky machines that time how long you have been parked. Guess what, the ticket writers didn't bother to time how long cars were parked. They walked around and if they saw a car twice, they wrote it up. So fast walkers wrote more tickets. Pretty soon they hired people training for marathons and iron man competitions to cover the parking ticket rounds.

Someone got one too many tickets and started a little parking surveillence of his own with a video camera and this led to a newspaper investigation where the city hiring practices came to light. The best part was the moron runners and the city officials could not understand why people objected to their way of increasing the amount of revenue parking enforcement produced. After all, it was for the benefit of the citizens of their community. I kid you not. That's what those assholes actually said....geez..

best regards,

buck

/me ponders...

[xZAQx]

Does this mean that girls that get out of speeding tickets, coupled with these fancy new cameras, will finally make www.copblowjobs.com a reality?

I want one for my car. Here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who was driving along, when a car slightly ahead of him changed lines right into him. Both cars quite damaged. The two drivers get out of the cars. The other guy says "It's ok, it's ok. I'm a cop. It's your fault." And that's basically what happened. The guy lied his ass off and because he's a cop he was believed, regardless of the (admittedly inconclusive) evidence.

If in this scenario I would LOVE to have a recoding of the guy swerving into me. He'd tell his story, I'd show the tape, and have PROOF of the cop lying his ass off.

It would also be good for non-cop related asshole lying accident scenarios.

NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

Sorry, but your last link there blew it. Most of us have seen the expose's on FOX news about how indymedia distorts their so-called facts (when they don't simply create them out of a few stills and photo shop). Their staff is so far to the left, they make Al Gore look conservative!

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Anonymous Coward]

On FOX!!??? Can you not see the irony there?

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

Back under your bridge, troll! There's more to FOX than American Idol and left-leaning shows like the simpsons; as any reasonbly informed person will tell you.
FYI, they have a news channel that you may be interested in, as well. ;)

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[PostScience]

The parent was probably not claiming that FOX was left-leaning, but rather that FOX-NEWS has an unabashed right-wing bias. For FOX-NEWS to "expose" a lack of journalistic integrity is ironic because FOX-NEWS has so little balance and integrity themselves. IMHO

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

Of course FOX-NEWS has balance; that's what CNN is for! ;)Isn't it great how the free market and free press work like that?

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[FunkSoulBrother]

Thats not your humble opinion, that is a fact. Fox News has little journalistic integrity. I've seen their news anchors ROLL THEIR EYES at stories as they read them off the prompter.

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Get C-Band and watch the real stories behind the stories.

When I catch fox news pre-feeds, it's always a laugh and a half. :-)

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[krysith]

I agree with you that Indymedia has an obvious axe-to-grind. However, they often cover stories which are completely ignored or distorted by more moderate or rightwing media outlets. This is a GOOD THING (tm). The most blatant bias in media is not ~how~ stories are covered, but whether they are covered at all. I know to take what Indymedia puts out with a grain of salt, but I appreciate that they cover the stories that they do.

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

these people often take items from "news of the weird", etc and put their own spin on them; but I don't feel like sifting through all of the bigfoot and elvis stories to get to the one story that I could have more easily read by surfing to fullcoverage.yahoo.com Just the same way, I feel that sifting through all of the anti-corporate hysteria on indymedia is less productive than simply reading the op-eds on cnn.com at least cnn hasn't had an expose done on it on a major news channel!

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Taldo]

FYI, they have a news channel that you may be interested in, as well. ;)

This wouldn't be the same 'news' channel that has so little journalistic integrity that they're currently whoring themselves out to the current administration as nothing more than an unofficially recognized propaganda ministry, would it?

You know... the 'news' channel that's been caught in repeated misstatements about the current US military action and has in fact recently won a court case stating that there was nothing explicitly illegal about knowingly lying to their viewers?

Who's the troll again?

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[FunkSoulBrother]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is C-Band? Some sort of radio?

I'm curious though, because I could really use a break from cable news.

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

This wouldn't be the same 'news' channel that has so little journalistic integrity that they're currently whoring themselves out to the current administration as nothing more than an unofficially recognized propaganda ministry, would it?

According to who? Indymedia or some other yellow joural? Most of the times that I hear that attack being made, it's by people who are so caught up in their hatred of America that they cannot make a rational attack on our policies (policies such as giving financial and military aid to other countries -out of our own pockets, I might add!).

IMHO such attacks are little better than saying "I know you are but what am I".

You know... the 'news' channel that's been caught in repeated misstatements about the current US military action

No I don't know. To the best of my knowledge misstatements have not been made to be caught IN.

and has in fact recently won a court case stating that there was nothing explicitly illegal about knowingly lying to their viewers?

The fact they won the case obviously would over ride any spacious allegations of 'lying'.

Again, I keep up on the news, but this story hasn't appeared on FOX, CNN or Slashdot, so I tend to doubt the varacity of it. I tend to highly doubt it.

Who's the troll again?

I commend you for finally coming out of AC mode and standing behind your statements. Even if they are far too ad-hominem [sp?] for most reasonable people's tastes.

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Taldo]

According to who? Indymedia or some other yellow joural? Most of the times that I hear that attack being made, it's by people who are so caught up in their hatred of America that they cannot make a rational attack on our policies (policies such as giving financial and military aid to other countries -out of our own pockets, I might add!).

Actually by almost anyone who isn't Fox. Shall we look at the list?

Fox's report that we had found a chemical weapons site in Iraq? The one that turned out to be a civilian pesticide facility? Reported (quietly) on CNN among others?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/07/sprj.irq .chemical.find/index.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912045.asp

How about the atomic weapons facility discovered by the Marines? Yeah, that would be the one that the UN and the IAEA already knew about, and had already sealed off.... because it had already had the shit bombed out of it ten years earlier. Again, light reporting in CNN and MSNBC among others. (But only light. Don't make waves because Fox Never Makes Mistakes.)

Oh but we found the mobile weapons labs! (Not according to the UN....)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912073.asp

But... but... but.... there's those chemical warheads the military found!!!! (Not according to the military, who had never heard of them.)

Fox makes statements. They let other people worry about the retractions.

The fact they won the case obviously would over ride any spacious allegations of 'lying'.

Pay attention or I'll have Sister Mary Pain get out her ruler.

There was no court victory that said they didn't lie. Respond to the acutal point that was made. They won a case where they ADMITTED THEY WERE LYING and had the chutzpah to not have a problem with it. Their case was based on the idea that there was no specific law saying that the press had to tell the truth. The court, regrettably, agreed with them.

I commend you for finally coming out of AC mode and standing behind your statements. Even if they are far too ad-hominem [sp?] for most reasonable people's tastes.

I'm not coming out of anything. I never use AC mode. This was my first posting on this topic. (For that matter, my first posting on any topic for a while. This was the first that interested me enough to respond.) But then aren't unfounded accusations of AC mode a form of ad hominem?

You were discussing trolls somewhere, yes?

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Bold Marauder]

Your links are very educational for showing the pro-UN bias of the media; however they do nothing to support your original allegations I was making. Namely:

This wouldn't be the same 'news' channel that has so little journalistic integrity that they're currently whoring themselves out to the current administration as nothing more than an unofficially recognized propaganda ministry, would it?

In other words, you're alleging that Fox is an untrust worthy news agency. A 'propaganda ministry' you put it. You may have your opinion, if you so wish; but those links do nothing to support that specific allegation.

Their case was based on the idea that there was no specific law saying that the press had to tell the truth.
Which is true, if you stop to think about it. There isn't such a law.

The court, regrettably, agreed with them.

Agreeing that there is no such law is a far different issue than arguing that they had lied, and to the best of my knowlege Journalistic ethics are not legally binding.

The truth is quite irrelevent to that case and its' outcome, as far as I am able to tell.

This is all hypothetical, of course, as I have no hard evidence that such a case took place. Again, it wasn't on CNN, and I believe I've made my opinion of indymedia quite clear. ;)

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott Lockwood is a faggot.

Re:NO ONE with ANY sense trusts INDYMEDIA

[Anonymous Coward]

...journalistic ethics are not legally binding.

Sort of like "There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."

Right? Should we just call you Al from now on?

Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[hndrcks]

After reading everyone's suggestions on how a policeman who did something questionable might want to 'game the system'; i.e., get the disc to record over the problem moments...

I wonder what will happen when they put REALLY big drives in these things that record the whole shift. More police cars unfortunately running off the road and exploding in flames, I suppose (with the drivers miraculously saved.)

Another thing that came to mind - this device could be the equivalent of a 'black box' on an airplane - you could have BlueTooth enabled guns / batons, health montoring devices in the uniform... this could bring a whole new level of evidence to bear in a Rodney-King style event. What if the police could show from a EKG strip that the cop really was scared for his life? Interesting stuff...

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Certain of the cops taser guns (the caution orange gunshaped ones) record at what time and how many times the trigger was pulled and for how long. All so you can go back and review if the officer used appropriate force and to guard against criminals saying that they were juiced beyond the time justified.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[anonymous loser]

I say the first application of that technology would be to equip every leader in the federal government with their own personal recorders with unbiased highlights shown on CSPAN. Let's see how much Ashcroft enjoys HIS privacy being violated.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Enzo1977]

Another thing that came to mind - this device could be the equivalent of a 'black box' on an airplane - you could have BlueTooth enabled guns / batons, health monitoring devices in the uniform...

The concept of a gun connected to the officer is a real concept that exists and can be used. The officer is issued a device much like a wristwatch, which communicates with the pistol. The pistol will only fire when the distance of the wristwatch device is within it's set parameters. Therefore if an assailant were being apprehended, evades the officer, swipes his/her gun, the gun will not fire because it is too far away from the officer's wristwatch equipped with bluetooth technology, keeping track of how many times the weapon was drawn, fired, and restricting use to authorized handler.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[the clean]

The signal from the watch would have to keep the gun in very close range before diabling the fireing ability. Bad guy comes up to good guy, he goes for the gun, struggle ensues, and since the watch is still close, bad guy seizes the gun and it can go off. If the signal range is too far, it would only protect from swiping the gun and then backing away.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[cayenne8]

And what about the one time the battery in watch/gun runs out....right when its needed, say, in a shootout? I don't think they can risk that happening.

I sure don't want an electronic/gun mechanism like that in my house...

Burglar enters my home at night, pulls gun on me

ME: Hey, oops...wait, lemme find my watch, I took it off when I had a shower...just a minute...got my gun, but, need that watch..where did I put that darned thing...OH, you already stole it? Well hell, take the gun...its a set....

Nope...need guns to stay 100% mechanical...

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[reemul]

The outcome I really hope to see is tied to the "record when the flashers are turned on". Currently, cops who get tired of obeying all of those tedious traffic laws they ticket everyone else for just flash the lights, get past the blockage, then turn off the lights and go on with their lives. Logging each and every use of emergency signals will cut down this abuse - if they have to justify why they hit the shiny red button, they will probably stop hitting it unless it really is needed.

I'm pretty pro-police, but seeing a cop, bored with waiting at an intersection, just decide to put on the magic blinking lights and run the light makes me insane. Casual abuse of this authority makes the public less supportive, may occasionally lead to the police seeing what other small privileges their uniform can get them, and makes drivers less obedient to emergency signals. If most every time I see a cop with his lights on (and he's not after me!) its because he is abusing the privilege rather than in a real emergency, I'll be far less likely to put any effort into getting out of the way. Not really safe, but that is what happens when cops (and firefighters and EMTs and all sorts of others with light rigs) abuse the system.

I suspect this isn't an intended consequence of such an automatic monitoring system, but it's one I'm in favor of.

-reemul

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Sloppy]

A guy in his house has different needs and "use cases" than an on-duty cop. I don't blame you for not wanting such a watch, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for cops.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Swaffs]

How are you able to distinguish that the cop is abusing it and not using it for a good reason?

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Detritus]

When I see the cop's car parked at the donut shop that is just up the road, I think it is reasonable to assume that he was abusing it.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[GlassHeart]

What if the police could show from a EKG strip that the cop really was scared for his life?

That's probably going too far. An EKG might show excitement, but AFAIK cannot distinguish between fear and other emotions such as anger.

In any case, if such an incident came to trial, the relevant evidence is whether the officer obeyed procedures, and whether a reasonable person should fear for his or her life. If the officer was unreasonably scared, he or she will still be guilty of misuse of force or whatever.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Happy go Lucky]

A guy in his house has different needs and "use cases" than an on-duty cop. I don't blame you for not wanting such a watch, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for cops.

Actually, yeah it does.

And this is Thomas Edison's technology. How much more fragile is a wristwatch? (Hint: I break at least one Casio G-Shock a year on duty.)

I won't trust my life to one of these gadgets. Nor would I recommend that anybody else do so. The combination of a good retention holster and proper training is plenty to keep a cop from being killed with his own weapon.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[dbrutus]

Cops either get calls of a crime or see an incident that is supposed to be reported. When the cop wasn't called and doesn't file an incident report subsequent to turning on those lights there's a good chance that it would be an abuse of his powers.

I'm sure that pretty much any retired cop would be able to sort out a pretty good rule set for a consultant's fee.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[dbrutus]

Yes, but will the ACLU sue to stop C-SPAN from broadcasting Ashcroft's daily prayers?

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[buckminsterinsd]

> The combination of a good retention holster and proper
> training is plenty to keep a cop from being killed with
> his own weapon.

Just outta curiosity:

Is this the current 'best practice' for help keep officers from losing their weapon to an assailent?

What percentage of the officers killed or wounded in the line of duty, are getting shot with the own weapon?

If the percentage is still too high, then those two solutions, the special holster is not working or the training isn't enough, so what else could they do?

best regards,

buck

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Happy go Lucky]

Is this the current 'best practice' for help keep officers from losing their weapon to an assailent?

It is. Nevermind a better-but-impractical option. Even that doesn't yet exist.

What percentage of the officers killed or wounded in the line of duty, are getting shot with the own weapon?

The most recent stat I remember gives about 15-20% for that. Well, 15-20% leaving aside the statistical blip that was 9-11-01.

Violent deaths account for fewer than 100 of us per year on average. Put simply, we have more on-duty deaths from traffic accidents. And from ON-DUTY stress-related illness. Hell, we have more cop suicides than that. (Yes, we're unfortunately better at killing ourselves than the criminals are.)

If the percentage is still too high, then those two solutions, the special holster is not working or the training isn't enough, so what else could they do?

Most of the cops killed with their own weapons in recent years have had a combination of training issues and bad luck.

Some don't keep current on their training. Sad, but true. It's a bitch getting some of my beat partners to even go running with me after work. Others keep current on what they learned in the academy, but that's the same as keeping current on everything that one needed to know about your Red Hat 4.0 install. Better techniques and new threats come along, and if your professional knowledge doesn't keep up...

Others just get swarmed. I'm not sure it's possible to defend a holstered weapon against five attackers. Not without a little help anyway.

Still others, as a consequence of not training, simply don't understand. A gun takeaway is a real live deadly force threat, and is therefore something to be taken VERY seriously. (I explain it to field trainees this way: He's trying to shoot you. He didn't bring his own gun, so he's reaching for the one weapon guaranteed to be present-yours!)

To be fair, the number of us being murdered on duty has dropped sharply over the last few decades, and this with more people actually trying to kill us. Better training, primarily, IMHO.

Look at how many sysadmins/netadmins run unpatched sendmails, old Windows NT boxen, old apache installs, et cetera. Then realize that my profession includes over half a million in the United States, and any group that size is going to include a few slugs who don't stay current.

But staying with the whole point of this article: technology doesn't make us better at our jobs. It's a nice tool. I started out in the late 1980's. Back then, our portable radios weren't that great, car radios weren't much better, reports were still written by hand, fingerprints had to be compared manually (which meant mailing them to the FBI) and the whole notion of in-car computers or cellular phones being standard equipment for everybody was something from an SF novel. And the in-car camera? I've got a Sony HandiCam mounted in mine. Love the thing: More than once someone has complained about how abusive I was when I stopped him for weaving, and the video shows him opening the car door and passing out drunk on the road before I'm within fifteen feet of him. And we sure didn't have THAT kind of help in 1989.

And just the same, we did our jobs and did them reasonably well. When it's a genuine improvement, it can make a good officer even more effective. Unfortunately, these wristwatch gadgets are a disaster waiting to happen IMHO.

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[buckminsterinsd]

> What percentage of the officers killed or wounded in
the line of duty, are getting shot with the own weapon?

> The most recent stat I remember gives about 15-20% for that.

Geez, that's a huge percentage. You'd think that officers would be anxious for a solution to that problem but according to what you are saying I guess donuts kill more of your fellows per year than your own pistols.

I understand your point about training. I observed first hand some of your brothers in arms needlessly create a dangerous situation that could have cost them their lives. Its a bad enough officers not only must face deadly situations in your everyday job. The guys must have ignored or forgot some very important training for this incident to happen:

I'm asleep in my bed, when a bright light woke me. I sit up to find three flashlights in my face, blinding me, I couldn't see who was holding them. All I knew was three dark, burly shapes had me surrounded in my bed and I was scared shitless. A voice said they were cops and demanded my ID. I got my wallet and proved I was the homeowner. Said they were there because a neighbor had called in a 'safety check' about my Mom. Said they had knocked on the front door and then came around the back to the sliding glass door of my bedroom. My adrenalin was still pumped up and I told them to get out of my house. They ignored me and proceeded to search the house while the senior officer interrogate me about all my computer and video hardware, why did I have so much equipment, where did I get it, was it stolen property, did I have the receipts, had I ever been arrested, and so on. After the search uncovered no evidence of serious criminal activity by an 85 year old woman and a handicapped dude, the officers just strolled off to their cars, and ignored my request for some sort of an incident ID and their badge numbers. Without even bothering to turn around to respond, the senior officer said to just call their watch commander.

I was totally pissed at this little home invasion stunt, so next morning I did phone the watch commander. I told him how I woke up to find three or more unknown individuals in my home and in my bedroom, who had me completely surrounded as I slept in my bed. I asked him - "What could of happened if I kept a 9MM under my pillow or the mattress like alot of people? In fear for my life and the life of my mom, would I have been legally justified in the use of deadly force against one or all of your officers? "Without waiting for him to respond, I answered my own question. "Me or some of your men could be dead now." He just sorta casually dismissed my complaints about the scene in my bedroom, the interrogation and their illegal search. He defended his officers actions saying that the 'safety check' call was an emergency situation and no warrant was required. Then I asked that once they confirmed I was the homeowner, why didn't his men just ask me to go get my mom and ensure that she was OK without further violations of my rights and the sanctity of my home? He must of thought I was just another damn stupid civilian trying to tell him and his men how to do their job, I guess. He abruptly ended our phone conversation. I wasn't contacted any further until I was sent a nice form letter saying my complaints were unjustified and unsubstantiated with no evidence of any wrong doing by any of the officers.

Ironically, with that whole scene in my home, not one of the officers even bothered to check on my Mom. They could not have determined her status because no one woke her up, she slept thru the entire incident. She had no clue what had happened in the middle of the nite.

I dunno if that incident was handled by the book or not It's hard to fathom they were actually trained to handle that situation in such a brain dead way. What a dangerous position those guys created for themselves and myself, and all needlessly. It's not like I live in a dangerous neighborhood, fit some racial profile to be singled out, have any criminal

Re:Gaming the Recorder and Black Boxes

[Swaffs]

You think calls never get cancelled?

Obligatory Shakespeare Quote

[Pall Agamemnides]

My villany they
have upon record; which I had rather seal with
my death than repeat over to my shame.
(Much Ado about Nothing, Act V, Scene I)

Personal recording technology to become ubiquitous

[release7]

I predict that we're not too far off from the day when we'll equip our kids with tiny cameras to wear on their lapels, wire them for sound, wirelessly connect it all to a 40GB IBM microdrive in their pocket which contains all needed circuitry to capture and compress the incoming stream. Then we send them off to school with it. When they get home, we can review the footage indexed by spoken keywords and time, and get a complete and accurate view of their day.

This kind of technology will also be extended to the factory floor and to any other situation where there is a supervisor/subordinate type relationship in society.

You could probably write a good sci-fi novel about this and my guess is that one probably already has been written.

And that's different than without a DVR, how?

[Anonymous Coward]

otherwise, the cop could just not turn the thing on, nightstick the hell out of someone, then just drive off.

They can do the same thing now, since there's no thing to turn on.

Awesome...

[Anonymous Coward]

RealTV can show more stunning life-like video of people who try to punch cops...

Re:Robert Stack dead at 84

[Anonymous Coward]

Super guy. He will be missed.

I don't like where this is headed

[Dr. Spork]

I'm not a cop and I probably wouldn't be good at it if I tried. But seriously, what reasonable person would accept a job where every single move you make is recorded on high-resolution camera and reviewed by the chief downtown?

I will tell you a secret: people goof off sometimes when they work. One example: I bet at least a third of comments posted here during the day were written by people "on the clock." If you think there is something "wrong" with that, screw you. In western countries, we do enough work, goofing off and all.

It pisses me off that it's exactly the public servants who absolutely need to be competent who are eating the brunt of our "accountability on the job" insanity. Public school teachers and cops are perfect examples: We don't pay either very well, and both are losing more and more flexibility each year. It seems like in the USA, you are probably "down-and-out" with a liberal arts degree if you become a school teacher, and to become a cop, you are probably a complete asshole who trips on power because nobody liked you in high school. That's because no one in their right minds would work these jobs with "purer" motivations.

This is not how it should be! We should be making these public professions attractive to reasonable, intelligent people! Instead, it seems we just make them crappier every year with new restrictions and new Orwellian "accountability" measures.

If this doesn't bother you, ask yourself this: how would you feel about your job if every single thing you do were recorded on digital video, and then reviewed? We might be heading to a world like that in our constant obsession with economic growth. We will have paid video reviewers who are themselves videoed and reviewed by other reviewers.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[LordYUK]

If I post on Slashdot, yap at the (I wish we had one) water cooler about the previous nights events, oh just plain slept at my desk, nothing major would change in the world.

If a cop goofs off, people could be hurt or in certain cases die.

There is a huge difference in the line of work that most of "us" do and being a cop, and I would think that it takes a certain kind of person to dedicate their lives to serving and protecting the innocent.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between recording a person in power with the ability to kill legally and a programmer.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[Ryan C.]

Well, if you feel that way then lobby to have police officers paid in accordance with this responsibility. Yes, there are many altruistic people out there in blue, but not enough to fill the ranks. And even the most saintly of us can make a bad judgment call or let down their guard and "goof off" after having to work 3 consecutive shifts to make ends meet.

-Ryan C.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason police officers have these cameras in their cars is for the single officer who pulls over a suspect alone in the middle of nowhere.

If you research it, it was the police officers who wanted these in their cars, as they were tired of having single officers getting shot in traffic stops, without a single shred of evidence. Now that the police have these cameras in their cars (sealed and protected) they've been able to catch those offenders and people have begun to think twice about turning a speeding ticket into murder of a police officer.

For the safety it offers, you'll be hard pressed to find a police officer who does not love the security the in-car cameras give them.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[AceM2]

In one way you make sense.. No one wants to be watched every second of their job, but these cops are NOT being watched the whole time, only during the 5-10 minutes they're having to interact with someone that's probably broken the law.. Cops can still goof off and buy some donuts, talk on the phone, or watch pretty girls(or guys should they be female cops) from their cruiser window while they're parked or driving around waiting for something to happen.. Most cops are not in an out-of-car situation 100% of the time on the job.. More like 25% from what I see..

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[babyrat]

I'm not a cop either...however this can certainly be looked at from the exact opposite way - a suspect says you did something to him and you provide the video that you didn't.

Sounds like it could work both ways.

And regarding:

That's because no one in their right minds would work these jobs with "purer" motivations

I think what you meant to say is that YOU do not have a pure enough motivation to do either of these jobs...I doubt you speak for the entire population of the human race.

I personally know a few teachers who could be doing something else for a lot more money with a lot less BS however they continue to teach because they love it. I consider them to be in their 'right' minds...and sometimes I'm even a little jealous that they are doing something they truly love, even if they are sacrificing other material things to do it.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[Aczlan]

25%??? most cops are in the car 90% of the time unless they are doing a roadblock or the like

Aaron Z

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[AceM2]

lol Yeah.. well I was going to say they were in the car 90% of the time, but I figured I'd be safe saying 75% just in case.. Don't want to make cops more pissed off than I already do ;)

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[alecto]

For the safety it offers, you'll be hard pressed to find a police officer who does not love the security the in-car cameras give them.

That's exactly the point! Why shouldn't ordinary citizens be entitled to the same preservation of evidence and safety it offers given to those whose salaries they pay? The cameras should run all the time.

Re:I don't like where this is headed

[Aczlan]

good idea

Aaron Z


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Scenarios

[bitspotter]

some possibilities to be thought about:

1) broadcasting the video.

These are public officials. As long as you've got their activites on video, why not broadcast them in the same way their radio signals are?

The same reason cops are using encrypted channels: "Safety". Supposedly being able to monitor the activities of a public official puts their life at risk. The alternative, however, is an unaccountable public official. Which is worse?

If my tax dollars are paying for these cameras, then they're paying for their output, too. At the very least, I want equalized access to the archives - whether available only through a warrant (for both cops and defenders), or, ideally, completely unconditional access. There are lots of possibilities...

Re:Scenarios

[Anonymous Coward]

How is encrypting radio chatter making them unnaccountable? They are more accountable for their actions than most. They're accountable to their superiours, to internal affairs, to the local politicians. They aren't accountable to you directly. Get over it.

Yes, having Guido the armed PCP dealer being able to know that the cops are planning a raid in 5 minutes does indeed put their lives at risk.

You do have a right to any archived data for inactive cases so long as a judge hasn't sealed it. You don't have a right to active investigations no more than the CIA has a right to put a mind reading device on your skull.

And, oh yeah, next time you're pulled over, give the cop your little speech about your tax dollars. They just love whiny armchair lawyers.

In the end the cop on the street is just a guy doing an average work-a-day job for a mediocre salary. Your beef is with the politicians.

Re:Scenarios

[rhuntley12]

What about minors? Can't legally give you their names when they are arrested, but you want the video to be broadcasted. What about during a crime or something the safety of someone that got caught on the tape? Witness? Although I will say, I agree with you, the above statement was just for argument

here's one problem

[frovingslosh]

tapes will start from three to five minutes before the cop turned on the recorder.

The cop should never "turn on the recorder". In a world with growing police abuse, this recorder should always be on, making a record that accurately records what happened at all times, not just when the cop turns on the recorder. Current video technology and hard drive size certainly could allow for a 24 hour capture and a download to the central server (that 3.4 terabyte does seem small for video for a fleet of cars though) on a daily basis when the car comes back to the station. I would also advocate a little data captured with the video, including car speed and status of the lights and siren at the least.

It would do a lot to impprove my faith in the cops if I knew there was a record of their activity that is not turned on and off at their whim.

Re:here's one problem

[pecosdave]

and youre boss should use key loggers, email sniffers, remote video views and have a camera in your cube to.

Yes cops are in a unique position as public servants, but they're still people and they still deserve the right there of.

Re:here's one problem

[2short]

They don't want to record the huge number of hours cops spend driving or sitting around with nothing happening.

The cop is going to turn on the recorder anytime something interesting might happen, because it's going to help him 99% of the time. And because if he doesn't turn on the recorder, he knows that eventualy a lawer is going to ask him why.

Re:here's one problem

[haystor]

Abusive police are much more reported than abuse of police which is far, far more common. I won't deny that abuse does occur, but its very rare. Sure, there may be a lot of claims that it happened but a almost all of these claims are by criminals. Criminals tend to lie about their actions and for some strange reason, if they can create doubt about abuse they somehow become innocent (er, not guilty) of their crimes.

Police will welcome anything that can stem the flood of false claims and get them out of court quicker.

Most cops I know are cops because they just are. Its something in them that makes them want to stand in harms way, same with firefighters.

Re:here's one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

when is the last time you were abused by cops? get a mind of your own and quit simply going by the "BREAKING NEWS" you see as you sit on your fat a$$ everyday while watching TV. Cops do there job and they do it just fine.

Did this where I worked

[phorm]

Basically we had a system hooked up to a digital camera that recorded to temporary files. If something tripped off a sensor, it was configured to save the previous X moments of video rather than dumping the cache file. Really, it makes sense, since for spontaneous events you really want what happened to get your attention, not necessarily what happens afterwards (or both).

As for the duration of recording... wouldn't it be nice if the recordings weren't viewable by the officers on duty. That way, it could be juggled to a little over 5 minutes (or a lot over), and anyone trying to "wait out" before pressing record would be S.O.L.

Re:Did this where I worked

[Anonymous Coward]

They sort of do need to know what happens. There have been cases of cops pulling over people and while distracted the tapes catch guys tossing drugs away from them and while the cop turns and notices something changed he doesn't know untill he checks the "tape". Realistically they most likely will record the entire shift but use only the marked sections when unloading it. If there was a high enough profile event the entire box could be unloaded. The technology to include the entire day is simply to cheap now to NOT record the entire day. Plus you know they will expect cases to be lost due to any "missing" footage so they wont have spotty recordings.

Actually they do keep the tape

[Thavius]

The police keep a copy of all stops they make, in case it's needed to be used in court. No matter what kind of stop, I'd be foolhardy for them to just throw out tapes.

Imagine a routine traffic stop, where the person gets a warning. If the tape wasn't saved, the person stopped could come back and say all kinds of nasty stuff. The state wouldn't have any proof otherwise.

I recently had jury duty, and had the wonderful pleasure of sitting on a jury for a contested speeding ticket. They played the video twice.

Oh, I just re-read the 2nd sentence of the parent post. I think the parent meant "If you are then set loose, they won't keep recording as it serves no value." Never mind!
I'll go back to work now.

I want one.

[BoomerSooner]

Nothing worse than getting a fucking ticket from some damn rural cop who says your going faster than you are. Speed (cruise) control does a pretty good job of keeping me aware of my actual speed, instead of lying cops making money for BFE Oklahoma.

Although I could fabricate evidence on my own! Hmmm.....

Re:I want one.

[K-Man]

It seems like a cheap "this is what really happened" camera would be a boon for people on the road, and insurance companies, etc., would save a lot of litigation of the "I didn't rear end him, he backed into me on the freeway" kind.

I know there's one guy in New York who rides a bike with cameras fore and aft, but I think they're on a conventional portable VTR.

Storage Advances

[codethug]

The systems involve a digital video camera and reusable hard drives which police officers will take with them on their shifts

Where can I get one of these new-fangled reusable hard drives? Image a Beowulf...

Still room for "bias..."

[milktoastman]

...because the video is already in digital format. Used to, you'd have to convert the footage to digital before you edited in the gun in the "assailant's" hand. This just eliminates a tedious and time-consuming step for the cops.

HDTV Cops

[Phredd]

You can always tell who is going to get arrested while watching COPS. Its simple. It is the guy who is NOT wearing a shirt.

Constant recording and the effects of downtime

[Thing 1]

My vote is for them to constantly be recording, and save older recordings to DVD-R (if the hard drives start to fill up). With the rapid advance of hard drives (there was an article here saying they improved 10,000-fold over the last decade or so, IIRC), and the opposite advances in video compression (DIVX/XVID et al), there should be no reason not to record everything.

Then it will be mighty suspicious if a cop's video "suddenly breaks." Perhaps two independent recorders would be called for?

My wife was visiting a friend in Brazil recently, and they were staying at a hotel. Her friend was accosted one night by a security guard who had red eyes and was acting funny (likely he smoked pot), and hit on her and put his arm against the wall, blocking her path. He followed her up to her room.

She has a friend who is a cop, and he was with her that night just prior to dropping her off; he has the receipt from the restaurant they ate at, marking the exact time they left, and they went directly to the hotel. Strangely, ALL VIDEO stopped working that night.

Which is actually better for my wife's friend: now the hotel has broken two laws, a sexual harassment as well as a federal law of destroying evidence. I hope she wins.

We're entering the strage era of having no privacy outside the home (and little privacy inside, as cops use thermal imaging to detect tomato growers). If we're going to record, I think it best that we record everything, especially all government employees -- including politicians, police, and military. As others have said, these recordings will reduce police corruption.

And if we recorded politicians 24/7, we'd end the era of "big oil" deals, and RIAA/MPAA-mandated legislation, and all sorts of crap that goes on in back rooms that nobody ever hears about.

Re:Constant recording and the effects of downtime

[Anonymous Coward]

pot doesn't turn you into a maniac, dude. stereotypes like that don't help anyone, including yourself.

Re:Constant recording and the effects of downtime

[Thing 1]

pot doesn't turn you into a maniac, dude. stereotypes like that don't help anyone, including yourself.

Not sterotyping at all, simply reporting the story as my wife told it to me. Chill.

Drugs aren't the issue; his actions were. However, if he was "hopped up on goofballs" at the time, it should be an issue for his employer, since he was supposed to be providing security services. Or do you think people should work stoned too?

if they put one cam on the back seat....

[Anonymous Coward]

...there will be some intereting voyeur video of sexual favour from the hookers

personal exp with cop cams

[Flunitrazepam]

I was with a friend who was pulled over for a suposed DUI, when he had been drinking nothing but water. The police officer made him do the field sobriety test, which he completed without a problem. Then they arrested him for DUI for apparently no reason. To fight the charge later he wanted his lawyer to get a copy of the cop car tapes that showed him doing the sobriety test. The lawyer said that quite simply the police in this area stopped using them, because it was causing them to LOSE too many cases. Eventually the blood test came back 0.0 so the charge was dropped, but any action against the officer was more or less impossible due to lack of evidence, no video.

Re:personal exp with cop cams

[ZeeTeeKiwi]

I have longed for the day when my car has this sort of recording ability. Preferably 4 cameras - one for each corner, so that any incident is caught.

And until it became popular, I would have the best of both worlds. If it worked for me, I'd show the evidence. And if I was in the wrong "what camera, Officer?"...

Re:personal exp with cop cams

[X00M]

What most people do not understand is legally a field sobriety test cannot prove you to be innocent. Which is why if you have had nothing to drink or are 100 positive you are under the legal limit. Reufse!

x00m

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time surveillance comes up someone totes out the old "you're in public; you have no privacy" line. As if being observed by a person and being observed by a camera is the same thing.

When I'm in public, the people who see me should also be in public and seeable by me. There's no privacy parity when you can observe me perfectly unseeable. Without that parity, you have altered the playing field and are invading my privacy in a public forum.

Being in public doesn't imply consent to being stalked by an invisible man.

Show me a degaussing coil...

[StandardCell]

...and I'll show you a hard drive that will have no recoverable data on it.

okay, here's a decent one.

[pecosdave]

not all states are listed, lots of legalese, but you should be able to filter through some of it.

speedtrap.org

Re:okay, here's a decent one.

[randyest]

Thanks, but how about a good one, like one that supports your original claim in some way:

Speed trapping isn't legal in most states (hidden out of view)

I was afraid this was too good to be true. If you have any real info to back up this claim, please post it. I just wasted 30 minutes of my life parsing through mildly interesting, but basically useless info on state speed trap regulations. I should have stopped right after I learned that my state (MA) has no useful anti-speed-trap laws (only limits on speeding duration required to warrant a ticket in cases where no limits are posted, which is pretty much nowhere that I drive), but I wanted to see if indeed most states restrict hidden speed traps.

Then I noticed that this site doesn't even list speed trap limits for even half of the states, so estabilishing that most limit them somehow would be impossible using this website. Boy am I slow. Or maybe just trying to avoid real work? :)

In fact, I can't find any real limits on that site except for California, which seems to state that you can't get a speeding ticket no matter what -- "speed traps" as they define them seem to be ANY speed monitoring, and all types seem to be forbidden, IANAL, and I must be misunderstanding this California law as stated. Nevertheless, according to this site, it is not true that most sites forbid speed traps. Sigh..

So, to avoid a total loss, here's a quick non-legalese summary of what your suggested site does offer . . .

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona - lists conditions where local authorities may and shall alter maximum limits, restrictions on number of speed limit changes per road distance, etc. No restrictions on speed traps being hidden or not are listed.

Arkansas, Missouri - shows procedure for claiming abuse of police power, and (interestingly) in one way or another limits the percentage of local municipal revenue than can come from speeding fines, and/or forces excess speeding ticket income to go to schools or libraries.

Mass. - only limits speed detection methodology in cases where no limit is posted. So, basically, no limits in most places that matter.

Michigan, Texas - no limits, just restrictions on where speeding ticket revenues must be spent (schools, libraries, usually)

Minnesota, New Jersey - no limits whatsoever (at least not on this website)

Finally, here's the California bit, which is the only interesting one. Any lawyer mind helping sort this out?

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE SECTION

40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

40802. (a) A speed trap is either of the following:

(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

(1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is defined by the

Re:okay, here's a decent one.

[2short]

I waded through a bunch of it, and saw nothing to support your point. Some states appear to have laws restricting the ability of the police to enforce limits lower than those posted (it was raining so you should have gone even slower), or preventing limits lower than those justified by safety concerns, etc.

I saw no mention of the cops being unable to use intelligence (hiding behind bushes) in enforcing the law.

Please provide a reference that is actually related.

Re:okay, here's a decent one.

[2short]

The California one says that you can't measure their speed by how long it takes them to go a certain distance, you have to use radar, laser, etc. Which seems kind of stupid.

Even if you use radar, the speed limit had to be set as a result of an engineering study to determine the approptiate limit. i.e. It was set in the normal way, you didn't lower it yesterday because you felt like catching some speeders.

Still nothing about having to wave big red flags and shout "Hey there's a cop over here! The words 'Speed Limit' have meaning!"

Cool but very dangerous.

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

Bad assumptions abound here. Yes, this could make citizens safer from police. And since "Police Abuse of Power" is a popular meme it may seem like it's all daisies. First off the article doesn't go into nearly the depth needed to establish authentication. For instance: The recorder authenticates all the video to prevent changes, and it will have a checkout system to keep track of which officers have checked out which hard drives.

This could mean the officer get's handed a clipboard and "signs out" a drive, like he does a gun or any other piece of equipment. For evidence that can be so damaging (to both victim and jerk (whichever they may be)) the standard must come up to a whole new level. Anything less than outstandingly modern security will allow the tired mystery novel scenario to occur:

Officer A switches tivos with officer B; Officer A checks out drive 1 while signing for drive 2. Officer B checks out drive 2 while signing for drive 1. Officer A goes out to do something bad. Officer B drives a rush our traffic route so there are no tickets to hand out. That night they check in their drives, but Officer A has wiped his. Later Officer A is accused of a crime and has video to prove that he was somewhere else at the time. The fact that Officer B's drive crashed that day is not compelling evidence of anything.

The device that checks out the hard drive should be a black box digital time clock that puts it's own signature in the data of the drive. The vending company should make the public keys available to verify the signature, but keep the private keys out of the reach of law enforcement altogether. The officer that checks out a drive should type his pass-phrase into the checkout terminal so that it can generate a second signature that cannot be replicated without the pass-phrase. The Tivo-like computer should, in addition to other features, keep a running log of which hard drives (by signature) have been inserted into it and when, and these logs (up to the last say 100 insertions) should be included and signed on each new hard drive that goes into the Tivo. So any hard disk mucking about would be distributed over all the hard disks in the pool, and they would therefore have to destroy them all to successfully cover this stuff up. With the addition of signed GPS location/timestamps swapping/editing could be pretty tough especially if the tivo device derived it's signature from an unremovable factory issued SIM.

It's worth noting that I've never seen an episode of "Cops: A night of police screw ups."

Censoring the things they don't want seen is already the norm, and it will continue to be unless we legislate it otherwise.

Re:Cool but very dangerous.

[ReTay]

It's worth noting that I've never seen an episode of "Cops: A night of police screw ups."

They just stopped playing it. They arrested a home brewer and confiscated two patches of beer in the fermenter and some hop plants (used to make beer bitter) This is a legal hobby in most states. The cops were entirely to aggressive and the guy was smart kept his mouth shut it played several times on Fox. That guy is probably set for life now. The last clip really killed me. The cop is walking out of the holding a glass fermenter with am airlock on the top saying "he could have made someone go blind with this stuff."

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure this has been stated over and over but this isn't an invasion of privacy.

Major police departments have analog systems installed. Besides they start recording once they turn on the sirens. And they're always videos of road incidences (pull overs, chases, etc) not like they've got the car parked at some cliff pointing at your window.

Something else that's never mentioned is that officers can bend or break certain rules to enforce the law. That open road you're driving on is a patrol officer's work place. They'll take anything that'll enhance their productivity and safety.

This is What They've Been Waiting For!

[telstar]

Now the cops can give a thumbs-up to the high-speed car chase, a thumbs down to that damn weekly domestic dipute where they never end up pressing charges, and get the season pass to the recurring hold-up that alternates between the Dunkin Donuts and the strip club...

Civillian use

[peacefinder]

If you're paranoid about cops recording their actions, you're at least 10 years too late. :) The basic concept of cameras in patrol cars is not new at all. This method brings some important gains in efficiency and coverage, both of which are helpful to the public and to law enforcement. (If the system preserves the chain of evidence properly, anyway.)

What I'd really like to see, though, is a discreet portable camera + DVR for civillian use. (Better would be a camera with a wireless link to a DVR, so that the recorder could be carried by someone else.) Think of all the times you've heard about clashes at protests, with both the cops and the protesters saying the other guys started it. This sort of event is beyond the coverage of patrol car cameras, generally... a human-portable camera is about the only way to record the truth. Sadly, civillian cameras at protests regularly are seized by police, or have their film destroyed.

A portable system could be deployed by both police and protesters, making the truth much more possible to sort out later.

Re:Personal recording technology to become ubiquit

[Kredal]

Homonids by Robert J. Sawyer.

The people from an alternate universe have computers implanted into their arm that records everything around them holographically, and send the recording to a central computer for storage. Some people (the news reporters of that universe) broadcast their Companion's recordings 24/7 live.

money, crime fighting, and poverty

[Anonymous Coward]

course they could use some of the money theyll spend on this to help alleviate poverty, which would have a knock on effect on crime, which would in turn mean a need for fewer police officers, which would save even more money... and they could giving drug users long prison sentences, which costs the taxpayer billions for no conceivable gain, other than to bolster the prison-industrial complex.

hang on, that sounds like commie talk... cameras on every street corner like in britain! the streets have never been safer.....

IBM drives?

[Mr. Pibb]

is anyone else worried about how IBM, makers of some not-so-reliable drives of late, is making this? I sure don't want real evidence being destroyed because of a hard drive crash.

Re:IBM drives?

[Openadvocate]

Strangly enough, a break every hour at Dunkin' Donuts will be required. That will ensure that the disk gets a chance to spin down and stay within operational specifications.
Rumor has it that the IBM solution was choosen for just this reason.

I want something like this

[Skater]

I want something like this for my car! I see so much aggressive driving. I'd record it and put it on "aggressivedrivers.com" with a searchable database of plate numbers of aggressive drivers I've spotted with a clip of their idiocy. I don't think this should be used for law enforcement (other than finding areas that should be targeted for enforcement), but it could be useful to see what junior has been up to in the car or maybe even yourself. If nothing else, it would let me vent, and that alone would be worth the hassle...

--RJ

Can We Just Say...

[Esion Modnar]

5 minute loop?

Like Tivo has a 30 minute loop to pause live TV.

Have to admit though, that would have been handy. No more catching a show just a couple minutes late.

An infinite loop scenario...

[JargonScott]

So, what happens when I'm watching someone be arrested on Cops due to [insert favorite anti-pirate acronym] because he was live-streaming Cops when the officer arrested him for live-streaming Cops that I watched live?

- Col. Sanders "Your looking at now now. Everything that is happening now, is happening now."
- Dark Helmet "Go back to then!"
- Col. Sanders "We can't. We just missed it."
- Dark Helmet "When?"
- Col. Sanders "Just now."
- Dark Helmet "When will then be now?"
- Col. Sanders "Soon...."

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[JargonScott]

The one problem I see is what keeps the officer from not hitting record for 5 extra minutes, if he's specifically targeting someone?

It always seems to take them 2-3 minutes before coming up to your car already, what's 2 more minutes to wait to them?

Makes me wonder

[Caltheos]

Last year I was contract working for a small startup company in Nashville called Digital Safety Technology. They had developed a complete digital camera and database system based on gigabit ethernet in a custom box. Guess this looks like another case of the big guys catching up with the smaller suppliers and drowning them.

Removable media.

[lionchild]

So, does that mean that as this becomes a viable product, (the DVR with removable media), and IBM markets it to home users, the cops will be able to bring the DVR-HD from home with last night's shows on it, to work where they can view it conveniently in their car, while on patrol? ;-)

Re:Personal recording technology to become ubiquit

[Anonymous Coward]

until the kid throws that BS half assed over parenting technology into the garbage.

if i was a child whose parents tried to do that, they would get an earful and money sent straight down the drain.

A few comments

[Andy Dodd]

For one: No statements about the compression algorithm used were made in the article.

Second: 13 gigs/hour at 720x480 (DVD quality) is not uncompressed. It's compressed DV, which is (I believe) a variant of Motion JPEG. It's very light compression, but it is compressed. (Note, DV does not use any sort of I-frames, every frame is a keyframe, there is no difference frame encoding done, so detection of "edits" based on difference frame artifacts is not possible.)

Third: Given that laptop hard drives are available in sizes up to 60 GB, it's entirely possible for them to be storing raw DV video. With a 60GB laptop drive, you could store over 5 hours of video without recompressing it. Go to a shock-mounted 3.5" drive and 60GB is SMALL.

Fourth: If the statements of the capacity in bytes and time are correct, then yes, it's 700M/hour. But those specs could easily be off. (For example, the writer could have assumed 700M/hour in calculating the time capacity.)

Re:A few comments

[NanoGator]

" No statements about the compression algorithm used were made in the article."

They said 3.5 terabytes of storage held 5,000 hours of footage. Doing the math I arrived at 700 megs per hour. I am not a mathematician so if I messed up a decimal point then somebody please correct me. Assuming my math is right, then the only possible way they're storing the footage is to use a codec, likely of MPEG4 relation. (DivX maybe?)

"Second: 13 gigs/hour at 720x480 (DVD quality) is not uncompressed. It's compressed DV, which is (I believe) a variant of Motion JPEG. "

I damn near argued with you on this point, but I decided to verify your claim about it being MPEG based compression before doing that. Glad I did because you're right! DV is probably MPEG related which means that it is a lossy codec. I didn't know that. I've read a million times that it's a lossless codec. However, I did an experiment, and you do lose quality every time you compress with DV. I'm *very* glad you mentioned that because now I know not to use that as an archival format. I guess the reason that myth is about is that you can copy the DV video from tape to tape without generation loss. That's absolutely true. You don't have to de/recompress to transfer the footage. Damn, I've been reading a DV mag a lot lately and never latched on to that detail. *grump* In any case, my claim that it was lossless was wrong. That probably negates that whole point there. (Maybe... the difference wasn't noticable without heavy analysis.)

I never meant to imply that the 13 gigs/hour number was uncompressed. That's the native format of digital video cameras. They're not going to capture it uncompressed. I don't think you can do that with today's products. (I might be wrong, been a while since I looked that up.)

"Third: Given that laptop hard drives are available in sizes up to 60 GB, it's entirely possible for them to be storing raw DV video. With a 60GB laptop drive, you could store over 5 hours of video without recompressing it. Go to a shock-mounted 3.5" drive and 60GB is SMALL."

Capturing that much footage isn't the problem. The problem is archiving it. If a single officer is capturing 60 gigs of day, you run out of terabytes REAL fast.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[enomar]

Of course, it becomes even more effective when you've got one in your car too. I want to see a personal black box feature in my next car. Just like with these cameras, the data is destroyed unless I tell it otherwise. When a cop pulls me over, I hit record, and the last 10 minutes of buffered data, along with the new data, gets recorded and can then be used in court to prove I _did_ have my turn signal on...

COPS 2004

[mattsucks]

Now, hook a wireless transmitter up to that videocam and let the reality-police shows abound! Think of the possibilities. Stream the video from selected cruisers live on the 'net. You get a UI to select the cruiser you wish to view, and voila! you are right there in the action.

It turns on automatically

[nurb432]

At least for tapes, as soon as they flip on the lights the tape starts rolling...

When does it turn off? Not sure about that part.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[mikelieman]

Did you sign you driver's license application, agreeing to abide by their rules? If so, then you need to play nice with the officer as he enforces the rules YOU AGREED TO!

Stop whining about how "they" have taken away your rights. You exchanged them for the license.

invasion of privacy?

[lpret]

Are you serious? Most large workplaces have similar systems set up to make sure you're not pulling an OfficeSpace. On top of that, they monitor your web traffic and phone conversations. If this is allowed for private firms, it most definitely is allowed, if not required, of law enforcement.

Sorry about my rant, but I see no negative effects of this.

Sorry to dissapoint.

[InThane]

I've got a cousin who's a cop, and a brother-in-law who's a prison guard. The stories both of them have told me about the kind of crap they've pulled on people when nobody else is watching is pretty disugsting - for example, the prison guard told me about "elevator rides" where they would pull the stop button on the elevator, pound the crap out of a prisoner who they thought was "uppity", and then tell the court "he fell in the elevator."

I only wish I was trolling.

Re:Sorry to dissapoint.

[dbrutus]

The problem with these old fashioned techniques is that not hitting record at the start of an incident will be against regulations. In that case starting a record session in the middle when there are cries of police brutality will be sure to get the jury to both get the prisoner off and also end the cop's career.

There are likely other ways to get around this (the fact that the cop has physical control of the hard drive sounds promising) but dirty cops will have to have an entirely new level of sophistication to get around the system.

In short it's going to clean things up for a while at a minimum.

Re:Sorry to dissapoint.

[The_dev0]

One easy way around it would be to make sure your car stereo is at a volume sufficient to make it onto the police recording when you get pulled over. After you arrest, it's a simple matter of reporting the unlawful reproduction of the copyrighted material to our good friends at the RIAA! Payback, as they say, is a bitch.

Re:Sorry to dissapoint.

[SEWilco]

Next the guards will be asked why they or their supervisor did not push the "record" button to show that during the previous five minutes they got on the elevator for one minute, during which he is seen falling down.

Also the video of the elevator status display should show the motions of the elevator during that time, to ensure that the guards weren't wearing steel braces so they could simply stand there while the elevator zoomed upward with an acceleration of 5G.

Also the video of the video recording machine for the elevator status display should show that the recording of the status display was not tampered with.

Also the video of the video recording machine for the video of the video recording machine for the elevator status display should show that the recording of the recording of the status display was not tampered with.

Maybe all the video recording machines should be in a single room with all the machines in the center, with eight cameras recording all sides and each other.

Re:Sorry to dissapoint.

[devilspgd]

Not only would it be against regulations, but it would be fair to say that if the cop doesn't hit record or subsequently loses the recording or whatever, then as a matter of law the suspect's account would be considered correct and binding.

IOW, the recording would be used to protect the officer against false misconduct complaints.

Lossy compression as evidence

[smiff]

it's about 700 megs per hour of footage, as opposed the 13 gig it'd take to losslessly compress it.

Has anyone analyzed how accurately lossy compression reproduces the original? The whole point of lossy compression is that it alters the image so that it's easier to compress. If the video shows you tossing something out the window, how do we know if you really tossed it, or if it's just an anomaly introduced by the compression algorithm?

These cameras should use two encoding systems. Lossy compression at 30+ fps to provide context, and lossless compression at 1-2 fps to provide trustworthy footage.

Re:Lossy compression as evidence

[devilspgd]

The other thing you can do as a security check is to transmit a CRC check of every few frames and store that data elsewhere in some sort of write-once format. Even if all you do is burn it to CDR with some serialized or preprinted discs, it would be immediately obvious if somebody attempts to tamper after the fact.

Is this admissable as evidence?

[default luser]

That would be my biggest question, since the digital format is an order of magnitude easier to seamlessly edit than analog media.

Re:Tivo Like?

[cayenne8]

Hmm..so, if this thing is like a Tivo, does that me he can schedule his next traffic stop or felon arrest beating days ahead of time? And, would it pick up which flavors of doughnuts and coffee strength the cop likes, and make suggestions to him?

Wow...Tivo for cops, sounds like fun. Wonder if it comes with a monthly fee or if you can buy the service for a one time fee?

Ill stop holding them to orwellian accountabily

[Unknown Poltroon]

If theyll stop holding me to their orwellian laws. If they dont like having a camera following them everywhere, well, too bad. Stop putting up your fucking spy cameras on every corner, stop with those redlight cameras that are there only to generate money.

I dont like being watched by camera all the time either.

Re:Ill stop holding them to orwellian accountabily

[Anonymous Coward]

the only people who should dislike redlight camera's are inconsiderate jerks who floor it when the light is yellow and they are 100yards away rather than being courteous and slowing down like the law requires

DVRs for Cop Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that this technology was touted as new or best of breed. The paradigm of tape remains, in that a physical medium needs to be manually moved to maintain a chain of custody for evidentiary purposes. Replacing a $3 tape with a $300 hard drive does not make sense if you have observed the rough handling of police equipment. The issues mentioned in the article exist because the system mentioned has flaws and was designed using the VCR tape thinking. The SecureEye system uses available technology to change the process and deal with the issues.

Working on a DVR now...

[flyingfred0]

I'm working on the same type of DVR product at the company I'm with. We're starting small, but already have one paying customer, and a handful of trial units in the field with local law enforcement agencies.

The response is excellent, both the officers and their supervisors love the units. One of our trial units has already captured a fight between officers and a suspect, who accused them of brutality and harassment, and the video clearly shows that the officers were doing only what was necessary to restrain the suspect.

We have a shorter pre-event recording time, since we're currently using RAM to buffer the video. We're using ruggedized (IBM) laptop hard drives for our storage medium.

Of course there are plenty of ways an officer could defeat the system: smash the camera, beat the suspect behind the car since the camera faces forward, drive the car off a cliff, cut wires to the unit, etc. -- but it still offers a new measure of protection for both the officers and the people they come in contact with.

It's not near HDTV quality.

[seekohler]

If my math is correct, the video they record with this system equates to about 734MB/hr or 208KB/sec. That's roughly VCD quality using MPEG-1 compression. Not anywhere near the bitrate needed for HDTV.

Yes.. that's a nitpic. So sue me.

So...

[BeninOcala]

Will the officers get to Tivo the lastest Cops on Fox?

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Cpt_Kirks]

Am I the only one to have just had a "Lethal Weapon" flashback?

Usefulness of a gun in the house

[sbeitzel]

Hey, oops...wait, lemme find my watch, I took it off when I had a shower...just a minute...got my gun[...]

Yeah, as opposed to now, with your completely mechanical gun in your house, when the scenario goes something like this:

Burglar enters your home at night, pulls gun on you

YOU: Hey, whoa, why'd you wake me up and pull a gun on me? Wait a minute, you've got the drop on me and it ain't fair -- I was sleeping. Hang on, lemme go get my gun and we'll try that again.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[cayenne8]

/me grabs gun under pillow with arm already under the pillow....

Actually, yes if they wake you, they can get the drop on you....but, I usually wake up to most any noise...can easily grab any of my guns around the house...and be ready. But, don't want to have to look for electronic device that runs each one....

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[sbeitzel]

Oh, I take your point completely, and I actually agree that it's a silly idea to make firing the weapon dependent upon the weapon being "unlocked" by some proximity sensor -- it makes the whole system far too prone to failure.

Out of curiosity, though, I wonder how often you've ever needed those guns around the house. I'm only 35, and my home was only burglarized once -- when I was 4 and no-one was home. That time, we lost a stereo, a TV, and my piggy bank was broken (garnering the thieves maybe as much as $2). So my experience leads me to believe that having one or more weapons ready to hand in the house would serve only to provide my kids with opportunities to get into trouble. I wonder if you'd care to contrast your own experience. Have you had many break-ins, and have you successfully defended your life and possessions with your many to hand weapons?

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[Anonymous Coward]

/me grabs gun under pillow with arm already under the pillow....

/me grabs gun in sleep and accidentally blows hole in own head/wife's head/through wall and neighbours head...

otherwise, /me keeps gun under pillow not loaded (I know, no such thing as an unloaded gun, but still) and burglar is just smart enough to reason this out, and shoots /me in retaliation for threatening him with an unloaded gun...

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[cayenne8]

Well, been lucky enough so far, never had to shoot anyone, been burgled once (I was out overnight)...and they did get one of my guns, and some AV equipment. I have had friends, tho, that have shot and killed people who broke into their houses...

I'm single, and have no kids...so, no problems there, but, I was raised in a house with a gun, and I was taught by my Dad a respect for firearms, and how to use them..etc. I knew where they were, and never touched it except for once, when I was about 13 or so...home alone during the summer, and some bum came knocking on the front door,wanting some water...I had the gun in my hand safety off...told him to leave. He finally left...I put the gun back, and told my folks.

I guess it depends on your kids, and how your raise them around fire arms. I grew up in the southern part of the US, and guns down here are part of life...lots of hunting..target practice...etc. Most everyone I knew, had guns in their houses, and my friends and I all knew where they were...but had been taught they were not toys...and would have had hell to pay if we got one and it wasn't an emergency.

I actually did not purchase a gun for myself till I was well out of college...I partied a lot, and just didn't want to risk having a party and one getting pulled out..etc. But, I grew up, and when I felt responsible enough to own one...I started buying. I have had carry concealed licenses in the past...don't have one now since a move..but, may get one. If I have kids, I'll be more cautious about them and all, but, will also teach my children gun safety, and how to respect them, much as my parents and my friends' parents did....

But, all that being said...not everyone should be a gun owner. It is a major responsibility...if you can't trust your kids..don't have them...if you have ANY doubts that if you have to pull a gun that you will shoot and shoot to kill...you do not need to have one. I've thought long and hard about this, and have taken safety courses, and regularly practice shooting...I like to think I'll know what I'll do if faced with the decision. You never know, but, I've mentally drilled myself on what I need to do. If someone is in my house, and threatening me, my friends, or someday, my family, I have no moral problem at all and emptying 16 shots into the assailent (sp?), and not checking the body till I've slapped another clip in....

It definitely is an individual decision, and not one to be taken lightly.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[cayenne8]

Un-married and no kids...when bringing women over to sleep over...I don't put the gun under my pillow then...but, do leave it at arms reach.

Like I said above...it is a personal decision, not be taken lightly. Gun ownership is NOT for everybody. I respect others that don't want to own them....

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[Blkdeath]

I knew where they were, and never touched it except for once, when I was about 13 or so...home alone during the summer, and some bum came knocking on the front door,wanting some water...I had the gun in my hand safety off...told him to leave. He finally left...I put the gun back, and told my folks.

A disadvantaged compatriot came to your door asking for water and you pulled a gun on him? And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[cayenne8]

A ragged stranger came to the door, wouldn't go away with a child at home alone? Nope..nothing wrong there. I never opened the door, so, he never knew I had a gun in hand...but, if he had tried to break the door in and force himself in...I'd have shot.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[Blkdeath]

A ragged stranger came to the door, wouldn't go away with a child at home alone?

Why, was he to assume that he'd rape you?

Have you ever needed food or water?

I feel sorry for you, and any countrymen you encounter in like fashion. Further responses will go ignored.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[ReTay]

You know I am aware that you were not asking me but I had to chime in here.
I used to live in a really bad area, in one year on my block alone there were 3 homicides, 6 home invasions, at least 10 non-homicide shootings. When we moved into the area we went shooting with all the guns we owned. And then spent a casual afternoon cleaning them on the front porch. The cops got a couple of freaked out calls from the homes around us, but could easily see when they drove by that we had them broken down and were cleaning them.
No one ever bothered us, no break-ins, no one trying to take toys from my son nothing.
Considering the odds in that area I would say it was unusual that we had no trouble.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[rhuntley12]

I own a bunch of guns, and for sake of if someones breaking into my house, I went out and spent 50$ on a 9mm prop gun. Shoots blanks. I figure if someones ever breaking into my house or whatnot, I have the blank in one hand and my real one in the other, for purpose of a warning shot. I think extra loud 9mm blank shot in a house and saying "Don't move asshole" would pretty much finish any idea a burgler had, and if not, well theres always the other hand... Now if I just dont get trashed and forget which guns which and put a whole in my ceiling

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[Anonymous Coward]

don't keep shooting (16 shots?) after they're down, then it switches from self-defense to manslaughter. yeah, you and me know its not, but the lawyers will portray it that way and its better overall to just shoot until they stop being a threat.

Re:Usefulness of a gun in the house

[TPFH]

Not to say that you did the wrong thing, on the street I'm OK, but even as an adult I'm a bit disturbed when dealing with "ragged strangers" at my home.... but reading your post I recalled that in Arizona it is against the law to refuse to give water to someone that asks.

(Not only is this getting really off topic, but that's a pretty bad run-on sentence.)

The law dates back to the gold prospecting days, but the reality of dehydration in Arizona still makes it a usefull law.

Replying to posts from meta-moderation is a great way to randomize your posts.

cop bashing

[David1982]

There have been a lot of posts bashing cops, but most cops are good cops. It's just like how most hackers are not crackers or black hats. Most cops sign up because they want to help people, not to go "Rodney King" on anyone's ass. There are really not that many bad cops as the movies or news outlets would like you to believe.

Now all they need...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is Kazaa Media Dashboard.

Goodbye Fox and their "Most Dangerous Chases" programmes.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up

When the cops don't know whether or not they might be recorded, but they know nearly everyone has the capability, they will become much more honest... by bastard-filtering if not by choice.

Simply put, you do not know the facts...

[El Camino SS]

Officer A switches tivos with officer B; Officer A checks out drive 1 while signing for drive 2. Officer B checks out drive 2 while signing for drive 1. Officer A goes out to do something bad. Officer B drives a rush our traffic route so there are no tickets to hand out. That night they check in their drives, but Officer A has wiped his. Later Officer A is accused of a crime and has video to prove that he was somewhere else at the time. The fact that Officer B's drive crashed that day is not compelling evidence of anything.


That is the most beautiful piece of speculation that I have ever heard. You should be a trial lawyer, considering the fact that you are sounding so convincing without NEEDING ANY FACTS.

That is not how the system works at all. The officer before his shift has no contact with his recording device or media. The shift Sergent or executive officer places the recording media in the machine in a locked box in the rear of the vehicle... the officer has no contact before and after the shift, nor has the key. This is standard behavior for these devices all across the country. Also, considering that the officer almost always has a mic on his uniform for the entire shift, I would find it extremelty difficult to switch with another... and recreate the exact locations in the same time and order.

So beating the system is ludicrous. There are too many safeguards to stop without leaving a trail.

Hit once?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are on crack. Several different officers hit him several times. It would have been excruciatingly obvious if one single hit from a single cop had been played over and over again, think about it for a second (or a whole day, you might need that long).

You probably also think the Holocaust was a hoax, too, don't you?

I don't care what Rodney King did or has done. The worst scumbag shouldn't get beaten by four cops with nightsticks in the street (well, maybe they actually deserve it, but you just can't give cops the authority to make that decision. That's what judges and juries are for). You hold him down, cuff him, and put him in the cruiser. End of story. Anything else is gratuitous violence and is illegal.

And no, Sherlock, you're not the only one who's 'followed his career', every time he takes a shit it's a news item, yes, he's a scumbag criminal. But if we just starting beating our criminals in the streets because they're scumbags, someone might just 'liberate' us if you get my meaning.

Re:Hit once?!?!?

[intermodal]

and you, sir, are an idiot. Rodney King was being arrested for good reason, and was on PCP. When a suspect is on PCP, your "hold him down, cuff him, and put him in the cruiser." plan doesn't work. Suspects on PCP have been known to break their handcuffs (and their wrists at the same time) and keep fighting, never even noticing their wrists are broken for being hopped up so much on the PCP. Learn your drugs before you speak about how to deal with those on them.

Re:Hit once?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rodney King was being arrested for good reason...

Never said he wasn't.

Suspects on PCP have been known to break their handcuffs...

Sounds like we need to design better handcuffs. Not the cops fault, I suppose.

...and keep fighting, never even noticing their wrists are broken for being hopped up so much on the PCP.

Hmm, boy, that sounds apocryphal, you mean to tell me someone fights with both wrists broken? I find that hard to believe, I mean sure they don't feel the pain, but how effective a fighter are they with broken wrists? Sounds like cover for a bunch of cops who stand around in the street beating one single man with nightsticks to me.

Maybe the cops need better tools (leg- and wrist-irons instead of 'cuffs, tazers or the like, maybe even a tranquilizer gun?) but there is NO justification for a half-dozen cops standing around in the street repeatedly beating one man with nightsticks.

Re:Hit once?!?!?

[intermodal]

well, that may be true. However, I'm not concerned with the humane treatment of people on PCP. I wouldn't care if they had shot him.

Why are you on /. man ? :p

[Anonymous Coward]

You got a gun and you get chicks man....I wonder why you are on /. :p some ppl have it all...:p

typo clarification

[Bold Marauder]

however they do nothing to support your original allegations I was arguing against

My apologies.

A physical key? Wow, that's impressive.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice that in some places they may have simple physical safeguards against abuse. But it's simple-minded to think that these are adequate to secure the kind of privacy and authentication that a full-time surveillance system would necessitate.

Try thinking about it from a criminal perspective. The officer has no contact before and after the shift, nor has the key. So he gets a copy of the key. He stops at the local K-mart where there is another car out of sight. They swap recorders. He does the bad deed. He gets the recorder from a friend whom he gave a copy of the key. The recorder in the friend's car has a "problem", but since he's not under investigation, it's never relevant.

Police work in a field against people who routinely overcome silly physical safeguards. If we're going to use powerful evidence gathering technology in Police vehicles, it would seem imprudent to trust it's veracity to the same class of safeguards, to the circumvention of which the police are routinely exposed.

Cryptographic safeguards such as those suggested above can be made of a caliber that would be orders of magnitude harder to circumvent than the "locked box in the trunk" technique. Considering what is at stake, namely the ability to manufacture or destroy convincing evidence with impunity, some extra measures of security don't seem out of place.

drivers "license"

[zogger]

--a drivers license is exactly like a microsoft eula, no compromise, you can't negotiate, you are a freeking pedestrian held from driving completely safely at gunpoint and threat of arrest if you don't "click their eula" and agree to their "voluntary" "permit-ission" to travel. It's a bogus unconstitutional money and power grabbing scheme as far as I am concerned. Ya, I know, that means zero, just my opinion on it.. And inside a nation 3,000 miles long, too, like in our society unless you live downtown major urban area you don't need to drive to conduct your business.

It's a coerced effort, completely coerced, forced,with threat of violence to your person and theft of your property from you if you "just say no to overreraching statism"..

IMO, "Licenses" should only be required of people who have proven by their past driving record, from fudging up, that they need special treatment. A license -a permission slip in this case- means you are considered an incompetent in advance, and must plead to the state in advance to be allowed to use your own private property and to travel unmolested by the state. I can see, just perhaps as a compromise,to be required to show cause you are competent to operate a motor vehicle in the beginning, but NOT to travel once you have passed that first operators competency test. Then, as long as you can drive cool, no license required. Mess up bad, tough luck, you have to have a provisional license with a review, similar to probation for any other crime.

Why not a "proof of not being a thief in advance" license? Same deal basically

That stuff has been bass ackward with drivers "licenses" since day one. It sorta rankles me that constant "driving is a privelege, we own you totally" mindset. It's just another smarmy deal they got going with government and their command and control fetish.

small rant... sorry, don't mean to thread drift that much

The in car cameras? I'd rather they were openly broadcast back to the cop shop,recorded there in their entirety and stored at least a month,and anyone could tune in at any time and see exactly which cop was where,record whatever they want, to make sure no funny business was going on. Same with all elected officials and higher level appointed officials. I'm for as much sunshine as possible to be pumped back into government, they got this secrecy deal going way too much now, this is supposed to be a government "of the people", not "us" and "them". I want exactly the same rights to monitor them as they see fit to require of us.

I think you'd see a LOT less high crimes and midemeanors and corruption and scandal if they knew they were being observed. It's creeping incrementalism, you can go back and look-or have lived it-what they are doing now is insane nutso, back when I was a kid no one would have stood for it, now though, because it's step by step with this mass conditioining, people put up with it. Complete random roadblocks common now? Please, that was only done by those bad places like east germany when I was a kid, we ridiculed that in class, something to point at and feel sorry for those people over there, living like that. Masked cops in every small town in america with submachine guns just kicking in doors and going total batsquat? Honest, I never even heard of anything like that happening, that was something like if they knew for a fact joe bank robber was holed up someplace and they called at him with a bullhorn and he wouldn't come out. Very, very rare. But now, it's common. And the cops didn't wear masks back then, people would have freaked out. Robbers, ku klux klan, people like that might wear a mask, not cops, no-freekin-way, it didn't happen, it would have been grotesque, e-vile. But...they s-l-o-w-l-y slid that crap in, now it's common, people accept it.

You have to be able to see the trends over a long period of time to get the full flavor of it, what I mean. Totalitarianism doesn't really happen over night all at once, they chip away at it, a piece here, a piece there, st

I want one!

[Ben Hutchings]

The number of illegal and dangerous manouevres I see every week is significant, and I doubt that this is specific to where I live. I was pondering the idea of having a DVR like this and passing on recordings to the police (and volunteering as a witness to attest to the locations, times and accuracy of the recordings). It isn't going to happen any time soon, especially given that I'm going around on a bike not in a car, but maybe some time in the future it will be practical to fit DVRs to vehicles. The mere fact that they are commonplace would, I hope, act as a deterrent against the sort of crappy driving that people mostly get away with now. (Bad cyclists are another matter; without registration plates it's going to be hard to identify them. They're mostly a danger to themselves, though.)

the court case...

[zogger]

.... was something like this. One of their journalists (FOX) had a video expose of BGH in milk being harmful, that was the conclusion. Fox squashed it, then ran something totally 180 from that. The originators sued and LOST, the court ruled it was perfectly "legal" to lie on a news show.

Someone might have the link, I didn't bookmark it.

Is this new?

[gr66nman]

March Networks already makes DVR's for emergency response vehicles.

ethics codes

[zogger]

--check your states ethics codes. Sometimes there are additional laws that can be applied to "public servants" when they are obviously not doing their jobs. It varies a lot state by state so you are on your own there for the research. The complaint can be filed by you, a good backup inducement for them to get on the ball and earn their pay.

Sorry to hear about that stuff you are going through.

I wish Depty March had this system.

[roseblood]

Too bad this wasn't in Deputy March's car.

Because he didn't his killers had ample time to flee to Mexico where they're protected by international treaty barring extradition of murders from Mexico into the USA.

Re:I wish Depty March had this system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, bad guys kill good guys and vice versa. He knew that when he signed up. I agree that his killing was senseless, but what would he have done if he had a chance to pull his weapon to create an armed standoff? He would have shot them as quickly as they did him. The difference is they do life in prison, the cop gets a medal. Frankly, I think it's ironic that the arms race between police and criminals only ends in the perpetrating of more crimes by both parties. All the police in my area are keen to use strong-arm tactics in every situation, even those that do not warrant it, and get all teary-eyed when the people they are payed to PROTECT defend their human rights. Besides, most cops are fucking animals that only got into the job to throw their weight around after their career as high school bullies is over. Fuck 'em.

DVRs? new? what about the military?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought companies like TEAC were already making DVRs for the military -- why would it be such a deal to put a similar product in a cop car (other than making it voltage compatible, etc.)?

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

so you were beaten to death recently by cops? oh wait you have a friend who was beaten to death right? you people are pathetic. just a sheep who watches too much TV and then believes what they say on the news cause you can't think for yourself.

pulling over for weaving is 100% legal.. and if there is reason to believe narcotics are involved, or you are being arrested for DUI then there is again 100% legal cause to do a FULL search of the vehicle.

im guessing that withing ten years you will still be a complete dumbass. there is no chance in hell any entire arrest will need to be taped to prosecute? did you actually think prior to typing this BS. Do you have a clue how real policework is done? The effecting of an arrest in no way relates to the guilt/innocence of a person. A report could be made 3 days prior and then the suspect apprehended.

Judge: Im sorry officer but do you have the tapes of you placing handcuffs on the defendant?

Officer: No.. just the testimony of 48 people in the bank at the time the robbery occured 2 days prior to his arrest. Each one of those people positively identified the suspect, we foudn the weapon on the suspect that killed the two banks guards, and he had the exact amount of cash on him that was stolen..

Judge: Well obviously you didn't read your Cops 101 manual.. without videotape of actually putting handcuffs on the defendant we have no case.. Dismissed!

get a clue guy.

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[dbrutus]

I wouldn't convict if a cop saw a car weaving, followed for >5 minutes after the weaving stopped, and only then hit his lights to stop the car. That's just too bogus no matter what drugs they found in the car afterwards.

Easy Fix

[hndrcks]

Install a GPS next to the recorder in the trunk - record GPS coordinates on the tape. Now how is officer A going to explain how his drive was on officer B's beat?

Jeez, this is too easy. 18-wheelers and rental cars are tracked by GPS. I can't believe they don't do this already in police cars!

Re:Easy Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert on GPS technology/hardware and as such will post as an anomymous coward. But isn't it a potentially huge risk if criminals steal the encryption key? If this happened (unbeknownst to the police), then criminals would be able to increase their rate of success by orders of magnitude.

Re:A physical key? Wow, that's impressive.

[El Camino SS]

Listen dude, I am a newsman. I work with police all the time (and when I say all the time I mean daily).

You have no understanding. I look constantly for corruption. I live to ferret it out. I am a professional that loves to ferret it out.

That being said, there simply is no police conspiracy. There are some bad cops. They are not evil, they are simply people who have a temper in a job that you need Buddha-like self control in a pinch. Any of these "overarching police conspiracies" or "one rotten apple spoils the bunch" or "they could get away with it" ideas that any of you imply is simply asinine:

Try thinking about it from a criminal perspective. The officer has no contact before and after the shift, nor has the key. So he gets a copy of the key. He stops at the local K-mart where there is another car out of sight. They swap recorders. He does the bad deed. He gets the recorder from a friend whom he gave a copy of the key. The recorder in the friend's car has a "problem", but since he's not under investigation, it's never relevant.


You really need to be a lawyer. This lying and speculation shit about things you don't understand is really top drawer. That previous paragraph is pure paranoiac gold. By the way, we live in the world of facts, not speculation. If you want speculation to turn into serious action in your society, may I humbly accept pre-war Iraq.

You've got to be kidding, right? A beat cop can fake a video? Where is your ILM for beat cops? Call George Lucas! The FOP conspiracy needs to fake some fucking fake video over here!

I don't usually tell someone to stick it over the internet, because there is no point, but you really need to realize and defer to others when you just fucking DO NOT KNOW the innards of a subject like others.

Why would I care? Because I know the subject intimately. What you are telling me is that I don't know shit about my occupation for the last 6 years. I shoot video and talk to cops all day. SO TRYING TO SCHOOL ME ON VIDEO AS HOW IT CAN BE ALTERED AND USED BY COPS IS LIKE TELLING TORVALDS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT MAKING OPERATING SYSTEMS.

In the end, if you don't know, then shut your fucking opinionated mouth.

You don't know. Not knowing is not a sign of weakness. Not knowing specifics of a subject is common. However, when I don't know about a subject and I am in the presence of one that does, I generally SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN.

You should learn that lesson.

Re:Tivo Like?

[SEWilco]

Option Selected: "Automatically record the incidents which match those incidents which I have indicated as being ones that I liked."

Recording The Tools

[SEWilco]

The concept of a gun connected to the officer is a real concept that exists and can be used. The officer is issued a device much like a wristwatch, which communicates with the pistol.

The concept is called "Smart Gun", a weapon which only works for authorized users. The term covers any identification method. Some of the technologies are fingerprint scanners or sensed-code rings or bracelets. "Authorized users" might include several people. I am not aware of anything which is in production, and state this so we'll immediately get corrected if others know otherwise.

Back to the video topic: Does "aircraft gun camera" mean anything to you?

Re:Ridiculous invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

[ pulling over for weaving is 100% legal.. and if there is reason to believe narcotics are involved, or you are being arrested for DUI then there is again 100% legal cause to do a FULL search of the vehicle. ]

Dude you don't get it. Go back to your world where everybody just gets along. In fact, can I hitch a ride? ;-)

it's not clear you can do that

[Anonymous Coward]

In several states, you are not allowed to record your conversation with the cops yourself. The rationale? The police didn't want stuff to be used "out of context".

MJPEG != MPEG

[Andy Dodd]

Yes, DV is a lossy algorithm, but the loss is VERY little. Nothing compared to the likes of MPEG. One of the key factors is that DV does not do difference frame encoding - This means that EACH frame is encoded independently. The advantages of this are:
a) It can be spliced at any frame
b) You only have the loss of the inital compression of the frame, not additional losses from compression between frames. Difference frame compression is why high motion will often kill the quality of MPEG video - Because to keep the same bitrate, more data must be lost.

DV, despite being lossy, is fine as an archival format because it's a higher quality or equal to nearly any possible source, unless you move to gear costing in the tens of thousands of dollars. The output of any DV camcorder is already compressed - Why store it uncompressed? You're not gaining any quality there, since it was compressed (albeit very lightly) to begin with.

If capturing from an analog source - Almost guaranteed that your source is going to be the limiting factor. In fact, it IS guaranteed because DV supports progressive images while any analog capture mechanism that doesn't cost thousands (likely tens of thousands) of dollars is going to be interlaced.

Copcam forever

[fm6]

I rather think we're moving towards the day when every moment of a suspect's interaction with police is recorded and placed beyond tampering. The law enforcement establishment will probably resist this, since a lot of dubious "interview" techniques would come under courtroom scrutiny, with the resulting evidence disallowed. But I think that street cops will come around when they realize that the camera is an ally against accusations that they misuse their authority.