Slashdot Mirror
London Police Equipped With 360-Degree Cams
OriginalArlen writes, "In a story so surreal I had to check the primary source, the Register reports that the (London, UK) Metropolitan Police are trying out the use of eight tiny cams, mounted in the police helmet, to provide 360-degree evidence gathering in the event that an officer witnesses a crime. The press release also gives more evidence of the stealth spread of ubiquitous ANPR systems across the country as a spin-off 'benefit' to the London car congestion-charging scheme, which is likely to be rolled out across the country in the next few years. Are we already living in a Panopticon Society?" According to this report from the information commissioner for Great Britain, yep.
What else are they planning on keeping up there, I wonder?
I can't find anywhere that mentions if the cops have the ability to turn it off or not. I would be very skeptical of any police video that has been "edited" (turning the camera off at certain moments) by the police officer in question.
An example of what I mean: A cop gets called "pig" (the UK version), cop turns off video, kicks the crap out of kid, turns video back on, and then says "I was attacked! You saw him trying to provoke me!" Or whatever, you guys get the idea.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Now we can see something other than car chases on "World's Wildest Police Videos."
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I agree that turning the camera off would look pretty odd, depending on what had happened when the camer was back on...
But really I can't see this as anything but a good thing. A police officer may well be able to keep a little calmer in tense situations knowing everything he does is recorded. If someone is really causing trouble, it helps clear the officer from wrongdoing as well. It's just an extension of cameras they put in every police car for traffic stops...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...remember, remember, the 5th of November.....
Maybe I'm the only one, but when I saw the headline, I thought of the line in Robocop: "You idiot! His memory is admissible as evidence!"
With this, the police can't beat you up for no reason and get away with it.
...you may not have seen the crackhead who put the slug through your heart... but at least internal affairs will be able to ID him.
Perhaps this technology is not being used in the most beneficial way possible.
England and America
:(
FYI: I'm an Aussie and I don't like what is happening in Australia either...
Maybe this has been mentioned before, but this seems absurd. In order to drive in a part of town that suffers from congestion, you must pay a 8euro congestion charge. That is insane. Am I the only one that thinks this is rediculous?
Brad
PS. - I'm from the States, incase you didn't guess.
This actually doesn't seem like a terrible idea, I mean, a lot of police cars have cameras mounted to the front of them and this is just the logical extension of that. Also, unlike a lot of technologies used in policing, it might help protect citizens from overzealous cops. If a cop's got one of these on and he does something out of line, you can just look at the tape, whereas otherwise it might just be your word against his. This of course, is assuming the tapes are available to you as evidence.
Honestly I find the prevalence of cameras mounted to buildings for policing (such as those found across London) to be more disturbing. It seems more okay when you're using cameras to document the course of a police officer's work.
So now a London bobby's greeting will be, "Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello"?
The camera's are NOT 360 degree.
Article with picture
This won't really change a thing in favour of the citizens. It will be used to cover their backs when the police doing things right (which is most of the time), raise a bit of revenue when they sell it off for a britains-dumbest-criminals-type tv show, but don't forget the poor brazilian guy who was executed on the tube last year. The police "lost" the videos for that one, and the tube system is already wall-to-wall with cameras for our "security".
This message was scanned by European governments and contains no terrorism.
Obligatory Monty Python quote
In all likelihood, the U.S. is also creeping towards a 'Surveillance Society'. Response to terrorism (from the IRA) was one of drivers of the UKs current propensity towards spying on its citizens, fear of Al Queda and Islamic Militants will be our undoing as well. In times of unease and mass fear it's often easy to give up freedoms, but ever so difficult to bring them back. Hopefully Americans will recognize this before we merrily join the UK and strap video cameras to every public park, building, and employee.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
So, no "Queue the Bladerunner jokes"? :(
When I was a child I always thought how nice it would be to visit England.
Now it just... I'm just really dissapointed is all.
Where did I get such a silly notion that public surveillance is 100% wrong, regardless of benefit?
So the police are carrying video cameras plugged into XBox 360s with very long extension cords. That should make next week's episode of COPS very interesting.
We need highly portable petabyte flash rom to make pentopticon a reality for everybody. While I have no doubt that (at least at the resolution my PDA displays) you can get 8 low res video feeds, with audio, at a cost of only 100MB/HR, and thus a 4GB compact flash could handle recording everything a police constable does for a half a shift (change the card at lunch, with a couple of spare card sto slap in after a crime occurs so that the original card could be "sealed" for chain of evidence purposes), this technology won't be widespread until you can go a month or more without changing the data storage card out.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From BBC : "The average citizen in the UK is caught on CCTV cameras 300 times a day."
ingsoc, that is where British are heading.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
all communication is essentially libralizing - so from my point of view, more commnication is always a good thing
surveillence is one kind of communication. the problems that happen is when the information gathered by surveillence is not shared or accessible broadly
in an ideal world, there would be lots and lots of surveillence, including all the interactions and discussions by the public, elected officials, and all the feeds could be viewed by the public
Anything that brings about more police accountability is a good thing, in my mind. I just hope the UK legal system is less likely to dismiss cases due to technicalities than the US system. I can see the results now:
"It is clear from this video that the police officer said 'You're under arrest,' instead of 'You are under arrest' as required by law. Because of this violation of procedure, none of the evidence collected is admissible and the state has no choice but to acquit."
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Typical slashdot knee jerk..
Nothing much to say except that this is an over reaction to a piece of news, and provokes privacy concerns with much content.
It's not even correct in it's story either..
I thought the photo above was funny, they're looking more and more like budget cyborgs...
all they did is type fov 360', how is this news?
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
The police turning off their cameras is a problem ( I recall seeing picture from 60s Selma voting marches where cops covered their badge numbers with black take before beating up marchers )
But what if I am wearing a similar camera array?
... is not so much the police doing this as the people letting them.
Of course George Bush and his eeeeevil theocons are to blame for this eroding of basic human freedoms and sadly, today sees us taking another step toward a fascist world dictatorship ruled by Jews and Texas oilmen. Will no one save humanity from these crazy Americans???
What's that? It's really just another case of your typical leftist Euro nanny state mentality run amok? Um...let's all welcome our new 360-degree overlords. Surely they have our best interests in mind.
There's an Amish joke here
Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
to prevent their helmets from being "pinched" on Boat Race Day.
AccountKiller
I still don't understand why they don't just use a single higher res camera, mount it facing upwards, then stick a curved lens above it to give a 360 view all round.
Granted, the cop version has more memory and a screen but...???
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Each camera has a 45* viewing angle only?
I find that a little odd.
I would have expected 2 or max 3 cameras, but 8 is a little too much.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
Bush administration officials announced today that for national security, homeland security will be installing cameras in every American's underpants starting on 1 January 2007. The cameras are to protect America from the evils of sin and sex and to provide the senators and congressmen with easy access to protect the jewel of American society: the teen boy. This plan is part of a larger project that was spearheaded by the departed Donald Rumsfeld last year who departed amid criticisms that he encourage homosexual acts in Abu Grahib as a method of stress relief for the soldiers. His original "Operation Panty-cam" plan was discouraged due to concerns about the name and what it implied.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Seriously. I bicycle a lot, and cyclists experience all kinds of aggression from people in cars -- flipping the bird, shouting, throwing things. First it scares the crap out of you, but once fear subsides, you want to get even. If you had a camera on your bike helmet, well, your memory would be admissible as evidence. As this technology gets cheaper, I have to think that ordinary citizens may choose to protect themselves in this way.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Due to hereditary hair, and the fact that you can't really wear a baseball cap with a suit and tie, I want nice men's hats to make a comeback in popular fashion. Maybe the growing use of CCTV will help my cause. Has anyone done a study to determine how wide a brim is needed to hide one's face from a typical CCTV camera? Will a bowler or fedora suffice, or do we need to go for a full sombrero?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
...the gun that shoots around corners.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I hear they're upgrading to these single-officer personnel carriers...
REGULATE! REGULATE! REGULATE! th' law...
crazy dynamite monkey
But perhaps the crackhead would be wearing his own camera hat, cleverly concealed beneath... something transparent enough to allow footage to be taken, but opaque enough to stop his fellow crackheads from noticing...
ONE-WAY HAIR?! Watch for it from Britain's Finest!
First off, I agree that this doesn't sound bad to me, either. However, using the argument that this is a "logical extension" of something else as a supporting argument is the logical dual to the "slippery slope" argument. In neither case do I find it any way a complete argument. I would say I don't even find it a supporting statement, but the latter argument is at least that if only for the reason that the former argument is often made.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
aaaaaaaaagh
And we have far greater problems still with our current government's obsession with the perceived terrorist threat. Last week there was a big thing made of the head of one of our security services, stating that they had x groups and y individual terrorist suspects under surveillance, and knew of at least z active plans to hurt us. A lot of our media was hyping how terrible things really are, and now we really know how bad the real terrorist threat really is.
Me, I thought "Is that all?" and figured we'd do better if we spent the gazillions of pounds we throw at "anti-terror" activities on cutting KSI figures for road traffic accidents, researching promising medical treatments, and raising education standards. This is not to belittle those who belong to the security services. Indeed, I've no doubt that they do some valuable work and protect us from some genuine threats, and I'm grateful to them for it. But sometimes, the price of a little extra security (you can never have 100%, nor anywhere close) is just too high. Tony Blair has talked a lot during his time in office about taking tough decisions. The tough decision on terrorism is not to take all those headline-grabbing steps that ultimately reduce overall quality of life, in a futile attempt to make the country Safe And Secure(TM).
This camera thing is just another gimmick. It used to be that children would naturally respect a police officer and the local constable would stop and say hello to them in the park while walking his beat, yet today the police feel the need to cover their backsides with all kinds of video footage. Why have the police lost the implicit moral authority they used to have? Why is antisocial behaviour one of the biggest dirty marks on today's society? What happened to policing by consent? It is left as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the answers involve the threat of terrorism, or whether they're more to do with the government stripping parents and teachers of any legal right to effectively discipline children, misunderstanding human rights to mean treating convicted criminals like the second coming, adopting the nanny state view of legislation over education, enacting an extensive series of laws that are more about ease of enforcement than outlawing genuinely harmful behaviour, and eschewing all sense of personal responsibility from senior ministers on down in favour of a litigous, CYA, spin-laden society.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Dear author: I can see you were trying to make your summary as useless as possible for those of us not interested in following links. However, you did not try quite hard enough, as the first sentence accidentally imparts intelligible information. Please try to use more impenetrable jargon in the future, and be sure to obfuscate your title.
Nothing to see here, move along...
...welcome our new eight-camera-helmet-wearing bobby overlords!
This is my borough, so I'll have to keep a look out, although I didn't realise there was any particular problem around here with antisocial behaviour. There's some other interesting bits in that Police news link though. Apparently there's some 'airport-style arches' (presumably metal detectors) and automated number plate recognition going on as well. I think I might mail them and ask them how long they store their numberplate information for...
There... done. It'll be interesting to read their reply.
If the cops are required to log their entire shifts in video to an auditable repository every day, then this tech will serve the public well. Let them take 15 minute privacy breaks every couple of hours, as long as their partner stays on duty, logging their outro/intro from the break.
Cops could file most reports by voiceover annotations of what they videoed. Most of their court and other official testimony could be submitted as sworn video/narration. That would save hours of time doing what they do worst, paperwork, and keeping them engaged in the scene. Offering "eyewitness evidence" with an interpreter. Returning the "word" of the cop to the more reliable status cops want it to be. Offering juries firsthand experience of how cops might have made an honest mistake. And creating a library of suspects useable by the entire justice system, once accepted as evidence on probable cause.
And keeping cops honest. Which protects the good ones, which accounts for 99% of the hours cops work. This system would also capture, or deter, the other 1% that does so much harm. While increasing productivity on the street and on the case, cutting costs and corroborating credibility.
We have to keep in mind that technology will continue to make the distinctions between public and private more operational. So we should exploit our systems for improving the public behavior we expect. While also protecting the privacy we expect, which allows the public to function. So these records should be private, stored for limited durations unless court ordered, and never shared except within explicitly court ordered transactions.
Britain doesn't even have a Constitution, so I don't know how they'll protect that privacy. But after they'd played around with this tech and these rights for a while, we in the US will have even more reason to add a Privacy Amendment to our Constitution to protect ourselves. Combined with improved police protection, we can be more secure. Or, without protections on both sides of the public/private boundry, we'll all be made criminals.
--
make install -not war
As can be seen here, it's only 8 cameras in total for the whole force, just one on a helmet, so definitely no 360 degree viewing going on!
Given that, as is usual with technology, the equipment is only going to get cheaper (and storage larger) at the same time, it's entirely possible that we'll end up with EVERYBODY carrying the stuff as a matter of course. It would take a VERY stupid street criminal to mug somebody who's got a real time record of both the approach and the crime. And there won't be time for a search to make sure ALL the recording equipment disappears along with the victim's purse or wallet.
And from there, it's only a small extension to making a voluntary basis mandatory...
Of course, Murphy's Law being what it is, we'll end up with some future police inspector saying "We had ten thousand citizens wearing fifty thousand cameras and we STILL can't figure out who shot [insert famous national leader name here].
I don't see why you couldn't wear one too, and then you'd be able to show your (assumedly) unexpurgated version alongside theirs, and thus prove not only did they do something wrong, but that they attempted to cover it up.
More realistically though, unless you want to be like the gargoyle guy from Snow Crash, totally covered in data-capture gear, what's going to keep law enforcement and government in check are the little cameras on everyone's cellphones. The tasering incident at UCLA is just the beginning; in the next few years as video-cameraphones become more ubiquitous, and ways for sharing the resulting video (Youtube, Flickr, etc.) become totally mainstream, you'll be able to pull out your cameraphone when you see something odd going on, and post it to the web (hopefully with some sort of geotagging and time/date stamping), and suddenly the onus will be on the cops to show exactly what they were doing.
Cameraphones and YouTube are more than just ways to make porn and stupid pet videos, they could be the beginning of a whole new era in the balance of power between common people and the authorities. How the people in power attempt to regulate the use of these technologies should give you a good indication of how threatened they feel by them.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They won't, if they extend the existing standards. That is to say, cops in the UK have notepads with numbered pages, so they can't tear them out to withold evidence or change their account... Well, not so easily, anyway.
Imagine that you are a victim of a crime but nobody believes you, what better evidence could you have than a camera recording of the crime? Surely being able to record crimes is useful and a Good Thing. If we record anything, then this not only helps justice but also the people, the victims, and those who are innocent but are being accused of a crime. The problem is twofold: First the rights to privacy and the possibility of misuse. Cameras are just tools, and can be misused in a myriad of ways, just like nuclear power. Judges should not forget that camera evidence can be faked (Photoshop and video editing tools can do magic), so video recordings are not to be taken as definite answers in a court. For me the most serious problem about cameras is who has the right to use them: Shops have cameras, the government has cameras, the police have a plenty, too. Can I put a camera on my head and record anything? I know the government and the police protect me and use their cameras to record evidence, but I want to do the same. If we have the same powers, then it feels like there is less possibility for misuse (you say you recorded me stealing pens, but I say I have a recording at the same shop at the same time and it shows you stealing pens... oh and now the judge has to find out who is the best Photoshop manipulator!). I see nothing wrong with sousveillance (although there is still possibility of misuse even when civilians use cameras).
I live in a small village/town of Frome in Somerset and there was a front page article in both the free local papers that if I remember correctly 8 or 10 of these units have been put into full time use around the town and this was just over a month ago. Forget this "rolled out over the next few years" they are already being used in parts of the country outside of London.
than with fixed installations of cameras.
If a police office can see me with his eyes then these things can serve as an accurate record of what happened near him without further invasion of my privacy. These things may see me occasionally... but they monitor the officer all the time. Police need to be watched more than almost any regular citizen. Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos and all that.
If the original record is relatively tamper proof (Ha!) this could serve as a good recourse against police by citizens who are wrongfully accused or otherwise abused.
It will of course aid police in their investigations, but I like this two edged sword.
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
welcome our orwellian inspired tit shaped hat wearing overlords.
The other response comes from listening the I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue where last week they had a round where each panel member had to tell just the punchline to some terrible old jokes. And Barry Cryer said: "...paint it blue and join the police!"
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Taser'd dude
note: this isn't flamebait
On one hand we have camera related articles that we champion. And on the other we have this - camera used by 'The Man' that we will never want to support. This idea probably originated from the US. Think all them COPS shows or Amazing Videos where footage from a cops car is used...
Look, cops die all the time and some times these videos are the only clue or evidence to whodunnit. I may feel a tad bit violated but I'm not that selfish to think that these cops do not have the right to make their job safer or even easier. Easier for them usually means better for us.
No i;m not a cop. I had a friend who was murdered when he was 16, and whose family could never taste justice because the evidence that was caught on tape could not be used in court.
I would support this because I know how much benefit It would bring. And besides.. Jaded as I am I still have faith in humanity. Sometime.
People think cars make them anonymous. For now, they are probably right. They can speed away and assume we will never meet again, or if we do, they won't be recognized. And by the way, throwing stuff is assault. But then, it's not a crime if you don't get caught, right?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Citizens should fight these big brother activities by turning the concept on its head. Just as we as citizens are concerned about "big brother" activities, corrupt politicians and law enforcement officers should be trembling in their boots over "little brother".
What does "little brother" do? He tattles on "big brother". That's us watching them.
At-risk citizens - citizens at-risk to be victims of big brother abuse - should be provided with concealed video recording devices that interoperate with their cell phones, or possibly just use the cell phone cameras themselves. At the press of a button, the video will begin being inconspicuously transferred in near real time via cell phone to a remote server. A citizen would activate the remote transfer mode when being confronted by an officer. This ensures that the footage can not be "lost" or otherwise destroyed or confiscated by the enforcement officers or agency involved. The video would be transferred to the remote server encrypted. But could after the incident be "unlocked" by the transmitting individual for publication if abuse occurred during the recorded confrontation.
**Kramer isn't a racist. He was only being equal to the racism that they gave toward him. He received some hate from those niggers in the top row at the back, and he's returning them the dimorphic words that remind them Why they are black.**
if i was a nigger...i could drive a cadillac with class
my pocket stuffed with welfare checks, and i could sit on my big black ass
now you take a nigger, he aint nobody's fool, he doesn't buy any gasoline to drive his kids to school
damn i wish i was a nigger
our government has gone crazy, id change things if i could
if i was only a nigger, i could afford to live in a white neighborhood
oh the things that i could do, if i was black and hell bent
i could send my kids to college, and it wouldn't cost me one damn cent
damn i wish i was a nigger
the wife and i were down on our luck, we were really getting uptight
they said at the welfare office, you aint black you're white
oh how I've tried to get a job, a diploma i had with pride
the post office man laughed and said youre not dark enough to even qualify
damn i wish i was a nigger
i took a civil service exam, and passed it without shame
a nigger took one next to me, and he couldnt even write his own name
the nigger, he got the job, now he's government top ?prass?
he couldn't qualify for a trash truck, I'm out on the street on my ass
damn i wish i was a nigger
if i was a Jesse Jackson, id be nobody's slob
wearin $500.00 dollar suits, that nigger hasn't even got a job
if i was Jackson Brown, i could sit back and relax
and if elected president, could paint the white house black
damn i wish i was a nigger
if i was a jig-a-boo, i could find me my roots
with a afro big as a watermelon, and a pair of white disco boots
if i was only dark complexioned, i could stand tall in this life
i could eat high off the hog, just me and my white wife
damn i wish i was a nigger
things are supposed to be segregated, but things are a little off key
I've never seen a white man, head...of the NAACP
it aint that i don't like a nigger, if I've rubbed you wrong by chance
take a look at that mistletoe, hanging on the seat of my pants
damn i wish i was a nigger
if i was a kinky top, i could be a Martin Luther King
id have me a vision on a mountain top, my song the whole world would sing
i could have me a peace march, on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee
i could tare up the whole damn city, and the police wouldn't dare stop me
damn i wish i was a nigger
a lot of things in life i know, but one thing i cant figure
why a nigger can call me a honkey, and i cant call a nigger a nigger
if i was a jungle bunny, i could ring a golden bell
i could be a Mohammed Ali, and be loved by Howard Coozell
damn i wish i was a nigger
if i was a you-bangy, 7 foot tall and lean
i could be a famous player, on the Washington basketball team
if i was only chocolate brown, i could have me some turnip greens
a possum fat an watermelon, chitlens and a pot of butter beans
damn i wish i was a nigger
now when Martin Luther King, was buried in Washington with class
face down in his box, so the politicians could kiss his ass
i guess its just politics, and it sure gets my goat
kiss assin with a nigger, just to get his vote
damn i wish i was a nigger
if i was only a ?birdhead?, id live high on the hill
sellin cocaine and prostitutes, and poppin all kinds of pills
now take the NAACP, they can march and raise all kinds of hell
let the KKK start to move, and they'll all wind up in jail
damn i wish i was a nigger
i dreamed my life was over, i heard saint peter say
today we're taken on the niggers, you've gotta go the..other way
then i heard the devil, he said i heard what peter had to say
but I'm sorry to tell you son, today in hell...is nigger day
damn don't you wish you were a nigger
I'm going back to the hills of Arkansas, where they don't have those not damn one sided nigger peace marches
protesters, welfare check grabbers, I'm gon' plant me some turnip greens in a watermelon patch
raise me a hog, and a big fat possum
i said yes i am you mother
As someone who installs CCTV (goobye karma) I've held my tongue on quite a few occasions here, but you can 'stop' all this.
The data protection laws introduced about two years ago give you a few few tools. Firstly, any CCTV recording OR monitoring system in public places must be announced (this includes places that you are invited into automatically, like shops etc), the announcing sign must state 3 things, that there is a monitoring/recording system in use, for what purpose it is there (and the purpose of monitoring/recording doesn't cut it), who is in charge of administering the system and how to contact them.
Now the important thing here is the 'contact them', under UK data protection laws you have the right to claim your digital image, send the 'administrators' (the only ones who have legal access to the system to review/archive recordings) a letter explaing where you were, a cheque for £10 (the reasonable fee they are allowed to charge), what day you were there (don't be to precise), proof of address (utility bill etc) and a 'valid for passport' style photo. It is then their job to search through the footage looking for you, extract the right footage, and here's the kicker, remove the faces of anyone else on that footage before they send it to you or else they are in breach of the data protection act (which I can assure you most CCTV administrators do not have the equipment/skills to do).
The best way to use these rules are to hang about outside busy tube stations in rush hour, permanently on camera, and don't stop moving, that would make masking other faces too easy.
The police use camcorders at a lot of large public demonstrations, this is also a good time to use these laws, especially if you were not there.
Do not underestimate the power of the data protection act, people have used it to force documents out of MI5, and one guy got of a charge of armed robbery, as most of the case rested on CCTV evidence that was ruled inadmissible because the shop keeper had no signage up.
Kent: We've come up with a camera so tiny it fits into this oversized
novelty hat.
[Homer puts it on, and struggles to stand upright]
Now, go get us some incriminating footage, and remember: you have
to get in and out in ten minutes, or you'll suffer permanent neck
damage.
Man: [neck horribly twisted] He's not kidding.
-- Moving in for the kill, "Homer and Apu"
Homer walks towards the Kwik-E-Mart doors, swaying and weaving. Apu
watches him, curious. {Two seconds of the swaying and weaving are cut
in syndication.}
Apu: Huh?
Homer: Don't be alarmed, Apu. Just go about your daily routine like I'm
not wearing the hat.
Apu: Your headgear seems to be emitting a buzzing noise, sir. Perhaps
you have a bee in your bonnet?
Homer: Bee? Aah! [stomps on hat, runs out]
Kent: Homer, that hat's been with the station twenty years! He had one
day left till retirement.
-- A sad day for Channel Six, "Homer and Apu"
But the camera inside the hat still works. It is pointed at Apu.
Apu: Well, time to replenish the hot dog roller. La, la -- oops
[drops a hot dog] Oh, no -- it is encrusted with filth. [blows
it off] Oh well, let's sell it anyway. Now this is just between
me and you...smashed hat. Hee hee --
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
They can stick it on top of the blue flashing light. Real Benny Hill stuff.
Task Mangler
I have thought of this in the past. Wouldn't 1 camera aimed up at reflective sphere pick up everything 360 degrees around (exept straight up, but the 8 cameras wouldn't get that either). You would need to use a computer to display the image correcly but in the end I think it would work well.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Can't'cha just feel the love?
The other answer is that it is a matter of times changing in generations. The '60s kids might have had demonstrations etc, but at least their parents were giving them the "Be polite when you talk to a policeman". If you talked back to mum or a teacher then, you'd have copped a thrashing. Now, two generations on and these forces have been eroded.
When the young bull of the herd clashes with the old bull, he's not necessarily trying to win. More likely he really wants the comportable feedback that there is a strong bull in charge of the herd. Likewise, it is in a young person's nature to test the boundaries and authority. In the past, society and family gave strong boundaries. Now the boundaries are fewer, but kids still want to find them. They now just need to do more extreme things to find them, by which stage they've committed severe crimes.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
clear the neutron blaster for firing.
I think it's good to equip police with cameras. It deters "offensive behavior" not only against the police, but by the police. However, what needs to be in place is a mandatory requirement that these cameras be used, that citizens have the same rights as the government to have them used in court, and that they be tamper-proof and cryptographically secured.
Hopefully, even if the government that's putting in the cameras isn't thinking of doing this, courts will sooner or later force the government to comply.
I can tell something about the country where I live: the harshness of Russian laws is compensated by the fact that they aren't obligatory to comply. I.e. nothing works properly here, never has [well, except for Peter I and Stalin's rule], and hopefully [seeing what more organized societies are turning into] never will.
I read about this story a couple of days ago in the Metro newspaper... complete with a photo of the headset. It's not 360, and each officer only gets one camera. The force has just been given 8 of them, for 8 people to wear. Hmm, "you couldn't make it up"? Apparently, OriginalArlen, you did.
Would this not lead to an even more violent tit for tat society? Would the deterrent of a helmet-cam really modify behavior of the average car bound ass?
Context: I understand the motivation from personal experience on foot: wonderful to have complete strangers scream obscenities and lob full 32 oz cups of coke out the window at me.
How does a society lessen the root problem of untethered aggression? Why are people so full of rage? How do we keep our children from inhaling this hate? I can't see helmet-cams, lawsuits and filing police reports addressing the instigating intractable insouciance, rather it would only serve the short-lived "I got you back you jerk" impulse.
.. for citizens, is to wear their own cameras as well. It'll be "Cop Camera" versus "Citizen Camera" soon enough, just watch ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
An eyewitness account by a police officer is considered sufficient proof in court in most cases.
If the policeman had one of these camera helmets, the eyewitness account is unlikely to be sufficient anymore. Thus protecting civilians against made up charges of "resisting arrest.
Thus, there helmets will only serve to protect the right of civilians, and never decrease them.
Pretty cool idea for the IMAX. :-)
Dammit, when I submitted this story two days ago and had it rejected, I at least bothered to find a link to the gear:
http://www.audaxuk.com/cylon/specs.htm
It's not 360 degrees as suggested by the article.
*mutter* *mutter*
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
I think the first question-mark word you were looking for is "brass." "government top brass."
http://undecidedgames.blogspot.com
Um, maybe I read the article wrong, but I understood it to mean there were 8 cameras being issued to 8 different officers. Each officer gets ONE camera, and it certainly doesn't capture images in 360. The submitter should learn to read and understand articles before posting misinformation. There used to be a photo with the article, and it's just a small camera mounted to their head gear like extreme sports nuts use. Hardly revolutionary, and certainly not surreal, given that cops have used cameras in their patrol cars for years. This is just the logical next step, and a good idea IMO.
I have not seen one post about that. If I was a cop I would hate it knowing someone else sees everything I do.
What if you have to take a leak ? "Dispatch, please suspend my headgear for 5 minutes , I'm going to the toilet". This brings up my next point, does this mean they have to permanently wear their helmets? What if the cop is on his lunch break and he steps into the donut shop without his helmet? What if it's 100F outside?
Not a good plan in my opinion.
In the end, I'm glad you posted - it's always nice to question one's own positions from time to time. I admire your fervor, and even sympathize with your cause to an extent, but I will address the issue my own way. I'm going to keep rewarding companies that do it the right way, rather than try to compel companies to stop doing things the wrong way. I'm going to keep holding individuals accountable for their actions. And I'm going to keep asking questions, 'cause that's the only way to ever learn anything - even if you don't get an answer.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.