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."
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.
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?
All russian police cars got equipped with cameras.
Aimed inwards.
(At least there is an insight in, and admission of police corruption there)
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
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...
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
Neither of those are ideal either, both are just as ripe for abuse.
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.
Well my comment is alluding to the ability of skewing possible tampering against the police' own interest as a possible disincentivising of tampering.
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.
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.
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.
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.
iFuzz?
iPork?
Table-ized A.I.
Sam Vimes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Harder to block the mic as well. Far more suspicious if both the lens is accidentally obscured and the mic is damaged.
Where are my mod points when I need them.....Loved his work in The Fifth Elephant.
But as Samantha Wright points out above, the very fact the camera was off casts doubt on the officer's testimony.
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.
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.
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?
...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)
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?
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.
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."
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
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
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. 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
You wanna have this technology actually reduce crime, require politicians to wear them 24/7 while in office.
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.
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..
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://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
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
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"