Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras

First time accepted submitter Voxol writes "From the international capital of CCTV cameras now comes the latest innovation: always-on police-mounted night-vision capable cameras. 'I can't imagine that there is any downside to having such an invaluable piece of kit like this on hand' say police."

161 comments

  1. Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was really hoping that this incident of police brutality was caught on video so as to prove my innocence, but unfortunately we've run into a hardware problem.

    1. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's still a step in the right direction—it's no longer the police's word vs. the suspect's, but "the police officer says he was having convenient technical difficulties at the same time his account of the incident is in conflict with the suspect's." It looks worse in court, since police will be more than happy to produce video when they are innocent. This is much better than no camera at all.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by GODISNOWHERE · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a good example of how wearing Google Glass can protect you from the police. If you have a video recording of the incident, it is much less like that the police BS will work in court. Unless they suppress it, of course.

    3. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it protect me from you?

    4. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was really hoping that this incident of police brutality was caught on video so as to prove my innocence, but unfortunately we've run into a hardware problem.

      First step is having cameras. If there is a high rate of tampered cameras, next step will be more tamper proof cameras. Also, same officer always having camera malfunctions sounds like something many officers would want to avoid, for fear of internal investigation. If there's any chance of catching hell for being a bad cop, it will have a chilling effect.

    5. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's any chance of catching hell for being a bad cop, it will have a chilling effect.

      You must be new here. We rarely, if ever, discipline our police force.

    6. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that there is no damage to the police's case in court if they claim to have a legitimate reason why the video is not available. On the other hand if you fail to mention something you later rely on in court or if you forget your password it is evidence that you are lying and will be used against you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Imrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about a data retention policy to delete any video not flagged as evidence. Make sure the retention time is less than it would take for a citizen to file the legal paperwork against an officer that would get it flagged.

    8. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it still leaves room for doubt, doubt that previously was much harder to place. If we assume the police are deliberately using (for example) scheduled maintenance windows to commit brutality, and the suspect is not aware the camera is disabled, then due to Bayesian reasoning we can say with certainty that the officer is more likely to be lying even when there's a legitimate technical failure. (Although we have no way of knowing how much more likely without a lot of data that has not yet been made and, anyway, wouldn't be obtainable.)

      • 1. Cop knows the camera is working + suspect expects the camera to be working -> brutality claims easily proven/disproven, both parties have a disincentive to claim brutality occurred
      • 2. Cop knows the camera isn't working + suspect expects the camera to be working -> brutality can't easily be proven, cop knows there won't be any evidence
      • 3. Cop doesn't know the camera isn't working -> as #1

      Obviously there are other factors at work like judgement of character, but the mere fact that the officer would be more confident in being able to get away with brutality should make even legitimate reasons cause a heightened suspicion.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    9. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah—it's always in your best interest to have a recording of your own actions. At least, as long as you can't be forced to give it up.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    10. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Our arrest warning stipulates that anything you say "may be given in evidence." That's both for the prosecution and the defense. As such, evidence they lose is just as bad for them; "Their word against mine" in court is actually quite fairly weighted. No such protection from the opinions of a jury, though.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Actually this has been trialled in a few areas now and each area has reported a drop in both police brutality and assaults on police officers.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    12. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. Haven't you heard of 'pen cams'? Why are you suggesting something as ludicrous and expensive (and visible) as Google Glass, when you can buy a HD pen cam for about $30 on Ebay, and film COVERTLY? Thus the police can't stop you because they don't know you're doing it. You can put it in your back pocket and face AWAY from the police while they're beating somebody up, and they won't have a clue.
      How can all of you idiots on Slashdot NOT know about pen cams?

    13. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be happier if it were touted (and designed!) as such: a tool to protect the public as well as aid the police. The camera itself might still fail to work (intentionally perhaps), but if it does work, the video should be uploaded to secure storage immediately and treated as evidence, i.e. the coppers shouldn't be able to conveniently "lose" the footage.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which would lead one to wonder, are there really fewer assaults on officers, or is the BS charge of assaulting an officer no longer an option for dealing with "contempt of cop".

    15. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the fact it only records what you actually have done.

    16. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by rabbitfood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure about that. Judging by Hillsborough, De Menezes and Tomlinson, the courts never confuse suspicion with evidence, and are happy to accept almost any account, provided enough police officers deliver an identical version of it (even down to the punctuation, which just shows how well they're trained). Where the absence of video is concerned, the simultaneous and comprehensive failure of CCTV cameras in a given radius (which may, in London, be a few dozen) has become so commonplace in cases where police misconduct is alleged that it's hardly grounds for suspicion.

      In any case, the courts rarely get involved until years later, if at all. In England and Wales, we have an Independent Police Complaints Commission, which deals with all such cases, and which is firmly on the side of justice. Where upsetting incidents occur, the IPCC's job is to issue a press release, an hour or so before any complaint, setting out the results of their inquiry. If an investigation is, despite that, still needed, they usually outsource it to the police force in question, who are better placed to know exactly what they want to have happened. This not only produces quicker results, but insures against the further waste of public money in the courts. It is a system that, bar a few high-profile cases pursued by especially persistent mobs of bereaved troublemakers, has served them all very well for many years.

    17. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by MalachiK · · Score: 2

      It's still a step in the right direction—it's no longer the police's word vs. the suspect's, but "the police officer says he was having convenient technical difficulties at the same time his account of the incident is in conflict with the suspect's." It looks worse in court, since police will be more than happy to produce video when they are innocent. This is much better than no camera at all.

      Not good enough. Look at the conveniently broken recording hardware that was watching while the Metropolitan Police executed Charles de Menezes on the London Underground. The evidence disappeared and was barely mentioned in subsequent press reports. Unfortunately it is the case that state owned surveillance technology is used almost exclusively to prosecute citizens and rarely as a check on the police.

    18. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same comment for the police or the public I suppose ;-)

    19. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Gonoff · · Score: 0

      If there's any chance of catching hell for being a bad cop, it will have a chilling effect.

      You must be new here. We rarely, if ever, discipline our police force.

      You must be an American. In the UK, we not only discipline them for their actions and inactions. We rant and rave at them from positions of authority, steal their pensions (along with the rest of the public sector) and expect them to deal with violent criminals protected by a stab vest tin of pepper and an aluminium stick.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    20. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Likewise I'd like to know the correlation between these cameras and other such crimes like "resisting arrest" and "disorderly behaviour".

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    21. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > officers would want to avoid, for fear of internal investigation

      Ahahahahahahah! Hahahahah! hahahhahahahahahahahah! Aha! ha! haha! Ha! Phew. Sorry. It's just that you said that the police are afraid... afraid of... BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaa....

      Police internal investigation == paid leave + whitewash + guilty cops completely exonerated. Every. Fucking. Time.

    22. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Also, same officer always having camera malfunctions sounds like something many officers would want to avoid, for fear of internal investigation

      Why would any officer fear a paid vacation?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    23. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you intended the irony, but...

      Citizen's perspective: It's always in your best interest to have a recording of your own actions. At least, as long as you can't be forced to give it up.

      Cop's perspective: It's always in your best interest to have a recording of your own actions. At least, as long as you can't be forced to give it up.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    24. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Except, of course, that the cop is supposed to be acting not only in his own self interest.

    25. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Frontier+Owner · · Score: 2
      one cop with one camera this may be true.

      20 cops with 20 cameras, then you've got an argument against the department if 20 cameras fail.

      You should atleast get audio from others along with video from other cops involved in beating your ass.

    26. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Oh, I did. Of course, best interests need to be compromised to serve the needs of the people.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    27. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately it is the case that state owned surveillance technology is used almost exclusively to prosecute citizens and rarely as a check on the police.

      This!

    28. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this day and age of 'Cloud'(tm) technology, I'm sure we can automatically upload any and all video to said 'Cloud'(tm)? I dunno, why not immediately dump it in a drop box at the ACLU?

    29. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Actually this is a perfect example of how claims of unavailable evidence can help convict police. London Underground reported that the cameras were definitely functional, thereby helping to expose the cover-up. If there had been no CCTV cameras in the station, it's probable the final charges wouldn't have been as high as they were.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    30. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      In the De Menezes case, the police claims were challenged by Underground staff. Perhaps they'll still get away with quite a lot of misconduct, but every lie they have to construct to do so increases the chance that they will be seen through.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    31. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that when a cop stops you on the street ("Hey, you... c'mere!") to talk to you, if he decides to arrest you and for some reason you raise your hands in the air, you know, like in the movies: "hands up"... that this is considered 'resisting arrest' in a bunch of states?

    32. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was really hoping that this incident of police brutality was caught on video so as to prove my innocence, but unfortunately we've run into a hardware problem.

      The whole country is one big hardware problem. It would be best if it would just sank into the North Sea. Oh wait, all those already existing CCTV camera's would pollute it to much.

      Nah, just avoid the UK, best advise ever, The whole damn country has more CCTV camera's than hot chicks anyway.

      Oh, and you UK-people with mod points, go ahead and shoot me down, but you know it's true and secretly you wish you were born American, too.

    33. Re: Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next the Department will be ordering bulk licenses/subscriptions of AfterEffects.

    34. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *IF* every officer is equiped with such a camera, it is going to look REALLY bad in court if the police claim that "all available camera's in or around the area of the incident had technical difficulties".

      One camera okay ... two or more not working at the same time - not likely!

    35. Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Why would any officer fear a paid vacation?

      Well then, perhaps you should work on that part of your "free" country, mmm? Having the cameras on every officer should make that easier, giving clear numbers of the extent of the hypothetical "camera malfunction" problem, and making it politically easier to get the rules changed, or existing rules enforced better.

  2. Can it be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    against the Police actions too?

    1. Re:Can it be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will! The police are sheep, oh the irony!

  3. Re:GG for cops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touche...

  4. But... But... by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How are you supposed to bludgeon suspects mercilessly?

    Ah, they have to download them onto a computer! Sadly the victim's resisting arrest appears to have badly damaged the camera. We were unable to recover any video from it. NOW I don't see any down sides!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:But... But... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Probably on an SD card which with a bit of careful palming can be mysteriously blank.

  5. Meanwhile In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All russian police cars got equipped with cameras.

    Aimed inwards.

    (At least there is an insight in, and admission of police corruption there)

    1. Re:Meanwhile In Soviet Russia by EdZ · · Score: 1

      That's pretty standard in the UK too.

  6. I believe all police activity should be filmed by BenJCarter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To cut down on the "he said she said" and reduce the ability of police to lie. Pictures or it didn't happen. Or at least their testimony is more open to reasonable doubt.

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    1. Re: I believe all police activity should be filmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any digital anything can be tampered with - and it can be very difficult to prove it has not

      this has already been used (successfully) as a defence against speed camera traffic offences

    2. Re: I believe all police activity should be filmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how technology for faking pretty much anything on film will soon become available and easy enough to use for skilled amateurs, I foresee a bright future for experts that can tell in court what is the real thing and what is fake. The currently starting era of everything we do being recorded and thus provable will not last very long and in the future any proof recorded now will - justifiably - be called into question. In the future there will be plenty of "birthers" calling into question all sorts of incriminating "leaked videos" of politicians and they shouldn't even be considered crazy then.

    3. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Elvis Costello was the first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watching_the_Detectives_(song) followed then by Montreal http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/02/1243200/montreal-union-wants-a-camera-on-every-policemans-uniform and now the UK police. A move in the right direction when used with strict controls on stored images so that the chain of evidence can be assured.

    4. Re: I believe all police activity should be filmed by AbsGeekNZ · · Score: 1

      The way to get around this is to have continuous upload to both police servers and a independent 3rd party (whatever the police watchdog is in your counrty of choice). Then if the files are required in court, then there is a three way verification process to fall back on to prove the veracity of the evidence in question.

      Practicallity wise I don't see this happening, it would be a nightmare to keep this kind of system running. But if the public pressure for 100% verifiable police evidence is strong enough, it could be implemented. But it will be expensive.

    5. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by andrewa · · Score: 1

      If you think "Watching the Detectives" is about police surveillance, then you need to actually listen to the lyrics. It's about a woman that the singer finds so attractive, "pulls your eyes out with a face like a magnet...". Costello once explained the title of the song in an interview, saying he was trying to have sexy time with this lady but she was more interested in "watching the detectives" on TV. Don't get cute...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Me too!

      Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.

      And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.

    7. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      To cut down on the "he said she said" and reduce the ability of police to lie. Pictures or it didn't happen. Or at least their testimony is more open to reasonable doubt.

      Quite frankly I'm beginning to find the hate directed at police quite disappointing. I mean sure we hear about once or twice a month of a case of police brutality, but then there's 12000 police officers in the UK. Are you surprised that the occasional incident goes bad?

      I think police should be filmed too. The last local case of police brutality was caught on film and run in the news which showed two officers run up to and beat down on some teenager.
      More footage of the same event was released a few days later showed three officers, one of which was knocked unconscious when hit with a brick that was thrown by the teenager in question.

    8. Re: I believe all police activity should be filmed by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      But it will be expensive.

      No more so than the Data retention that already have been in place for some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#United_Kingdom

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    9. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the shocking thing isn't so much that there are incidents where things go bad. As you say, there are lots of police, and lots of incidents - there will be some where things go wrong. The shocking thing is that there is almost never any consequence for the brutal officers.

      Instead, the whole thing gets brushed under the carpet - sending a clear message to other officers that they are free to abuse their power without consequence. I have personally experienced officers casually lying in their statements to cover up a fairly minor offence by one of their own against me. Whilst most officers probably don't indulge in gratuitous brutality; It seems that most officers will not step in to stop it, or report it when they see it.

      If the occasional 'bad act' resulted in all the officer's colleagues roundly condemning the actions and the discipline system enforcing significant punishment then I would start to believe that these were acts which did not represent the body of police as a whole.

      Regarding the teenager incident you mention - this is actually a great case. Even if an office has been hit and knocked unconscious by a brick - the job of the arresting officers is to capture the teenager with a minimum of force and allow the legal system to administer justice. That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.

    10. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by JustOK · · Score: 1

      that's what they want you to think.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    11. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Are you surprised that the occasional incident goes bad?

      The problem is that it isn't the occasional incident, it is pretty much par for the course for many officers. There have been quite a few exposes using hidden cameras to film the police at work, being racist and abusive or just speeding for fun with the siren on. People who enjoy inflicting violence on others see the police as the ideal career because it lets them do it legally to people that the general public consider to be scum and fully deserving of a beating.

      On top of that even when the evidence is clear it is impossible to get a strong conviction against a copper. Look at PC Simon Harwood - mudered someone on camera for fun and broke several other laws, but couldn't even be convicted of assault or any wrong-doing. The police are above the law.

      Of course there are lots of law abiding, upstanding police men and women. Probably not as many as you think, after all one force was branded "institutionally racist". Unfortunately they don't do enough to stop the bad ones, and keep pushing for more and more powers to abuse when they clearly can't be trusted with the ones they already have.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by kraut · · Score: 1

      Factcheck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

      Manslaughter, at best. If you want to "murder someone for fun" I would suggest striking them in the leg with a baton and then pushing them to the ground is a great way to do that.

      PC Simon Harwood was tried for manslaughter. And not found guilty.

      And then he was sacked for gross misconduct. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627

      Doesn't sound like the police are above the law. At least not in this instance.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    13. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.

      They're going to have to have people review the footage anyway, they can mark bathroom breaks as such.

      And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.

      That would actually be very useful. Not to make sure they're not taking long lunches, but to make sure they're not committing skullduggery on their lunch time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by PRMan · · Score: 0

      After reading that, sorry he died, but he was asking repeatedly to be struck by police. Constantly sneaking back into cordoned off areas and all in all just being a pest to the cops on purpose all day and the worst that happened is that they struck him on the leg and pushed him out of the way. That's exactly the kind of restraint I would expect professional cops to have. It's sad that the stressful day he set up for himself resulted in a heart attack, but I can hardly blame an officer for pushing him out of the way when they are cordoning off an area.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He went to those protests to fight people, to hit them with his baton while covering his face and his police number badge. He intended to injure people because he enjoyed that sort of thing and to hide is identity to avoid facing the consequences or being identified by his victims.

      He's a murder, and escaped the normal custodial sentence for that crime.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.

      The problem is the other side of the scale is completely unfair as well. What's the typical punishment for a juvenile assaulting a police officer? A token fine, slap on the wrist, and if they are really unlucky a few days of community service. This will get marked troll but I was really glad that kid got beat down on when I saw what he did.

      Maybe when the law wakes up and makes punishments fit crimes, i.e. don't jail someone for steeling cable, and don't slap someone on the wrist who just performed an unprovoked and dangerous attack then maybe I'll agree with you. But at the moment the public backlash often removes the only remaining teeth the legal system has. Unless you were caught torrenting, in which case you're stuck in the jaws of death.

    17. Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

      If we video tape everything police do, it removes doubt. Too many bad police have not been truthful and it has seriously corroded public trust. It will also provide them with good evidence in day to day operations.

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  7. Re:GG for cops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will watch the watchers watch the watchers?

  8. Re:Prediction: Police Violence footage still missi by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    they can just put on a lens cover, when the situation at hand looks to get a little dirty

  9. Probably won't prevent police brutality by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Police wear the cameras on the front of their stab vests and after attending an incident download the footage captured onto a computer where if needs be it can be transferred onto a DVD to be presented as evidence in court.

    Seems that since it's all in the police hands, they can make it disappear pretty quick also. So unless they have no way of tampering/deleting the video in the camera, my guess is they will just delete what makes them look bad.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Probably won't prevent police brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At which point you charge them with destruction of evidence. They are claiming a crime was commited, and they destroyed the proof?

    2. Re:Probably won't prevent police brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point you charge them with destruction of evidence. They are claiming a crime was commited, and they destroyed the proof?

      Except that every single time the claim will be that the suspect assaulted them and damaged the camera in the process.

    3. Re:Probably won't prevent police brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three words: "obstruction of justice".

    4. Re:Probably won't prevent police brutality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the British government will pay for a new camera without at least three different forms you're mistaken. What's more likely is that officers who are frequently "clumsy" face a disciplinary hearing for being so careless.

    5. Re:Probably won't prevent police brutality by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      At which point you charge them with destruction of evidence. They are claiming a crime was commited, and they destroyed the proof?

      Except that every single time the claim will be that the suspect assaulted them and damaged the camera in the process.

      Here in the US. the cops generally use the "Gosh, what a shame! The patrol car video/audio data from that *particular* incident of suspected police brutality/corruption/criminality/misconduct was lost (oh, the rest that implicates regular citizens is just fine) while sitting in the storage servers' hdd due to a 'technical malfunction', and sorry, there's no backups." excuse.

      Rarely is this challenged by a criminal court/judge, although I think it has happened on some occasions where the story the cops told so strained credibility and was so unimaginative because of laziness/hubris/stupidity that even "friendly" judges/DAs/prosecutors couldn't ignore it.

      Some local/State US police departments and court systems are much better about it than others, however, to be fair. It has not been the norm, sadly.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  10. all for it... by stenvar · · Score: 0

    I'm all for police wearing cameras, provided that they cannot disable them. Unfortunately, it sounds like these can be disabled.

    1. Re:all for it... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

      I'm all for police wearing cameras, provided that they cannot disable them. Unfortunately, it sounds like these can be disabled.

      Don't think for a minute that the police intend to use the videos to clear suspects of wrongdoing, or to have documented evidence of police abuse that can be used in court.

      It's the other way round: the police want video evidence to prove either that someone was rebellious during their arrest, or that the police didn't abuse them. People often try to blame the police in court to get off easy, and the police always has to prove they didn't use undue violence during the arrest. So videos are a good idea.

      Unfortunately, it's a rather one-sided protection, as the police would never show videos in which they'd appear to have abused their powers. On the other hand, the lack of video itself would appear extremely suspicious in court I suppose, and would bolster a defendant's claim of police violence.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:all for it... by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Or how about without video footage suspects automatically go free, in the case of police abuse no footage means officer is guilty.

      Oh wait I forgot I don't live in my idealized fantasy, carry on, beat the public and arrange false charges.

    3. Re:all for it... by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it's a rather one-sided protection, as the police would never show videos in which they'd appear to have abused their powers.

      I don't know how things work in GB, but in the USA, the defense can subpoena the footage and, if they feel it would help, can submit it to the court themselves as evidence. And, I'd hope, any police claims that the video has been lost or not properly preserved would go a long way toward refuting their claims.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:all for it... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Neither of those are ideal either, both are just as ripe for abuse.

    5. Re:all for it... by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of scenarios where the concept won't help - or could be misused/abused...

      Having said that, those shortcomings do not invalidate the concept.

      Whenever there are two police officers present, they would need to conspire to turn off their cameras (or delete the footage). That can still happen, but the likelihood will reduce significantly for each additional officer. And it only takes one officer with a healthy conscience to keep their camera rolling.

      I don't think that there is a silver bullet, but steps that reduce the odds of miscarriages of justice are a step in the right direction.

      As a side note, I'm pleased to see a general trend toward allowing citizens to record police activity. Hopefully, that will be adopted more widely over the coming years.

    6. Re:all for it... by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Well my comment is alluding to the ability of skewing possible tampering against the police' own interest as a possible disincentivising of tampering.

    7. Re:all for it... by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      snip...
      People often try to blame the police in court to get off easy, and the police always has to prove they didn't use undue violence during the arrest. So videos are a good idea.
      snip...

      Hmmm

      Does this actually occur? I know that in the UK, blaming the police would not help a person to get off, indeed it is more likely to increase any sentence. As for the police having to prove they did not use violence / excessive force, the UK courts seem to except to almost always accept the word of the Police regardless of how far-fetched the Police version of events is. It is only when there is overwhelming independent evidence of the violence / excessive force that the authorities / courts look at the allegations.

    8. Re:all for it... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of it happening. Maybe a defendant gets off if there's good evidence that the police had a disproportionate racist response or something, but that's just an issue of politics and a condition of making the bad press go away. The only other closest thing I can think of is questioning the probable cause. if the evidence was gathered with probable cause, it can get thrown out.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:all for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the defense can subpoena the footage

      And there's the problem for Team GB. There are no powers of subpoena.

    10. Re:all for it... by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      ...but in the USA, the defense can subpoena the footage and, if they feel it would help, can submit it to the court themselves as evidence...

      Yeah but the snag is that you must apply for it in a highly nasal voice and a hick accent.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    11. Re:all for it... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Also the UK has no rule against self-incrimination, so failure to present footage that shows one in a bad light can count against someone.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:all for it... by xelah · · Score: 1

      Not being able to disable them does come with a few problems, though - enough that the 'cautious' thing for a force to do is allow it. Police come in to contact with a lot of people who really don't want their identities, locations or information disclosed for very good reasons - from informants to domestic violence victims. Compulsory cameras does risk getting more 'I don't know nuffink' answers and fewer crime reports, not to mention the potential shitstorm if pictures of a celebrity, politician or victim get leaked or sold to the more dodgy media or other criminals.

    13. Re:all for it... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      My, they teach some interesting things on DeVry's JD program.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:all for it... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting "right to be silent" you point to: you have a right to be silent, except the jury may draw "adverse inferences" if you "fail to give evidence at trial or answer any question". Sounds actually like the DeVry graduates got it right.

    15. Re:all for it... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Essentially your silence doesn't come with the legally-enshrined neutrality it receives under the fifth amendment. "It may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court."

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:all for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Officer Goosestep: I'm sorry your honour, but mice with electromagnetic slippers got into the evidence locker and danced about on the *exact* part of the hard drive that stored the incriminating evidence of police brutality. I mean alleged police brutality. And the backups too.

      Judge Bumbledick: Yes, that sounds entirely credible. After all, we all know a policeman would never ever lie in court, and I'm late for lunch at the club. Case dismissed.

    17. Re:all for it... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Nice try, AC, but you're wrong. They've changed the terminology to "witness summons," but it's still there. In fact, England is where the subpoena was created.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  11. EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is worth repeating, there are easy steps to reducing surveillance of your personal life:

    I've moved my stuff off Google,Hotmail and Yahoo. I never used Facebook or the others on the list. You should too. It's the simplest easiest way of removing PRISM rights from the NSA.

    To take yourself off the phone graph, use multiple prepay phones (not just cards), use one for home/private use one for work/business use one for girlfriend etc. Don't mix them up and don't use them repeatedly in the same location. Leave each phone is a single location is the easiest method of breaking the location test. Have a dodgy friend whose always spouting anger at [anything]? Best avoid talking too much to him on the phone.

    The Internet surveillance is far more problematic. Watch what you say online, what for words that can be used against you. Be aware of people who try to take language to the extreme, they're no different than agent-provocateurs planting drugs on protestors. By adding extreme comments to this forum, they gave the NSA the right to dig into every Slashdot users mail as a potential terrorist. Be aware of that game and avoid joining in.

    1. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck the police

    2. Re:EASY steps by Chas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, I'm more selective with my bed partners.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:EASY steps by Rubinhood · · Score: 2

      "I've moved my stuff off Google,Hotmail and Yahoo....
      ...use multiple prepay phones
      ...Watch what you say online"

      It looks like NSA has already backed you into a corner. Doesn't your story prove that they have too much unwarranted power and should be dealt with, instead of everyone just quietly letting them get away with such atrocious invasion of privacy?

    4. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.. Yeah.. Er, no. I'd really rather not have to spend my whole life looking over my shoulder, thanks.

    5. Re:EASY steps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Problem is I have a life. My friends use Facebook to organize social events, they won't keep up if I change my phone number ever month or two.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is worth repeating, there are easy steps to reducing surveillance of your personal life:

      [...] To take yourself off the phone graph, use multiple prepay phones (not just cards), use one for home/private use one for work/business use one for girlfriend etc. Don't mix them up and don't use them repeatedly in the same location.

      I don't think any prosecutor will have a hard time convincing any jury that this sort of behavior is circumstantial evidence that you are Up To No Good.

    7. Re:EASY steps by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I never used Facebook or the others on the list.

      Know someone who does? That's enough for them to know you.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you curtail your own free speech rights? "Very good, citizen. We need more patriots like yourself."

      You just let the NSA win, dude.

    9. Re:EASY steps by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Those steps aren't "easy". They involve conscious, thoughtful decisions at every point in your life and no mistakes.
      2) That doesn't stop you appearing - in fact, it makes you more suspicious and thus worth investigating. Absence of data is a data point in itself - any old spy movie would tell you that. The guy who exists but has no records, no data, no phone? Yeah, we'll look into him first.
      3) You're paranoid if you ACTUALLY do that.
      4) As someone whose just trawled their Slashdot history going back years while looking for a particular post I made, I can tell you that I've crowed on these forums multiple times about everything from Guantanamo Bay, the government treatment of Alan Turing, the fact that I have an interest in cryptography, the stupidity of people who can't work out to encrypt data properly, even "potential terrorist scenarios" (i.e. if terrorists are so bright, why did they do X, leave trail Y, or not do Z?).

      If the above targets me for interest, then I would be in deep, deep trouble already. Maybe I have been flagged already. Who cares? The fact is that I'm not doing anything that any random, thoughtful person isn't doing anyway - and I have zero intention of causing harm. And it's basically my country's intelligence services job TO FIND THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THAT, but most importantly to SORT THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF.

      I once considered applying for jobs with MI5 and GCHQ. I'm a maths and computer science graduate, with an interest in cryptography, and they were advertising positions for exactly that. It seemed like an avenue worth looking into.

      I didn't, mainly because 1) I disagree with militarisation of anything I do (a conscientious objector, you could say) and 2) I disagree with an awful lot of the military decisions made by my country (still "backing" the US and their illegal torture programs in Guantanamo, for instance - OOPS! I did it again!). Though I love the work of Turing, I don't love that it probably ended up, indirectly, killing people too. Sinking U-boats, things like that. Yeah, they were the enemy, and it was better than the alternative (i.e. more people dying), but still it's military action.

      But if I'd applied seriously, with those organisations I would quite expected someone to dig around on the net and find these things out about me by themselves. That's their damn job, and they wouldn't want to be letting people like me in - people who place their own morals above that of orders from above. If someone tells me "shoot/kidnap/kill/injure him", my first question would be "What? Why? Is he about to do the same to me?" (unless I'm playing Counterstrike, in which case he'll be missing his head before you finished the sentence).

      This is what they do. This is what they have to do. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. It's very easy to get the wrong people into a place that you don't want them to be. Hell, there's a CIA agent in the news at the moment telling everyone their secrets because he disagrees with how they function. That could be me, in the same position.

      You have nothing to fear but driving yourself crazy trying to avoid the things you fear. "I don't like surveillance" leading to absolute paranoia that infests your daily life and stops you meeting up with friends? Yeah, the worst of two evils, I think.

      That's not to say that I support a surveillance state (but, if I support ANY element of a surveillance state, it's to have constant, recorded surveillance of police and military procedures so that there is NO element of doubt when it comes to questions of justice being served and law enforcement following the law - hell, what I wouldn't give to have proper footage of some of the greater terrorist incidents that have been reported released, and even parts of the "war on terror"), or spying, or anything else.

      There's a lot more wrong in this world than a few cameras here and there. In fact, I'd say there aren't ENOUGH cameras in the right places. Imagine how different the world would be right now if ever

    10. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is I have a life.

      Ooh, nice! I'm looking for one of those. Where did you get yours?

    11. Re:EASY steps by mumb0.jumb0 · · Score: 1

      If this is how we must act to protect ourselves from tyranny then we have already lost. Being free to mutter to yourself in the dark where no-one else can hear is not freedom of speech.

      We need to tackle the cause of the problem. In this case, treating the symptoms is the behaviour they want.

      --
      Question everything?
    12. Re:EASY steps by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      Problem is I have a life. My friends use Facebook to organize social events, they won't keep up if I change my phone number ever month or two.

      Problem is, I, too, have a life, and I don't have a Facebook account. Are your Facebook friends all so shallow that they wouldn't/couldn't erm, I dunno, PHONE you? or TEXT you? or EMAIL you? or KNOCK ON YOUR FUCKING DOOR?

      This bullshit "I need Facebook or I won't have a life", doesn't indicate a lack of life, it indicates a lack of brain, so yeah, perhaps the same thing.

      cheers,

    13. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just the start. You also need to burn every bit of paper you've ever owned, written on or touched, have major plastic surgery, stop buying anything except with bartered livestock, burn your fingerprints off with acid like that guy in se7en, then go live in a cave in Afghanistan for the rest of your life eschewing all contact with anybody, ever. And they'll still fucking find you.

      Trying to squeeze through the ever smaller gaps in the surveillance net is completely pointless. The only answer is to destroy the net completely.

    14. Re:EASY steps by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Problem is, I, too, have a life, and I don't have a Facebook account. Are your Facebook friends all so shallow that they wouldn't/couldn't erm, I dunno, PHONE you? or TEXT you? or EMAIL you?

      I like to use Google Voice, some of my friends do not, some use AIM, some use texting only, some use Facebook.

      Why is it any more or less shallow to demand that someone use YOUR particular choice of services (email, text, phone) and not consider that the friends might have their own preferences?

      What if we said "NO PHONE FOR YOU."? How about no texting. I have texting blocked on my phone, are my friends shallow for wanting to use texting? Or preferring it as their primary method of contact?

      Should we all go into Autistic mode just to cater to your preferred methods of communication?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    15. Re:EASY steps by suutar · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's trying to prove or disprove that, just mitigate it.

    16. Re:EASY steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're at it, just move to a cabin in rural Alaska and throw all that crap away.

  12. Re:Prediction: Police Violence footage still missi by Camael · · Score: 0

    Reading TFA, it doesn't say anything about the camera being "always on".

    Leaving open the possibility of using the "camera was not on" excuse. Why go through the hassling of explaining what happened to the footage instead of simply claiming it doesn't exist.

  13. Re:GG for cops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will watch the watchers watch the watchers?

    Who will watch the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers?

  14. Re:GG for cops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who will watch the watchers watch the watchers?

    Who will watch the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers?

    It's Watchers all the way down...

  15. Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

    I assume we are beyond the point that anyone can pro-actively watch all available cameras in real time (unless automation is much better than I would guess).

    So, that moves us away from a priori prevention to simply making a posteriori investigation easier, no?

    In other words, yes, you are being "recorded" a lot, but not being "watched". Get over yourself.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      It's still a little bit creepy.

    2. Re:Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been the case for years and years now. Probably over a decade. It has been proven time and time again, cameras dont prevent crime, they only document it. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing so long as they are only in public places.

    3. Re:Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by Jessified · · Score: 2

      Great so basically we give up all our liberties and get no safety, but at least we can find the terrorists after they blow things up.

    4. Re:Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by Benaiah · · Score: 2

      As computer power increases, facial recognition improves, databases become linked, ai improves we will all be watched. Someone with the right authority could do a search for all footage, location data, internet traffic of an individual. And wham instant blackmail material. Any activist, opposition member could be charged with enough crimes to give them life in prison. Fake tagging someone in a photo, identity theft. Using your partners credit card, fraud. All of this evidence could easily be compiled and used against you. Having a game of thrones marathon with some friends from an on demand streaming service? DMCA violation? CFAA violation? Illegal broadcasting? One party with infinite power.

    5. Re:Q: How many cameras is too many to watch? by KevReedUK · · Score: 0

      making a posteriori investigation easier

      I really don't think their intention in the proliferation of CCTV in the UK was to make it easier for police officers to covertly check out the rear ends of females! Then again...?

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
  16. Re:GG for cops. by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

    Well first off the cops already record most things (at least here in 'Murrica), this just adds another layer outside the cars. Second this could be a boon for accountability, though the rate of "missing" recordings will probably be troublesome. Third this is Britain, not America, the British long ago gave up any semblance of privacy.

  17. Wish this happened in the US. by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I actually think this is a step in the right direction. They should make it something that can't be tampered with by anyone, police or otherwise. I'm not sure how it works over in the UK but that kind of footage could be subpoenaed in the US if it's available and used for your defense, so it wouldn't be a tool only for police officers. If police are often reporting malfunction or missing footage in cases where their work ethic is being called into question, surely that can't look good for long in a court of law.

    1. Re:Wish this happened in the US. by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      As long as they respect my right to record what they are doing, whenever they are doing it.

  18. You can't stop this. by anarcobra · · Score: 1

    With things like google glass, vr (video recording, not virtual reality) sunglasses, police mounted cameras, etc. becoming more popular the coverage will become greater and greater.
    It will also become more and more difficult for police to ensure they disappeared all the recordings of their beatings.
    As technology shrinks you won't even be able to tell if those are regular glasses, or recording glasses.

  19. Re:GG for cops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing's hollow — it goes on forever — and — oh my God — it's full of watchers!

  20. Its a monetisation move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of all the juicy footage they can sell to "Police Camera Action!!!" type shows!!!

    *groan*

  21. Actually, good! by Cogent91 · · Score: 2

    Now this I actually agree with. I don't agree with cameras being everywhere, but an ability to know any Police Officer approaching you can have their choices reviewed on a real record is a good thing. It'll help keep Cops more honest.

  22. iCop by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    iFuzz?
    iPork?

    1. Re:iCop by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      iFuzz?
      iPork?

      Of course... it's reassuring to know that one of the reasons to implement it is to prevent suspects from being able to claim iSore!

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
  23. Re:GG for cops. by Adriax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sam Vimes.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  24. Re:Prediction: Police Violence footage still missi by cheater512 · · Score: 1

    Harder to block the mic as well. Far more suspicious if both the lens is accidentally obscured and the mic is damaged.

  25. What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happens the same day I decide to carry a signal jammer with me at all times!

    1. Re:What a coincidence! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      So when the police come to arrest you for interfering with communications*, they can beat you with impunity! Brilliant!

      *Not that that would actually stop these devices recording at all.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  26. Re:GG for cops. by AbsGeekNZ · · Score: 1

    Where are my mod points when I need them.....Loved his work in The Fifth Elephant.

  27. Re:Prediction: Police Violence footage still missi by tsotha · · Score: 2

    But as Samantha Wright points out above, the very fact the camera was off casts doubt on the officer's testimony.

  28. When looking for a needle in a haystack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...add more hay.

  29. Redundant.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so rare to actually see police walking the beat around here (as opposed to eating donuts in their car while they find random motorists to harass, or surfing facebook for politically incorrect speech they can prosecute), that this doesn't really change the equation much for better or worse.

  30. The "capital of CCTV cameras" thing is bollocks by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    People always parrot this. The only source is a report based on a survey of two major shopping streets in London and extrapolating from that.

    Now, a busy popular street with several banks, restaurants and shops, most frequently part of a chain, is not representative of all the businesses in London. These include one man businesses, consultants, delivery companies and home businesses which have no need for a CCTV system.

    Even if the count is accurate, no similar survey has been taken of any other city. Tell me, are CCTV systems used in the rest of Europe? Are they used in the US? Or do business owners assume their customers are more honest there?

    1. Re:The "capital of CCTV cameras" thing is bollocks by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      King St in Melbourne is the same, lots of violent young drunks on a Friday/Saturday night, therefore lots of cameras. The more violent footage they get on the TV the more it's reputation sinks, the more it's reputation sinks the more cameras they install. It's the same thing as increasing the old fashioned foot patrol, at the end of the day the troublemakers just move to a new location.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:The "capital of CCTV cameras" thing is bollocks by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Don't they also include the London Congestion Zone cameras & bus lane cameras & traffic light cameras in their CCTV numbers - after all these are cameras watching the public.

  31. Just because you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cameras potentially everywhere, to record crime, prevent crime, to catch corrupt police, scan all passangers on planes, trains and busses, lets scan all emails, all forums and all chat channels, lets make laws to have the postal services open all letters and scan them ... and likely we'll even catch a criminal or a terrorist - and by example, we'd argue, that those systems of prevention works. When terrorism, corruption and crime still exists - what then? Can we then start working with the real problems or should we implement more systems? Real problems are poverty, corruption, religious fanatism ...

    1. Re:Just because you can... by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      There are not really any corporate profits to be made from dealing with the root causes, so I strongly doubt we'll ever see anywhere near the same amount of effort and money getting pumped into that as is going towards increased surveillance of the general populace.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  32. Sigh by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 1

    Time for me to make a camera-blinding hat, perhaps..?

    http://hacknmod.com/hack/blind-cameras-with-an-infrared-led-hat/

    --
    So.. it has come to this
    1. Re:Sigh by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Which very possibly would add the charge of interfering with a police investigation on top of other charges they might have against you.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  33. Re:GG for cops. by Voxol · · Score: 1

    As with a lot of Pratchett jokes, it's a lot bigger on the inside:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    and of course:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes

  34. After some initial revulsion... by Bismuthprince · · Score: 1

    My first reaction to this news was a knee-jerk negative reaction, but I actually welcome this development.
    For starters: my entire problem with surveillance is being seen by authorities at any time of the day, but since these camera's are actually accompanied by an actual, living, authority figure, that point is kind of moot.

    Second: I don't really fear they'll just shut off their cameras to destroy evidence of their brutality. Especially in the inner city, there's almost always someone equipped with a camera-phone and a desire to document police brutality. The police's go-to excuse used to be "This video was shot right after the mitigating circumstances explaining why the brutality was necessary occured". If that were a fact, police would be happy to turn over their own version of events. If they fail to produce their own video of the event, or refuse to do so, it seriously hurts their case.

    So all in all, barring circumstances I'm too ignorant to think of, it seems like a good development.

    1. Re:After some initial revulsion... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I don't think the police are all perfect but this kind of change may help some of the better ones do their job better (by stopping some of the BS abuse claims) and make it harder for some of the bad ones to abuse their position.

      If a police officer is recording me then he was already watching me. The word of a policeman is generally given a lot of weight in UK courts so if a police man says he saw me do something then my word alone may not be enough to get me off even if I'm innocent. If officers could record then every time they don't it decreases the authority of their position. Is it perfect? No. Will it be abused in some way? Almost certainly. Will it be worse than the current situation? I really fail to see how.

  35. They are easy AND empowering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. They're easy because I found ditching webmail for real mail was actually an improvement. I'd switched to webmail so I could us it in multiple places, but that was when my desktops were the usual ways of connecting, technology made portable the norm, I don't need webmail anymore. Getting rid of the NSA by getting rid of these companies is just icing on that cake. It's empowering. I read a lot of comments here, depressed, thinking they can't do anything, but yeh, actually you can and the end result is better.

    2. The multi phones business is a suggestion for you. I don't use a phone much, I have real world friends and they chat/live in real world and I don't show up on a phone graph.

    3. Paranoia, isn't paranoia if its leaked and confirmed by the president. That's reality, sad reality admittedly. You either go into denial about it or takes steps to mitigate it.

    4. If GCHQ is tracking 4000 potential terror plots and there are 100 forums in English which are free enough to discuss govt dissent, and maybe 300 others in other languages. That's an average 10 per forum. Perhaps 20 on a forum the size slashdot.

    Do you imagine that a comment like "we need to take back our government with guns" on Slashdot is different from the same comment on hick forum?

    "But leave me to get on with my life without developing paranoia to a state of mental illness, thanks."
    Ah men to that. But paranoia is in your head, and sadly this mass data trawl is real. Better to face up to it, and mitigate it at every turn. The act of doing that DOES EMPOWER you.

    It's simple things too, if you use an online route planning navigator, your favorite locations are there for NSA mining. If you have an offline Garmin or TomTom they are not. A simple switch that also improves navigation experience.
    Likewise you have a business, it uses a cloud solution, Microsoft 365, Google Cloud Print, whatever. It sucks I know, but they can help themselves to that data and mine it, and that's business data. You have to protect your companies data from that snooping. It's your job, not a mental illness, your job.

  36. Defeatist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's very defeatist.

    "treating the symptoms is the behaviour they want."
    No, they want lots of lovely data to run data mining algorithms on, graph analysis. If you don't give them that data, that is the fix that is the cure.
    If companies choose to give that data to them, well you can simply avoid those companies and bingo the problem goes away.

    This idea that somehow we're all powerless against surveillance is just crap. Nobody made you hand that data over, you did it on a lie that it was protected without probably cause and a warrant. Fine, so its sad that you've been lied to, you were betrayed, big deal.

    Get past the denial
    Get past the anger
    Get past the bargaining
    Get past the depression

    Get to the acceptance, and fix the problem. Future data doesn't need to be there for NSA data mining. You learn for next time.

  37. Not new, police have had similar cameras for years by rHBa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The police have had body mounted cameras in the UK for 5 years.

    The only news here is that they've started using them in Melton (a medium size town in the Midlands) and presumably the tech has improved.

  38. Re:Not new, police have had similar cameras for ye by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    presumably the tech has improved.

    Yeah, I guess you could presume. Or, you could try reading all both sentences in TFS. I'll go ahead and spoil the surprise: they're night vision!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  39. Re:Not new, police have had similar cameras for ye by rHBa · · Score: 2

    Sorry, I RTFM and it said to never RTFA on Slashdot.

    Of course if you RTFS it does mention the IR capabilities but the summary title and most of the comments here are all about the fact that "UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras" which is not news.

  40. Start with politions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You wanna have this technology actually reduce crime, require politicians to wear them 24/7 while in office.

  41. 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/21/met_police_heargear_cameras/

    *yawn*

  42. Re:GG for cops. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Who will watch the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers?

    What ever you do just don't blink!!!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  43. Closed-Circuit Tele Vision Cameras by Barryke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    CCTV this means that camera footage is streamed live to a TV.

    Is that what the English Custodian helmets are for, a satellite dish?
    What does the RF antenna model helmet look like?

    I recon not, and they meant to equip the bobby's with a video camera instead.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:Closed-Circuit Tele Vision Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor Bobby's.

  44. basilisk gun anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    basilisk gun anyone?

  45. I've said this for years by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You can not stop the onslaught of recording devices.
    Spend you energy protecting the rights and usage of said recording devices.
     

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  46. How to evade police in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you find yourself being pursued by police in the UK, there is a very simple method to evading them. Find the nearest body of water that is more than ankle deep, then walk into it. In the UK police and firemen are forbidden to enter a body of water more than ankle deep without extensive training due to Heath and Safety rules, even if someone is drowning. The policeman will have to call in a special water certified officers to pursue you, but wait. Those officers can only go into water up to waist high. Beyond that they have to call in a full scuba team with a hovercraft because in the UK swimming is very dangerous. The officer, rather than waiting an hour for the appropriate personnel to show up will simply drop pursuit.

  47. Didn't we say we wanted this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't we want the police to have cameras running all the time so that what they saw was reported and everything didn't have to rely on just their testimony?

  48. Oh, I imagine Bob Howard has some insight on this by LandGator · · Score: 1

    http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html explains why universal CCTV cameras might not be a good idea. Or, perhaps _is_ a good idea. You be the judge.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  49. Do they also have hat-rack functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or are they single-purpose? How much is one and can I buy them online?

  50. Re:Prediction: Police Violence footage still missi by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    you're not thinking fourth dimensionally Marty, the officer only need cover the lens and constantly yell angry loud words in "pain" as he beats the tar out of the "perp who assaulted him"