Slashdot Mirror
Salt Lake City Police To Wear Camera Glasses
Psychotic_Wrath writes "The Salt Lake Police department will be much more transparent with their law enforcement. A program is being rolled out to require officers wear glasses equipped with a camera to record what they see. Of course, there are several officers opposed to this idea, who will resist the change. One of the biggest shockers to me is that the police chief is in strong support of this measure: 'If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras will soon be on every police officer in the state.' With all the opposition of police officers being recorded by citizens that we are seeing throughout the country, it is quite a surprise that they would make a move like this. The officers would wear them when they are investigating crime scenes, serving warrants, and during patrols. Suddenly Utah isn't looking like such a bad place to be. Now we just need to hope other states and departments would follow suit. It sure will be nice when there is video evidence to show the real story."
Sorry, but this doesn't make SLC seem much more appealing to me (aside from the Mormon thing). I don't think I want police recording me just by virtue of me being near a patrol.
50,000 characters used to live here.
When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras...
I assume that you get weightless cameras from the same store that physics professors get their "frictionless inclines" and "massless pulleys" from?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
"Privacy Advocates" vs "Police Transparency Enthusiasts"
Should be a good battle.
Invaders must die
Much like other police footage, it will be impossible to get a hold of unless the police actually want it publically released. Nothing resembling Rodney King will ever be released to the public because of these glasses.
"It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come with doves' footsteps guide the world."
This is the biggest new in several decades! "weightless cameras" WEIGHTLESS!!!! Faster than light here we come!
I feel sorry for the guy that has to review the footage of the officers. It would defeat their purpose to install an "I have to pee" pause button.
sudo make me a sandwich
So whats the catch? Does it still count as "evidence" in court? Can a defendant use the footage against the police?
this doesn't change anything unless the cameras are always on, and the public can see all recordings at will.
if not so, the recordings will only be used when it is favorable for the police, but not the other way around
Have we stopped to consider that this may increase the number of things people get written up for because the officer will be less likely to 'let it slide'? How rampant is police abuse really? Sure, I've seen cops be dicks about things, but I've also had them let me off the hook. If everything they were doing was being recorded, I don't think they would have been as lenient.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.
That's where the real devil is.
The union is going to fight for the most restrictive conditions possible in order to limit reviews of the footage.
Because, god forbid, the bosses troll through the footage looking for misconduct instead of only checking it when allegations are made.
So don't think that equipping the police with cameras is a panacea.
My guess is that it won't be accessible under public records laws
and the footage will only be used in court cases or when formal complaints are made.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If all officers are required to wear these, any time there is a question of what the cop did or said, vs what you did or said, if they can't provide the video they should accept your word. No more wrongful charges of resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. If it's not on video it didn't happen.
The vast majority of encounters are fine -- its the rare ones blown up on tv that are the exception.
This should cut down on lawsuits rather than make police look bad.
If it surprises you police would want this, you've bought into the meme that police problems are rampant.
Sorry, your days enjoying bad cop disasterbation are coming to an end.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The police don't want people making recordings because they can't stop it being used out of context.
They already put cameras in their cars.
In my country a whole police oversight investigation was launched because the media published a photo using the "look I'm holding up the hollywood sign" perspective to make it look like an officer was point his gun at the head of a teenage who was face down on the ground. Turned out the police officer was pointing his gun at the ground 3 metres away while walking in a different direction. The investigation wasted a lot of time and resources because there was no footage from another perspective.
It sure will be nice when there is video evidence to show the real story."
Unfortunately, there's always a sampling bias with any recording device. The "real story" could easily be right off camera, or between frames.
Of course, if there are enough of these, and multiple officers at the scene, you might be able to stitch together the whole scene. On the other hand, most police mistakes occur at night in challanging situations for small video cameras.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Police officers are wearing officer mounted cameras more and more. This is not news. Having a record of events protects the department from fictitious claims which happen all the time. The video has a simple on and off button, most of these systems hold 2-4 hours of video. It is automatically uploaded, usually via wi-fi and only reviewed by supervisors when a need arrizes. Usually this video is stored on servers and is automatically deleted after a set period of time determined by policy. Given that they have a decent IT policy implemented..."Losing" this footage would be pretty difficult.
He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.
And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
There is a constant us vs. them mentality with the general public and the police. Even with a motto of "protect and serve", it is often obvious that this is not what the bad cops intend. With video recordings, weeding out the bad cops will be very easy, which will lay groundwork for the good cops to continue to build a relationship with the community.
When the police are a menace to the neighborhood then the neighborhood will not work with them, they will not come forward with evidence and they will not testify. If the police can improve on these relations it is likely people will be more forthcoming with information.
This is a win for everyone involved, however as others have stated I have a feeling that the footage will not be as freely available as we would like.
Especially when we all get a pair to record the cops from our POV. And the best part is they won't know they're being recorded, and won't be able to steal our previously used phones.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We already have a plethora of cameras installed for "our safety" and they was used to prosecute the general public. But when anyone in the UK has tried to obtain the footage from such cameras to use as the defense against police, the video was always not available. ALWAYS.
The measure may have a positive impact ONLY IF an additional provision is passed to require no arrests be made unless the undoctored complete footage is made available to courts. Now, there are many difficulties in defining and verifying the "undoctored" footage. Besides, what to do if the police was beating a bystander while holding his head up so that the camera does not catch the footage at that specific angle? The provision must also include the certain angle of the recorded scene be available to prevent officers from pulling the cameras up and recording the skies.
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
Let's just skip this and go straight to the Matrix. Make all of life virtual, so we can replay it if there is a trial.
Sorry chief, my glasses/camera fell off just as the perp started hitting himself in the head with my baton several times. I tried to stop him.
even if the video is not used, there should be gap-tests that PUNISH the officer if periods of time 'go missing' on video.
you know this won't happen; they won't be called on their BS.
but do expect a lot of gaming and BS to go on.
this is no gift to citizens. they have an angle and they are playing it. we won't benefit from this, be assured ;(
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
And just like the dashboard cameras, any shenanigans will have been conveniently off-camera. Anything incriminating you will be taped and ready. Anything incriminating them will have been coincidentally lost or the camera just happened to be broken at the time of the incident. Electronics are just so fussy these days...
Just think about it after recording grandma being stopped and searched by police randomly at the mall.
Unfortunately this is the most likely outcome. The cops where I live are legendary for pulling people over for DWB so if they're accused of harassing teenage wanna be gangbangers at the mall, that means they'll HAVE TO harass at least fifty powerwalking grannies at the mall and release the footage of the grannies to "make it fair". Its probably going to be extremely annoying for civilized people who just want to be left alone.
I think facial recognition should be applied, to some extent. Just to "get the numbers up" while guaranteeing no legal issues, I suspect a lot of evidence of non-racial profiling stop and frisk will be daily records, and an observant viewer or facial recog program will identify the officers wife as a stop and frisk "volunteer" every single day, or anti-DWB evidence will be pull overs of white people who turn out to be the officers off duty partner or relative in his personal car. Even weirdo cops don't want pointless confrontation so I suspect there will be a lot of gaming the system. Just wait for the first "profiling" lawsuit where the plaintiff runs the defense's "proof" thru a facial recognition program... it'll hit the fan I bet.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
As some have stated already on here; with enough angles we can reconstruct the scene and understand it; i.e. thinking a gun was pointed at someone in one angle only to see it was not in another angle.
Well, let's take technology one step further; with multiple angles, can we develop something to auto construct a 3D representation of a scene and play it back? If you have 3 or more cameras it should be fairly accurate...
What about data storage / battery life? and how much and for long is that video stored for?
I think its odd they skipped the whole audio era. You can buy a little flash drive recorder that'll record for hours right now, for practically nothing. Its hard to find a smart phone that doesn't come with an audio recorder app. Yet I never heard of the cops doing audio recording in the past. Odd. You'd think it would be almost as useful. Imagine the jury listening to the slurred speech of a suspected drunk driver at trial, etc.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I'm not exactly sure what you can do with thousands of hours of footage of donuts but they have TV series where they film people's storage units so it wouldn't be the worst reality show out there.
I don't think the public will or should ever be able to see all the recordings at will. Police officers are often in places and looking at things that the public does not have a valid interest in seeing -- not because of the officers, but because of the rights of the public with whom they're interacting.
I'm sure the defense would be able to subpoena the relevant segments of recordings, though, and the police will have some explaining to do if they're routinely not available.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That's nice for a start - but you need at least two more things:
- GPS tracklog
- accelerometer/orientation tracklog
THEN you would not only know what the camera was looking at, but from where (GPS) and from what viewing angle/direction (orientation).
In theory it would allow you to post-process logs from multiple officers into a virtual-scene.
PLUS you need to have legislation which guarantees people the right to view the logs and imposes massive fines and other penalties for "oops, we seem to have lost that footage" probably including an immediate dismissal of any case.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Its funny how SciFi predicts this eventuality. The obvious result of this is that the police officers have to continually uphold themselves to higher standards because they are now clearly accountable for their actions. The less obvious result of this is that they are more clearly able to enforce the law to a greater degree than before due to the next logical step of the reliance on technology.
Seems like this should help getting evidence against criminals as well.
It gives an unbiased account in instances when all we had was the officers word and the footage of fleeing criminals can be studied in detail to try and identify them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As in, what they record will have no weight on the scales of justice???
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Anything a suspects SAYS os protected by the fifth amendment, so the jury would never hear the drunk. Add to that federal and state "wiretapping" laws prevent audio recording, but not video. Maybe tjey could do it within the law, but "wiretapping" laws are a bit of a minefield.
Pirate Cinema has this very thing...to get around it they use radar equipped bug zapping hats (with lasers, designed to kill mosquitoes) and modify them to zap cameras instead.
I always thought it would be cool to run a congressman as a reality candidate where they were broadcast live 24/7 their entire term.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Combine these with x-ray vision glasses, and terrorism would drop to zero. http://www.buy.com/prod/unisex-halloween-x-ray-vision-glasses/223443714.html?listingId=250782707
[We] will provide look-alike actors, scene reproduction with suggested "improvements", and plausibly-authentic time stamped footage for a "small" government-only-affordable fee.
> One of the biggest shockers to me is that the police chief is in strong support of this measure
... why? Let's see, we've posted on ... what? Maybe 20 cases where cops have violated things like people's right to record them. (Have there been more? Sure. Not the point.) In how many of them have the police chiefs actually been directly involved, vice standing up for their officers until the state AG (or courts) told them their officers were wrong? Now figure out how many chiefs of police there are in the country. I think the vast majority of police do it for the right reasons, which makes me think the majority of police chiefs do it for the same reasons. Proof? None other than gut and working with the police for 20+ years in multiple capacities (including ones that would often be potentially antagonistic when I worked for newspapers). So while you may personally be shocked by the fact that the chief is in support of the initiative, I think it may (possibly) be an unfair bias.
Um
Bark less. Wag more.
Just flag any cop who gets one of these as having one.. and if they catch someone without having full footage of the arrest, the arrest is denied and the arrested person (victim) is pardoned by default. Yes, you'd have a few more criminals on the street for the first while, until the police officers learn that it is -vital- that they actually keep recording while doing their duty.. and that they avoid doing unsavoury things while recording.
With such a system, police brutality could be reduced immensely. If mandated by someone big, it could really make a big change towards safety and freedom. Sadly, it'd also affect privacy somewhat. On the positive side, the safety/privacy tradeoff is much better than that of NSA posturing or any number of other post-9/11 silliness.
Keep in mind this is only in Utah. In my state the police don't even have the easily evaded dashcams. I assume that is because they are corrupt enough to know that it will only serve to limit their activities. When you are able to assume that juries take your world as gold in court you don't need video backup. The defendants are the ones who need it. The cops know that most jurors think "where there is smoke there is fire" and that most jurors also agree with your "the cops are the good guys" assumption. This will end up hurting them more than helping them. Just wait and see. Of course I think it is great if you live in Utah. It won't stop routine police beatings and false court testimony, but it is at least a move in the right direction.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Since cops are allowed to lie to "suspects' (which means anyone they talk to), this is a must. Cops are trained to lie to "suspects", which means, cops are trained to lie. Can they stop lying when in court? They are human, do other humans lie in court? Why yes, yes they do.
Now we can finally have some video evidence to back up what the police are doing. I am all for this. The police need to be monitored.
Be seeing you...
They also have sobriety checkpoints. No thanks. I prefer states that actually believe in freedom and where I am free to drive without being harassed by the police unless I am doing something genuinely suspicious.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I had a conversation recently with an officer about cameras like these, and his recent testing of one for the department, and his concern was the similarity of the cameras acuity and his own. For instance, if he can see through the glare in a window but the camera can't, the recording might be used to say that he didn't have probable cause. Vice versa -- if the camera can see things he can't, a post-incident review might well say "why did you do X when _clearly_ you can 'see' blah blah".
I'm sure the defense would be able to subpoena the relevant segments of recordings, though, and the police will have some explaining to do if they're routinely not available.
Yeah, because that's been working amazingly well so far with the dashboard cams.
It does all the time. The dashboard cams often don't get anything of use because abusive cops are smart enough to stay out of their field of view, but that's a different issue entirely, and not one that is nearly as easy for bad cops to manage when the camera is mounted on their head.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
After all, US law enforcement has never found a way to illegally abuse newly-granted surveillance powers.
Now the police can show the full picture, and what lead up to them having to use force, and not just the edited version making it look like they attack innocents.
I don't see how it would affect privacy. Given that these are officers doing their work in public, no-one has an expectation of privacy anyway, that is the whole meaning of 'public' in the first place.
The only question remaining is the storage and retrieval policy regarding the footage; that may have some privacy implications.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Don't get too excited. The Met (London Metropolitan Police) frequently use "helmetcams", but whenever a complaint is raised against them, the unit in question is mysteriously faulty....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"Eye" and "Head" mounted Cameras don't work for recording. They've been tried before and because of all the movements that we make with our heads, the resulting footage is too shaky and flighty. Police forces have tried them before. The way to get round this is with shoulder mounted cameras, as shoulders move less. So expect to read in a year that the trial of the technology has failed.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
This isn't much different that Electronic Voting: he who controls the database (files), controls the outcome (case). If this goes through, we will have to change the SLC area code to 404.
The lack of opposition, that is. Most police departments are mostly filled with officers who work hard to do the right thing every day. But they are not newsworthy, so it's the corrupt officers, and especially the departments built on (or tolerant of) a corrupted culture that fill the news. In a normal department, 99.9% of the time when there's any complaint against the officer, having video of the incident will be good for the officer.
Now, just try getting this accepted in LA, or New Orleans, or Denver. Haha.
I don't think the public will or should ever be able to see all the recordings at will.
I would go one step further - the police departments shouldn't be able to view the video routinely. That would allow them to cherry-pick which segments get 'lost' before a trial. I say that the glasses encrypt the video and only a court order gets it decrypted.
I realize that having the police be able to review video at will could help apprehend suspects that appear on the video but get away. I would be ok with the video being available for instant review only if there's a way to guarantee that an encrypted, non-deletable, non-modifiable copy has been uploaded somewhere (perhaps uploaded via their patrol car). A flight of fancy I realize, but one can hope.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
It's not necessary to stop the police from viewing the video just to be sure they can't view it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Er, I meant "erase" or "lose" rather than the second "view". Sorry.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The video will be in the custody of the government.
Another obvious thing would be that any insults by the arrestee recorded automatically results in a fine for each if brought to court. People need to respect the police if they expect the police to respect them, and step one is to talk politely and avoid profanity. A fine of $50 for each insult recorded would be reasonable and the fine must be paid in full within 14 days. No extension and no payment plan. This ensures that it will be felt and thus hopefully make people think before they insult.
That would have a chilling effect on a person's freedom of speech. After all, if I want to (unwisely) give a police officer a recommendation as to what they can do to themselves, that is my prerogative and right, however unwise, rude, and foolish it may be to do so. Furthermore, who gets to decide what an "insult" is? Is it raising your hand in a certain way and asking them to "read between the lines" or is it asking them why they are asking to search you or your property?
If they can view it, they can choose to 'lose/destroy' the physical video if it does not help their side of the story. I'd rather both sides of a trial get the video sight-unseen without knowing if it'll help them or not.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If they can view it, they can choose to 'lose/destroy' the physical video if it does not help their side of the story. I'd rather both sides of a trial get the video sight-unseen without knowing if it'll help them or not.
Not necessarily. Depends on how the video is stored. I can think of many ways to make it accessible/viewable but make it impossible for them to modify or erase it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I addressed that in the original post. As long as there's a pristine copy of the video that can't be modified or hidden, then viewing immediately is fine. That's a really big if, of course. :-)
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Sorry, I got hung up on your "cannot be viewed" bit and didn't read the rest carefully enough. There's no need to encrypt it to make it non-modifiable and non-erasable, though. The easiest way to achieve "non-erasable" is probably just to require that storage be done by a third party who contracts to ensure that the data is never erased. Tamper resistance (or at least tamper evidence) is easily achieved with chained hashes. There may be some value in encryption for privacy, but that's a separate issue.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The encryption I mention isn't to prevent modification, it is to make it unviewable until approved by court order (in the first case), make modification evident, as you said, as well as marking the source of the video with a cryptographically-secure tag. (This video was taken by camera S/N 12345, issued to officer yyy at date/time xxx, etc).
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
So police record their activities while serving warrants, patrolling, and investigating crime scenes. In other words, 80% of their day (they didn't say anything about wearing them at the donut shop). I don't know how many officers they have, but I'm guessing they probably have 100-150 on duty at any given point, and maybe 50 of those would be recording at a given time. So that's 50 video streams x 24 hours a day = 1200 hours of video a day. Let's say they recording at 240p because that's probably the lowest resolution that can be in any way useful, so that's about 3 MB per minute of video, 1200 hours of video a day means 72000 minutes of video a day and at 3 MB per minute, that's 211 GB of video a day. Assuming their retention period is at least 60 days (it's probably longer), that means they have to store almost 13 TB of video at an absolute minimum for the previous 30 days. That's a fair amount of data for a single police department, and if you think about retaining video for longer than 60 days it gets even larger. Some videos will probably be retained longer if they're related to an active case, or someone thinks they may be needed in the future. Then there's the issue of actually getting the video off of the glasses and on to some sort of centralized storage. It sounds like this is shaping up to be a job that justifies another FTE.