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."

Comments

Meanwhile In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

All russian police cars got equipped with cameras.

Aimed inwards.

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

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Samantha Wright]

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.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[rabbitfood]

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.