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

Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Samantha Wright]

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.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Urkki]

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.

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.

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)

I believe all police activity should be filmed

[BenJCarter]

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.

Re:EASY steps

[Chas]

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

Re:GG for cops.

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:all for it...

[techno-vampire]

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.

Wish this happened in the US.

[flimflammer]

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.

Re:GG for cops.

[Adriax]

Sam Vimes.

Re:EASY steps

[ledow]

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