Slashdot Mirror


Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One?

Nerval's Lobster writes "Earlier this week, news reports leaked that the NYPD is evaluating whether to give its officers Google Glass for investigations and patrols. Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians, suggested that the NYPD must have purchased the units on its own initiative, rather than partner with the company. Some pundits and many civil libertarians hate the idea of law enforcement wearing Google Glass or other electronics that can send a constant stream of video and audio to a government (or even third-party) server. But at the same time, wearing Google Glass could also compel cops (and other law-enforcement personnel) to be on their best behavior at all times, particularly when it comes to use of force; the prospect of instantly available video detailing every aspect of an officer's shift could prove a powerful incentive to behave in a courteous and professional manner. But that's a very broad assumption; the reality—if cops really do start wearing Google Glass and other video-equipped electronics in large numbers—will likely end up determined by lots and lots of lawsuits and court-actions, many of them stemming from real-world incidents. Do you think cops should have Google Glass and other wearable electronics? And if so, what sort of regulations could be put in place to ensure that such technology isn't abused by the powers that be?"

192 comments

  1. Anything it sees may be used against you by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and anything it sees that's in your favor, they can just discard.

    That's how it works currently when it comes to other kinds of evidence, no reason to think Glass data will be any different.

    1. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by DoninIN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a bit paranoid when it comes to this sort of abuse by those in power. If the data is streamed back to "police Hq" then there is a layer of oversight there to reduce the abuse, it's not about whether or not the deputy who decided he didn't like the look of you decides to ignore or delete this information, it requires a larger conspiracy by those who are supposed to responsible and accountable, and those who didn't make some mistake or abuse their power to begin with, so it's not unlike dashcams for policemans hats. Also seeing this article with the XKCD extension that replace Google Glass with Virtual Boy made me smile.

    2. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't need to discard it. Very few officers have ever been charged with murder while on duty regardless of whether or not there's video evidence and/or tons of witnesses.

      Even if you, say, bash an innocent homeless man's face in, tase him repeatedly as he screams for help, and pile six officers on him until he suffocates.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    3. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they could just ignore the public and do whatever the fuck they want like they currently do.

      Remember that only INDIVIDUALS get punished when they don't line up with policy and then get paraded about as the system working well.

      I still laugh when the plebs suggest that they can have a say in how anything in america goes does.

      They will or will not use this as they please and there is not a fucking thing you can do about it.

      Be a nice bovine and go back to being farmed for your productivity and wages like a good little citizen.

    4. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cannot force it or face big time lawyers hungry for money. It happens.

    6. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      You can mod it down but it does not make it any less true.

      Regardless how much cud you have to chew.

    7. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how you have +2 troll.
      If I had mod points I'd mod you up.

    8. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.

      Oh, I dunno, you could say the same thing about guns, and you'd be wrong.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    9. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      poster is not trolling.

      the fact that what he says is UNPLEASANT to hear does not mean he's a troll.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re: Anything it sees may be used against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like the video cameras in patrol cars?
      An the ones in the interagation rooms.
      Just a continuation of a trend.

    11. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Thanks dude.

      Yes I was venting and made my point more harshly than I would normally, no what I am saying is anything other than what I observe and believe.

      Hence not a troll.

    12. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      It is painfully clear that the level of conspiracy to destroy evidence has been well entrenched at every level of virtually all police departments for a very long time.

    13. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Marful · · Score: 2

      Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.

      Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.

      So the question becomes, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?

      Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.

      Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.

    14. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by davester666 · · Score: 1

      no. here in canada cops can use their cell phones while driving without needing to be hands-free, but only for official business [like they will park when they get a personal call...stopping isn't good enough]. but everybody else has to use a hands-free device.

      cops are 'super-citizens'

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by drolli · · Score: 1

      Yes, thats also what i thought. If they use it the precautions should be not against turning it on but turning it off at a convenient point in time. If they really stream everything without interruption to the police car which records it, and the cops cant even turn the system off then they like to, then its fine with me.

    16. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a bit paranoid when it comes to this sort of abuse by those in power. If the data is streamed back to "police Hq" then there is a layer of oversight there to reduce the abuse, it's not about whether or not the deputy who decided he didn't like the look of you decides to ignore or delete this information, it requires a larger conspiracy by those who are supposed to responsible and accountable, and those who didn't make some mistake or abuse their power to begin with, so it's not unlike dashcams for policemans hats.

      Also seeing this article with the XKCD extension that replace Google Glass with Virtual Boy made me smile.

      No offense DoninIN but time has told us that this is a very dangerous comment you have made here.
      What is needed more than anything is transparency of evidence itself.

      I can't stress it enough.

      Transparency Transparency Transparency.

    17. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All one needs to do to safeguard the public is to only hire police with good ethics. The exact number of current officers you'd need to replace is unknown.

    18. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

      In some cases you would be right, there are definitely cases where a department acknowledged that there had been misconduct and was open with the fact & any evidence they had. However there are also MANY cases (Michael Deherra Beating, Hollywood FL framing, etc) where there were obvious instances of personnel not involved with the misconduct covering for those misbehaving by destroying and/or editing evidence. On officer video could have very positive impact on both punishing criminals and punishing officer misconduct, but only if the video is streamed to a third party database that provides access equally to police, prosecution, defendants & reporters. And there are SEVERE penalties for having "accidents" with your video equipment at an "inopportune" time.

    19. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      fuck it, lets stream it live!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      a safe bet would be the same number of congressmen... all of them

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    21. Re:Anything it sees may be used against you by Meski · · Score: 1

      If it's going to be used in court cases, give the judiciary charge of the cloud servers the Glass reports back to. If the judiciary is corrupt, then you're totally fucked.

  2. I'd say Great Idea by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

    1. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As Spy Handler suggested, the bar would only be raised as high as the chief of police's scruples. Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:I'd say Great Idea by linuxci · · Score: 4, Funny

      The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.

      Don't most NY cops only have a 30 minute working time followed by a 2 hour donut break. They can use that time to charge the batteries.

    4. Re:I'd say Great Idea by tftp · · Score: 1

      The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.

      And, of course, there is no way to connect GG to a much larger battery that hangs on the policeman's belt, alongside with his Taser, his firearm, and a ton of other stuff?

      Where there is a will, there is a way.

    5. Re:I'd say Great Idea by bluFox · · Score: 1

      What you don't get, is if this succeeds, what is to prevent our employers from insisting that each of us wear it while we work? If your argument is that we will somehow restrict it to cops, what differentiates cops from other government employees (facing similar flak - either for not working full time, or inefficiency and such) Is raising the bar on cops worth it to lose this freedom? You may want to read this short story which has such a thing as its premise. http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

      --
      ~561
    6. Re:I'd say Great Idea by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

      Only as long as the records are as readily available to people outside the police force as to the police themselves. If the police are free to produce recordings only when they find it convenient, they are useless for holding the police accountable.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    7. Re:I'd say Great Idea by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct, sir! However, that - I would submit - is a separate issue not just related to GG. Fixing every facet of a problem is key, but so is having the tools and monitoring capability in place. Without that, it's back to the old "he said, he said..."

    8. Re:I'd say Great Idea by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

      Errr... A) being police, they are rightfully held to a much higher standard of accountability (how many teachers pack iron and have the latitude to use said iron?) B) being public employees, have arguably less rights in this area than other workers and C) the old slippery-slope argument rears its head yet again. :-)

    9. Re:I'd say Great Idea by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Most people are not in a position where they can legally take someones life, so I don't think this is really a slippery slope. Maybe make it a policy that the video can only be accessed if the officer is being investigated for wrongdoing.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:I'd say Great Idea by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.

      Sadly, no. Some bad cops get paid in money and some get paid in the security and convenience of doing nothing about it. It's the culture - the spirit - of the organization itself that becomes corrupt. Simply replacing some personnel won't purge it; you have to destroy the organization by moving the less-corrupt members into other, healthy departments in a dispersed manner, and keeping an eye on them until they're assimilated into the new culture.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Even when the recordings are available on Youtube, the officers are pretty much safe. In many cases, they are suspended *with* pay and keep their jobs or are assigned desk jobs for a while.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    12. Re:I'd say Great Idea by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      A lot of cops already have dash cams they ostensibly don't control. Google Glass would be easier to hack.

      Really, I think the main new thing that would be introduced by cops wearing Google Glass is there'd be a lot of down-the-blouse cleavage shots circulating within the department - thanks to the traffic cops.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:I'd say Great Idea by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like dashcams right? Instead I think we'll just see 4 Google Glass fail at the same time instead of 4 dash cams failing at the same time, at the exact time abuse is alleged to have occurred.

    14. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Thangodin · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Where cops are required to wear surveillance gear, they are on their best behavior, because the video is available in court--this has already been demonstrated in the EU. And that's not up to the chief of police. Your lawyer can demand it. And Google glass feeds to the Google servers, not the police station. Ultimately, the cops don't own it, so they can't just delete or edit what they don't like, they can only modify their copy, which is not the master, which your lawyer can request. So they will be very careful to make sure that nothing incriminating appears in the feeds.

      This is surveillance of the cops as well as citizens--souveillance, not just surveillance. Read Contrary Brin to find out what souveilance is. All the conspiracy theorist here need to take their tin foil hats off for a moment and try to understand what this really means.

    15. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.

      Don't most NY cops only have a 30 minute working time followed by a 2 hour donut break. They can use that time to beat and shoot more unarmed minorities.

      FYP

    16. Re:I'd say Great Idea by melstav · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. the thing has a USB port that's used for charging.

    17. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That would imply that there are healthy departments, or even enough healthy departments. At the current state of things, it is more likely that the corrupt would so outnumber the good that you would just end up breaking the oddball uncorrupt departments that may exist.

      You are right though about not being able to just fire the Chief. It's not like a new Chief of Police could walk into the department and fire/suspend 90% of his staff.

    18. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      City life is hectic. There is way too much information to encode the City. You get used to it. After 30 minutes of vigilance all you see is cream, strawberry and cinnamon donuts.

    19. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being police, they are rightfully held to a much higher standard of accountability

      Which rock do you live under? Police are held to a LOWER standard of accountability (in practice, not in theory) than the average citizen. License to be judge, jury, and executioner without risking the death penalty or life in jail. Holy shit you need to grow some eyeballs.

    20. Re:I'd say Great Idea by ultranova · · Score: 2

      What you don't get, is if this succeeds, what is to prevent our employers from insisting that each of us wear it while we work?

      What makes you think that's a bad idea? There are plenty of jobs where this would be a godsend. For example, take a factory. From examining industrial accidents to being able to send live video feed to the maintenance ("is that supposed to be doing that?") to accessing piping schematics to accessing factory's control systems from the field to simply locating people, a Google Glass - an Ex-approved version, of course - or similar would be a huge improvement over walkie-talkies, which are used nowadays.

      Is raising the bar on cops worth it to lose this freedom?

      You don't have the freedom to keep your workplace activities a secret.

      You may want to read this short story which has such a thing as its premise.

      No. "Manna" has as its premise automation, which is unrelated (and already happening). This story is about monitoring.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:I'd say Great Idea by phmadore · · Score: 1

      Why would you want that policy? How about develop software that automatically blurs out faces once the feed hits the public. FOIA, bro.

    22. Re:I'd say Great Idea by StormyWeatherL33T · · Score: 1

      That really doesn't follow. To say you're reaching for that conclusion is being kind.

    23. Re:I'd say Great Idea by StormyWeatherL33T · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree. If you were being filmed, would you *bank* on the fact that your corrupt officials would erase it if you acted improperly? After all, they could just as easily use you as the sacrificial lamb. I think just the knowledge that everyone they're doing is being filmed would cause you to act differently.

    24. Re:I'd say Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, even chiefs of police are prone to 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality. They'll make others follow the law more closely just cause it makes them look good and allows them to get away with more stuff. The only exception would, of course, be personal friends.

    25. Re:I'd say Great Idea by AssafLavie7459 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. I think technology such as wearable video recorders could be a great equalizer of power, even if it's in the hands of the authorities. Currently, a cop's word holds a lot more weight than a civilian's. Countless crooked cops fabricating charges against people who've done nothing, just because they can. Sometimes this bullying is caught on tape and the civilian gets a little bit of justice. This degree of transparency should be the norm. In fact, I would go so far as to say that given reliable wearable video technology, a cop's testimony should be considered inadmissible unless the incident in question has been continuously video taped by his camera. Google Glass is probably not the right technology for this purpose, but technology will get there.

  3. Here's the deal by djupedal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just got my glass last week, and the way I see it (pun!), it is ok for the cops as long as it is ok for the public at large too.

  4. Is it a bad idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes. Yes it is a bad idea. Yet orders of magnitude better than Beta.

    Fuck Beta.

    1. Re:Is it a bad idea? by linuxci · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes. Yes it is a bad idea. Yet orders of magnitude better than Beta.

      Fuck Beta.

      Fuck Beta?

      I've tried fuckbeta.slashdot.org - I recommend that as the starting point on /., makes the logs send a message.

    2. Re:Is it a bad idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your obviously trolling, but I'll bite. Your comment is ignorant and sickening.

    3. Re:Is it a bad idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was obviously an intentionally uncomfortable joke. I personally don't believe that anyone deserves death, but the feeling expressed by such a joke is understandable: even the best cops, like soldiers, are tacitly responsible for the actions of the worst. If you aren't volunteering to accept that people will hate you or distrust you for your actions, don't willfully become a tool of state repression.

    4. Re:Is it a bad idea? by phmadore · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: someone develop a PHP RSS feed reader that looks exactly like the Slashdot you admire so much, then just pipe in the RSS, and voila. You could potentially even run your own advertisements.

    5. Re:Is it a bad idea? by phmadore · · Score: 1

      You never hear about the good cops, except on slow news days.

      Unfortunately, my life has led me to a point where I can never trust a cop or have love for law enforcement. I've met good cops, guys who truly believe they can do good with their badge and who often choose not to enforce laws they see as unnecessary (which, unfortunately, is a problem in and of itself). Bless them for trying to do good in society while so many are either apathetic or downright evil.

      But, in the end, FTP because ACAB and 911 is a Joke. And I feel like more members of each new generation feel this way than the last, and I hope the powers that be understand they are on a collision course with historical truths, IE, what is outlined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence or the opening words of Fighting For Our Lives.

      I don't think I want to be in the western world when it collapses. I think we are such a violent bunch that even I might not survive, and I've spent years homeless, did time in Iraq, and so forth. I still don't have faith I'd be able to guide my family through the chaos of a societal meltdown in a culture which is so coddled and takes so much for granted. I think we need to GTFO here and definitely within the next ten years.

    6. Re:Is it a bad idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never hear about the good cops, except on slow news days.
       

      Well, when a day goes by without a cop shooting or arresting someone who doesn't appear to have deserved it http://www.examiner.com/article/firefighter-arrested-by-chp-video-shows-cop-cuffed-fireman-for-not-moving-truck
      we will focus on the one rescuing someone. Pretty rare I'm sure, we have to go all the way back to... 2 days ago to find an instance of it. Until then we'll save the accolades for people who aren't directly pricks or covering for pricks.

      Bottom line, who do you want to unexpectedly show up at your door:
      1) Cop
      2) Fireman
      3) EMS
      4) Door to door salesman.

  5. Just some thoughts by rolfwind · · Score: 2

    Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians

    I DO NOT MIND if google helps police agencies investigate crimes better by making google glass some type of Minority Report style computer (sans the whole crime prediction thing aspect of the movie).

    I DO MIND if they build government backdoors to my data.

    Not really hard, completely seperate things. But google is trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs.

    1. Re:Just some thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello NSA troll.

    2. Re:Just some thoughts by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      How does editorializing by the author of this piece equate to Google trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  6. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!

    I've got news for you: Whether a phone is a designer phone or not has zero effect on how well or how badly it renders a web page. What matters is the hardware and software inside the device.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. Horrible Idea by jhujoe · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's a horrible idea. End of argument.

    1. Re: Horrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yes, it's a horrible idea. End of argument.
      No, actually that would be an opinion. I'd love to hear your supporting arguments.

  8. Judging Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My concern would not be that it would compel officers to be on their best behavior at all times, that is something I'd generally look at as a perk. Instead I'd be worried about how we would then judge cops job performance. This could very well remove the cops ability to ignore trivial and insignificant breaches of law that go on around them, as well as giving people a pass. With cops performance already often judged by the frequency of their tickets this could just open a new opportunity to diminish their role as protectors of the people.

    1. Re: Judging Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or worse, lower the publics standards of a punishable action.

    2. Re:Judging Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's against the law, they shouldn't be ignoring it / giving a pass. Selective persecution is a bad thing. If it shouldn't be against the law, aim to change the law instead.

    3. Re:Judging Performance by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      Shouldnt the law be equally applied? It shouldn't be at the whim of an officer to decide if something is punishable.

      If it's trivial and insignificant, then it shouldn't be illegal. If it is not trivial, then the cop should have to follow up on it. The alternative (what we have now) is that many trivial and insignificant things are illegal and cops can follow up on them at their own whim.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    4. Re:Judging Performance by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      If cops enforce the worst laws with equal vigor society would have to alter the laws so that sanity prevailed. As far as traffic tickets go we could reduce nonsense tickets by making certain that we only allow fines low enough that the city loses money on every ticket written. On the other hand we might want to elimiante bad drivers by making it easy to get caught for every tiny violation and making certain that the rich paid far larger fines than the poor. A while back i was fishing on a public pier and an old, poor, fellow caught a fish at least two inches short of being legal. He was keeping the fish. I asked if he wasn't worried about the games wardens and he said no, he was not. He went on to say that if he was caught and thrown in jail he was better off anyway so he never worried about breaking laws.

    5. Re:Judging Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe that every time a car briefly overshoots the speed limit, it should be ticketed? Every smoker who wanders too close to the doors should be ticketed? Every car parked in a weird spot ticketed? Every idiot caught smoking pot outside charged?

      You would probably say that these are all trivial, but they aren't. People drag racing down the streets are dangerous, nobody wants to breath smoke when they go by the entrance of a building, or on the street. So either we get really convoluted laws with a bunch of exceptions, or we let the cops make judgement calls.

    6. Re:Judging Performance by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      I think what we gain from the security of a consistent rule of law, and the protection from the abuse by law enforcement officers, far outweighs the difficulty in having to think through and create reasonable laws. I dont want to trade protection from abuse just because we're to lazy to write correct laws. I don't want the current system of "make everything illegal" + "trust the cops" as the solution for that.

      Some type of shoulder, dash cam, or Google-Glass-like device could go a long way towards that. I also think that there can be clear distinction at least when the cops must act and when they cant. Most places seem to have speed limits that are too low causing everyone to drive 5-15 over. But if the chances were high that you would get a ticket for going a few miles per hour over the limit, would you always put yourself in a situation where your are likely to accidentally drive over the limit? I think people would find a natural "buffer" and protect themselves. And speed limits should probably be increased and if the law was consistent and strict, people would find a reasonable speed to travel. Most of the time driving the actual speed limit becomes dangerous when everyone else is going that much faster. Or, specifically regarding speeding, cops could be prevented from pulling someone over unless they were traveling at 15mph or higher over the limit. I don't think it's hard to work out the details.

      As for smokers...walking past smokers is a minor nuisance, people should just get over that (IMHO). I recently quit, switching to e-cigs, and people still cough when I walk by. They think I am smoking because my e-cig looks like a cigarette. It is all in their heads (there is no second hand smoke with e-cigs). Second hand smoke only becomes a problem indoors. And any rude smokers should be asked to make way nicely. (I used to always try to keep away from doors to buildings and especially keep my distance from children). But I'm not sure a law is needed here. Smoking is largely on the way out in the US.

      As for pot, I think that should be legalized.

      As for parking, that is not done by cops usually. And I can't remember a time when parking was ignored as a minor offense. Most towns see those tickets as cash cows.

      While I appreciate what you saying, I dont think that is a good enough reason. If the law was applied consistently, people would adjust. Right now people just roll the dice against how much they can get away with. And cops walk around with power they should never have been granted.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    7. Re:Judging Performance by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it is way more dangerous for a teenage boy to drive 45 in a 35 than it is for a woman of any age with big tits to drive at any speed they want.

    8. Re:Judging Performance by Afty0r · · Score: 1

      Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most harmful possible aspects of policing - the sooner we are rid of it, the better.

      Instead, for small crimes which are rarely prosecuted (because the punishment is crazy high, like littering) we will instead prosecute all instances, and by popular demand reduce the fine to something more palatable....

    9. Re:Judging Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That which is trivial and insignificant when one person does it can be non-trivial and significant when many people do it.

      One man littering? Trivial. One million people littering? TRASH EVERYWHERE.

      One man pissing in an alley? Trivial. One million people pissing in alleys? The streets are rivers of piss, your city smells so strongly of piss that people in the next county smell it when the wind blows.

    10. Re:Judging Performance by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Police performance should be judged on the public perception and reporting of crime.
      Its not how many tickets you issue - its how safe the neighborhood feels to the public that live there.
      So if speeding in the neighborhood is an issue the public have then that is one of the areas the police should tackle, if the public aren't worried about the traffic then the police shouldn't be concentrating on speeding tickets and should look at those areas where the public are highlighting issues.

      I know, its a crazy idea that the public should be guiding the policing policy :-)

  9. OK Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Record a video.

  10. Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. by jcochran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see a problem with the police using Google Glass provided that if they do, the use is non discretionary and that the unedited video is provided in full upon demand by the public or accused. After all, we don't want the police turning off their glass if they're about to do something questionable. And we don't want anything that's in the favor of the accused to be discarded because it's "not relevant"

    1. Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Along the same lines, how about the "metadata" is put up on a public website immediately. For example, as soon as one of the police cameras start recording, there would be a log entry on a public website which would show activation time, officer who activated the camera, and termination time, plus a checksum for the newly completed video. That way, when evidence is needed, we can tell if the video has been edited/altered, and there is also a public record of who and when the camera was used. Then the officer can't simply say "we weren't recording during the altercation" or whatnot. You would also be able to see if the camera was activated while approaching someone, then switched off for 5 minutes, and then reactivated and now there is a guy bleeding on the ground. Any arrest made without a complete record, could be tossed out.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    2. Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      there are dashcams and cams inside jails and, well, more often that you or I would want - the video data 'goes missing'. how convenient!

      until that is a zero-occurrence situation, we have a LOT to worry about due to this imbalance. if we are defending ourselves, the video never goes missing. if the cop is being charged with breaking the law, the video goes missing more often than it should.

      until there are severe FINES and JAIL TIME for 'video that goes missing', this is a huge imbalance and I'd rather them not have it. them having it gives them more power and yet our power is the same or even less, now.

      I would propose citizen committes that watch live realtime video feeds of all cops who carry such gear and if there are ever gaps, that cop is recalled back IMMEDIATELY and severe sanctions are brought on him. I don't ever expect our legal system to be this fair and upfront - and that's exactly why I think cops carrying these is a bad idea.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And if so, what sort of regulations could be put in place to ensure that such technology isn't abused by the powers that be?"

      This is wishful thinking, regulations are propaganda, just hear me out on this.

      They're abused despite either enforcing them, or allowing entities (companies, ect..) to buy off politicians and government agencies to make loopholes for them, so they can get away with bad practices/corruption/illegal conduct. Thus regulations are really are a Public Relations stunt, rather then anything thats going to be used for enforcement.

      Reality of it is, regulations are for preventing John/Jane public from engaging in the same activity companies and other entities get away with, while companies/law enforcement should be receiving far heavier punishment for actively/willfully engaging in corruption, or illegal conduct.

      When it comes to cops it just doesn't cut it with excuses such as "stressful job", apparently we haven't learned the lessons from the past, the Chief or ranking officer for that precinct should have knowledge of when a officer needs time off and that officer should be evaluated mentally, to see were he/she is at. The problem is cops are more dangerous or just as dangerous as criminals, and just because they have a badge makes them worse because they usually get away with it.

      To repeat some comments, there should be equal punishment across the board, if not heavier punishment for those that took an oath and know better.

  11. also: fuck beta by jhujoe · · Score: 0

    fb

  12. Depends by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If they are just wandering around recording everything they see, its bad. If they are going to limit to recording 'interactions' then its not much worse than dash cams.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. require them to retain video by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:require them to retain video by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

      And if for some reason the video gets "lost" or "corrupted", require that none of the video for a week before and a week after the "lost" video can not be used as evidence.

    2. Re:require them to retain video by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't see that going through the court.

      That said, maybe the real solution is for everyone to have cameras running on them all the time.

      We've been amused of late by motorists in Russia sharing their dash cams with youtube. Apparently that's a thing in Russia... dash cams. Maybe as we push into the 21st century there is an increasing need for pedestrians to have recording devices on their persons at all times in the event of police harassment.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:require them to retain video by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, dashcams in Russia are common because the video is used against the uninsured drivers who do hit and runs. The only way to prove damages is to catch the accident as it happens.

  14. Panopticon by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every single person on the government payroll should wear one, and the video and audio live streamed on the internet.

    Any gaps in the record are presumptive evidence for employee malfeasance, and public innocence..

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Panopticon by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Every single person on the government payroll should wear one...

      Well, maybe just those who write and enforce the rules... And as long as we can record them with our own cameras, I see no problem.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Panopticon by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if they have nothing to hide, they should have no objection!

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    3. Re:Panopticon by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      That is far more people than you might think.

      Every college student on a project that lives on a government grant?
      Every public school teacher in the classroom?
      Your garbageman that happens to look into your back yard?

    4. Re:Panopticon by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    5. Re:Panopticon by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      And how about the same for business and labor. The salesman that lies, over charges or the laborer who hides and is a slacker would be caught every time. That would probably bankrupt the nation as most businesses are criminal in some aspect of their behavior. Most tradesmen are dishonest as well.

    6. Re:Panopticon by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Oops, I hope you are not in business or a tradesman. At least I (hopefully) have a choice in doing business with you.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    7. Re:Panopticon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I choose Vogon poetry instead?

    8. Re:Panopticon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any gaps in the record are presumptive evidence for employee malfeasance, and public innocence..

      ...or bathroom breaks...

  15. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Christ, are you stupid? It is one of the more popular phones on the market, and there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon. GP is noting that they obviously haven't tested for it. Normally you wouldn't need to test for every platform, but these ass clowns have obviously decided to disregard every convention in web development in favor of "OOH SHINY".

  16. Good idea by twnth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

    In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

    Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

    Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

    1. Re:Good idea by ugen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am a "white guy with a job" too, about as law-abiding as anyone can get without becoming a monk - yet I absolutely do not trust police. My (albeit limited) personal experience with police, as well as what I see happening in general, suggests that by a large margin they are no less dishonest, selfish and brutal than general population. However, where general population is held in check by external factors, police have additional "special rights", whether by actual law or by precedent, that make them that much more dangerous.

      May be up there in Canada things are different, but this was my experience in every location in US I lived in.

      That said, I think cameras of any kind on police would be a good thing in most cases, though I suspect they will quickly learn to cope by having batteries run out just in time, or suspects need to be strip-searched every time, which *obviously* would require camera to be turned off for privacy reasons (and, don't you know it, naked suspect is probably more cooperative anyway).

    2. Re:Good idea by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I'm for this if it becomes a regular habit to the point that if there isn't a recording, the case is almost certainly to be dismissed.

      If we can ensure that, then google glass should reduce bad cops and increase the number of good cops. If we can't, then it's just another tool for abuse.

    3. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you mean Canada doesn't also operate under systematic wage-slavery, doesn't contribute to the same capitalistic stripmining of the planet the masses have no say in to stop and otherwise doesn't participate in the globalized indentured servitude that produces are cheap consumer products? Wait, you must be confused about what it means to be 'free' because you're truly sheltered.

    4. Re:Good idea by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Personally, I've had great and horrible experiences with cops. One locked me up just because I was freak (hippie to you outsiders!) and he was pissed about something. Another literally risked his life to save mine. On balance, I do trust the police as a group. Despite the first extreme episode I mentioned, I've found them to be professional, polite, dedicated, sorely underpaid and - considering the crap they have to deal with - resolutely patient.

    5. Re:Good idea by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

      The timely arrival of information can interfere with the correct application of decisions. Suppose a cop sees a minor infraction, like crossing the street 50m away from a pedestrian crossing. The choice to go and give that person a ticket or let it go is a function of the traffic conditions, ie how dangerous this behaviour is at the time. It shouldn't be about *who* the person is. Now suppose the glasses come up with a bunch of internet accusations against the jaywalker about beating his wife. So the cop decides to go talk to the guy and give him a ticket anyway.

      By giving agents *more* information than necessary, it makes it harder or impossible for them to make correct decisions. It's not unlike hiring decisions, say. If every resume has race, religion, and age right next to the name, that's going to influence decisions for the worse. It's extra information, but it should *not* be available to the decision maker.

    6. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Naive.
      You seem awfully confident that it will actually help, instead of just happen to not be working properly whenever a cop is accused of being in the wrong, like dashcams and microphones. All cops are bad cops. Even if you ignore the whole issue of "just following orders" as an excuse to ruin people's lives over victimless crimes, any cop that's been on the force for more than a month has seen one of those 'bad cops' and not reported him. Covering up for another cops illegal behavior makes you a bad cop and an untrustworthy person. FWIW, I'm a clean cut employed white guy too.

    7. Re:Good idea by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      A bad cop can do a lot worse than ruin your day. Wilton Manors Fl. had a cop who transferred to the area near Tampa and it was found out that he was tying young women to trees and using an ax to butcher them after pulling them over.

    8. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be up there in Canada things are different, but this was my experience in every location in US I lived in.

      Things aren't any different in Canada. Especially in shit holes like Toronto where corruption is rampant.

    9. Re:Good idea by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't know how good or bad things are in Canada, but here in the U.S., being a "white guy" hasn't been protection against corrupt cops in the last 40 years.

    10. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and, don't you know it, naked suspect is probably more cooperative anyway).

      Unless..unless they are painted in blue.

    11. Re:Good idea by phmadore · · Score: 1

      Underpaid? In my experience, they make as much as 5 times the minimum wage, and I this is perhaps why they feel the fines they hand out are reasonable.

  17. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by linuxci · · Score: 2

    and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!

    Everything runs badly on a Windows Phone®

  18. Ghost town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... this place became a ghost town. What happened?

    1. RE:ghost town by Gaby+de+Wilde · · Score: 0

      The reply buttons dont work today. They are testing the new slashdot without replies.

      --
      gdewilde@gmail.com
  19. Always recording . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and always delivering webcam feed to publicly available streaming site? Then yes.

    Otherwise, no.

    1. Re: Always recording . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome Idea!

  20. Wow.. beta.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... I got on Slashdot, saw I was on the beta, clicked Slashdot Classic. Clicked to read the comments on this story, as the comments are the reason I come here, and was redirected to the comment section, on beta... Why? I can't even see the comments as it requires javascript to be enabled! So.. I go to the bottom, click on Slashdot Classic, I am redirected to Slashdot home page on classic. I click on the comments of this story, I am redirected to the comment section, on beta... Why!

  21. it is good by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    especially if they are live streaming to the internet where anyone can watch it, that way if the police are guilty of brutality the evidence will be obvious, and on the other side of the coin if the officer is doing his job properly the evidence will be there to clear the officer of any misconduct

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  22. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ, are you stupid? It is one of the more popular phones on the market, and there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon.

    I can understand people having the occasional toke, even if I don't personally care for it, but I draw the line at people injecting stuff directly into their veins.

  23. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    No, the built in processor can detect how "hip" you are and clocks the CPU according to your hip factor.

    See this video for more technical details on this amazing Microsoft invention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  24. Not too late... by Anachragnome · · Score: 0

    When the cops are all wearing them, they no longer need us to wear them.

    Edward Snowden seriously fucked up their roll-out schedule--GoogleGlass was meant for us--so now they focus on getting it in place on the people that control us. They are running out of time because of people using websites like Slashdot, sharing information and raising public awareness. Even without Slashdot, YOU can still do the same. Seriously, folks--do you really think they are killing Slashdot on accident? Sheer stupidity? They are killing Slashdot to silence us.

    US5722418
    +
    US5644363
    +
    GoogleGlass
    +
    Acceptance
    =
    ????

    If history is any sort of an indicator, any rights we sell today, our children must buy back with blood tomorrow

  25. It should be required by fred911 · · Score: 1

    for use in an arraignment at the minimum. A sworn affidavit and the video evidence. it makes any look of impropriety or bias, out of the question. Why on earth would anyone that wants fair and impartial justice oppose this? Especially considering the question of incarcerating someone who's not yet found guilty?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  26. Sure by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...as long as the citizens can keep on recording on theirs. Fair's fair.

  27. Predictions for public statements from PD by b1tbkt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "I'm sorry, we can't release the officer's Glass-cam video at this time, as it's part of an ongoing investigation."

    "Due to the overwhelming amount of video collected by our officers, we can only retain video streams for n days. Since the incident in question occurred (n+1) days ago, there's simply nothing that can be done to retrieve that data."

    "Our department's forensic computer investigation unit has confirmed that the officer's Glass-cam was malfunctioning on that day and all attempts to recover video from the incident have proven unsuccessful."

  28. obviously. by Xicor · · Score: 1

    cops should obviously be recording and recorded at all times. this will make sure that they are not abusing their power. we live in an age where we should expect everything we do in public to be visible on the internet eventually. i dont see any issue with cops being able to record everything they see in public. at least if every cop has video, fewer criminals will get away with crime due to ridiculous reasons.

  29. I have Glass, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They don't stay on very well. The weight of them makes them fly off if you turn your head really quickly. Give em to cops and they'll break in the line of duty in a day.

  30. Glass is not rugged enough for this usage yet by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I think that cops should be REQUIRED to use wearable recording devices when in the field. It's a natural, personal extension of the dashcams that are already standard. In fact, absence of a recorded interaction after an arrest should be considered suspicion of evidence tampering.

  31. No difference by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

    'Glass, or just a head or shoulder mounted camera. Just yesterday, I saw a cop in my local grocery store with a shoulder mounted camera.

    What the difference between that and 'ooohh shiny Google Glass'?

    1. Re:No difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "dashcams" can only passively record. glass on the other hand can display information in a hud-like manner...combine this with facial recognition capabilities .....and access to the criminal records database.....

    2. Re:No difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Glass, or just a head or shoulder mounted camera. Just yesterday, I saw a cop in my local grocery store with a shoulder mounted camera.

      What the difference between that and 'ooohh shiny Google Glass'?

      The future facial rec. Camera in the hands of cops could be dangerous

    3. Re:No difference by LaughingVulcan · · Score: 1

      The difference is said shoulder-mounted webcam will most likely never acquire the ability to facially mis-recognize you as Osama bin Laden and allow that officer to shoot you on sight without any futher due process. Google Glass could, and sooner than you think.

    4. Re:No difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Glass is more fragile and has a shorter battery life?

  32. "Why so many 'malfunctions"? by presspass · · Score: 1

    I think Google will hate this since there will be massive reports from the cops that the Google Glass malfunctioned.

  33. FACIAL RECOGNITION, not Video Recording. by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google glass for cops is not about video recording. Even if it starts there, it's not about that. It's about facial recognition.

    Every cop being able to know, looking at a person, who that person is, where they work, where they live, whether there are any warrants, what their facebook page says, what political party they are... almost anything big data can generate.

    This is one of the single biggest threats to individual freedoms we have ever seen.

  34. It depends by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

    In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

    Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

    Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

    It depends on the department. Different departments have different cultures, and there are a lot of good cops, or cops who are good when dealing with a particular person or issue. (Like responding to certain issues of a white guy with a job.) But there are also a lot of bad cops who will beat the crap out of you because they want to--I've heard specifically of problems in L.A. and Nevada, for example.

  35. Cops are like guns... by Threni · · Score: 1

    ..they can be used for good and bad...but usually bad.

  36. Related: Stross ended a trilogy early by Fencepost · · Score: 1
    As Charlie Stross put it in his announcement, ""Halting State" wasn't intended to be predictive when I started writing it in 2006."

    /. readers may be more familiar with the second book, or at least with the reference in its title: "Rule 34." The main character in that uses a descendant of Google Glass-like technology.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  37. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is one of the more popular phones on the market,

    Hahhhahhahhha! Yes, Mr Microsofft evangelist, SURE it is...

    there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon.

    I've been given a Nokia 625 by one of my empoyers to use while I'm consulting to them. It runs WP8.1, and having used it for a month now, I can confidently state W8.x will NEVER become popular. If the telcos weren't handing them out cheaper than dumbphones (free, on our standard business plan), they'd be in landfill by now. In fact, based on experience, if there were ANY mobile browser that could possibly make Beta worse, it'd be WP8's.

    So stop trying to flog your nasty product here. It's worse than Beta, and you SMM sockpuppets have ALREADY depopulated Slashdot with your incessant and inappropriate product placements.

  38. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by tibman · · Score: 1

    It seems to be the camera that has made it popular, not the operating system. What happens when android ships on something with over 40mp?

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  39. Maybe with a DOS like gui by Z80a · · Score: 1

    That prints out their prime directives onscreen using the ol good green text?

  40. Hmm... Where have I seen this before? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, Cop Space augmented reality in the book Rule 34. Hopefully, the future won't be like the rest if that novel - though even that would be better than /. Beta.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  41. Why do you H8. . . by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Communities of Practice?

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:Why do you H8. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communities of Practice?

      Wrong acronym. The only difference between public sector rent-a-cops and private sector rent-a-cops is the money created by the make-work rules and regulations made by the over paid feather bedding union chiefs of jail guards that enforce court orders as a group. That's all they're required to do unless they actually witness a felony and choose to make an arrest (theoretically speaking); everything else is a public relations money pit of bs.

      They're tools for corporate interests; making Corporate Owned Police more appropriate. However, considering their penchant for HS football and 15 year old cheer leaders, Closet Of Pedophiles may be a little more accurate.

  42. Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If cops keeping tabs on their Facebook instead of watching traffic is any indication, I say give them more distractions and keep them off our backs.

  43. There's video and then there's smart video by MrEdofCourse · · Score: 1

    I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence), and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

    However, there are all kinds of issues with Google Glass and other smart video processing being used, not only by cops, but by individuals as well.

    So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

    Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

    1. Re:There's video and then there's smart video by Whibla · · Score: 1

      So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

      You say this like it's a bad thing. I can't help but think that actual person specific data is a better reason to stop an individual, and subject them to a more detailed scrutiny, than the police basing their decision on race, clothing worn, policeman's intuition, or whatever reason takes their fancy at the time. Once we have granted the police the right to stop and search, giving them the ability to focus on those more likely to be breaking the law is a good thing, surely?

      Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

      I have to say, public records are public records. If the public were not meant to be able to access this data it wouldn't be public. While I'm sure there will be individuals, some of whom won't even be on those lists you mentioned or ashamed of what the web remembers of them, who will object to this instant access on principle I'm struggling to see exactly what that principle is.

      I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence),...

      I tend to agree. I would hope, however, that any video they do record is both timestamped and watermarked in some way, so as to provide some level of trust in the veracity of any footage.

      ...and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

      And this I emphatically agree with. The occasions when certain police officers have forbidden members of the public from filming them, and even removed cameras from them, is just wrong. There is no justification, and any excuse is generally couched in terms of an appeal to authority. That authority does not exist.

    2. Re:There's video and then there's smart video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're missing is that even someone previously convicted of a crime still deserves a presumption of innocence in the future. So while it would almost certainly be more productive and even more "fair" than questioning people based on age or race or clothing style, it is still a violation of that person's rights if police are consistently harassing them because a central computer knows they committed a crime once.

    3. Re:There's video and then there's smart video by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Specific details like supporting a candidate that they don't like? Or how about specific details like speaking ill of the police union? Maybe, specific data having posted video footage of another cop committing a crime?

      Any data that police receive should be required to have been sanitized before making it to the cops.

  44. But it won't be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cops hate to be recorded. They will find a way to punish you for wearing a glass while dealing with them.
    And they will undoubtedly delete whatever portions of their recordings don't show them in a favorable light. A few minor deletions can totally shift context, and hence the meaning, of anything anyone says.

    Despite all of these objections, however, I am for it. In the real world, that which can be observed can be recorded. Using the law to resist this is futile, and harmful.

    1. Re:But it won't be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? OK, maybe it's because I'm not living in the USA, but here's the version for the civilised world:

      Cops don't mind being recorded. They will not care except for the novelty of wearing a glass while dealing with them.
      And they will of course not have acces to any portions of their recordings. There are always corrupt cops, but these are few and far between and should be dealt with by the various anti-corruption mechanisms already in place (or some additional ones appropriate to the new technology).

      Don't tell me policemen in the USA are not having regular assessments and their conduct isn't evaluated and accessible throughout the whole regional corps.

    2. Re:But it won't be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How cutely naive you are.

      Cops hate being recorded. This is the USA. They DO care about whether or not there are recording devices present. They DO violate the law. You ARE at greater risk of being killed by a cop than a terrorist or even a street thug. There ARE corrupt cops, and they are ALL of them. The bad apples INCLUDE the people who are knowingly COMPLICIT with covering up behavior. The anti-corruption mechanisms in place are INSUFFICIENT. Regular assessments by the FOX guarding the henhouse does NOT change the nature of the fox.

      Fucking shill.

  45. awful idea by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    "Compel cops"

    The idea that this will ever be used in benefit of citizens is laughable. With all of the facial recognition and data aggregation apps coming down the pipe, this is just an easy-button to turn the benign into "probable cause".

    Fortunately, I don't think wearing Shemaghs is illegal in NYC, though it may be when the PC PPansies start pissing themselves when everyman walking down the street "looks like a terrorist".

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  46. Unlikely because.. by SinisterRainbow · · Score: 2

    ... we already have plenty of cop shows that give us a general idea how officers let others off.. Further, I doubt it will be public record except later, or at hearings, and there will always be exceptions - like maybe detectives, or people who work contacts..

    --
    -Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
  47. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 and this site design still runs horribly

    Which part of "Microsoft product" did you not understand?

  48. Not if it can do facial recognition. by thedarb · · Score: 1

    If they can walk down the sidewalk and instantly categorize everyone around them, no thank you.

    These two scenarios would suck, but stay out of trouble and this won't happen:
    "Hey you! You have unpaid tickets!" Pounce.
    "Hey you! You have a warrant 5 states away for blah!" Pounce.

    But, it could also label people by beliefs and behaviors:
    Glass says, "Known Muslim" Or "Known Christian" Or Democrat, or union member, or 1/2 black even though they don't look it. Or 'Arrested 12 years ago.'

    The risk of them choosing people to abuse goes up the more they know about those people.

    So no. Camera, fine. But HUD and immediate detailed info on every face it sees? Hello no.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  49. Re:I'd say Great Idea: You'd be Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

    This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

    The summary is pretty much wrong.
    Just because they are wearing it does not mean its recording.
    In fact you really don't have enough storage or bandwidth to record an 8 hour shift.

    There are body-cams especially designed to record police encounters for a full shift, but Google Glass is not one of them.
    So lets put all that nonsense of monitoring the cop away.

    The facial recognition capabilities are something to worry about in the future, but I doubt this is available in real time, at least not real time enough for police work. The best it could do would be to ship an image of face off to some computer farm in the sky for matching, with results coming back some minutes or hours later.

    In fact the ability to take pictures and have maps (hud) would probably be the most beneficial thing it would have to offer, just like it does
    for everybody else.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  50. As long as a third party getts all the data before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cops and have no way to delete anything ever for at least 50 years.

  51. FUCK BETA!!!!!!!!1111111!!!one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like this new site one bit :'(

  52. A Matter Of Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If so equipped we would have YouTube filled with Boston Police Department Cops butt fucking dogs.

    The Boston Police Department Cops know full well that butt fucking a Jamaican and posting to YouTube is a NO NO but butt fucking a dog is OK as the Boston Police Commissioner said he did not care at all.

    The Boston Police Commissioner loves his German Shepard so much that he has petitioned the Obama White House and the National Democratic Committee to allow suffrage to intra-species marriages with full IRS and Social Security and Medicare benefits and safe guards.

    Ah! The next Obama "civil rights" agenda is open wide.

    }:-D

  53. Bad idea by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Electronic Glasses can be vewwy vewwy dangerous.

  54. more nokia? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    test

    I wonder how it will change?

  55. Could be good or bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's locked to always on then it's a great idea.

  56. "can send a constant stream of video and audio" by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

    I've heard this claimed before, in other articles about Google Glass. When did Google develop batteries that last forever?

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    1. Re:"can send a constant stream of video and audio" by phmadore · · Score: 1

      About the 50th commenter to miss the fact that cops already wear huge utility belts and they could just add auxiliary batteries to it.

  57. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cops with anything beyond a doughnut is a bad idea.

  58. Why not by phmadore · · Score: 1

    They already have equivalents to them, these will just improve the quality of the data. What I want is for all citizens to have access to the live feed.

  59. Cops been watching Robo cop too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think like a lot of people. They get drawn into these types of technology because they remind them of the future that has been portrayed on the TV screen. My question is, weather its safe from a policeman's standpoint to wear Google Glass and try and be aware of their surroundings? Is this not a safety issue? At the very least a distraction?
    From the standpoint of privacy, what happens when a Officer enters a residence and Google Glass records everything? Scanning a room with facial recognition?
    This type of monitoring works well on the battle field where privacy is not at issue. I am not sure its ready for the private sector of America.

  60. Cancer research by kiowa · · Score: 1

    On a positive side, this could lend some good statistics on the possible dangers of having a wifi device attached to your skull all day.

    --
    =-kiOwA-> EOF
  61. i hate beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hate beta

  62. Whats key here is Evidence. by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    Obtaining evidence.
    If that involves an incident with professional conduct, its still evidence and can be verified.

    every aspect of an officer's shift could prove a powerful incentive to behave in a courteous and professional manner.

    Or, would it prove a more powerful incentive to make people respect cops. Especially as their now being recorded with potential evidence?

  63. Nay by NapalmV · · Score: 1

    Since I sympathize with cops and google "products" seem to be stuck in eternal Beta, I'd say it's a horrible idea. If you don't agree you're welcome to test drive the /. Beta.

  64. Bullshit by Eskarel · · Score: 0

    Just because the news stories stop after "administrative leave" doesn't mean they don't get punished later.
    Cops get a lot of leeway because they make split second decisions on inadequate information as part of their job, but usually in cases like this the homeless man either wasn't actually all that innocent or the cops actually do get punished.

    1. Re:Bullshit by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      This is the case that I was referencing specifically. The only thing the man was guilty of was being incapable of following the officers' orders and we all know how authoritative thugs hate it when someone doesn't listen to them. This was not supply second decision making, the man was completely unarmed. This was just a ruthless murderous beating.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    2. Re:Bullshit by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2
      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    3. Re: Bullshit by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Certainly a questionable case, though without witnesses it was always going to be a difficult case to prove. Schizophrenics can be extremely violent and unpredictable. More importantly its actually a counterargument to you assertion. The police officers involved had charges laid against them, those charges were upheld several times through appeal, they were acquitted yes, but by a jury.

  65. *woosh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong Acronym Guy (WAG) strikes again.

    1. Re:*woosh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong Acronym Guy (WAG) strikes again.

      Fuckin' Anti-acronym Guy (FAG) strikes again.

  66. Truly excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the travel on Segways at the same time. The crime wave would plummet as all the crooks would fall over themselves laughing.

  67. Glassing and driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, do they get to glass while driving? And if they can, does that mean we can too?

  68. Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radios, then laptops in their cars, this is completely inevitable.

  69. Sounds like Stross's predictions are true by plopez · · Score: 1

    Or coming true. It'll be interesting to see what else he was right about.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  70. If I were a cop I would want it by PeterJFraser · · Score: 1

    I believe that there are a lot more people who lie about bad cop behavior then there are bad cops. I expect with such tools most of the complaints about cop behavior would disappear. But I also believe that any cops whose camera's recording was lost should be in serious trouble. Most cops are good, but there a some bad ones.

  71. Only under the right circumstances by SkOink · · Score: 1

    I would completely support Google Glass on police if (and only if) there are penalties to the participating police departments for 'accidentally' losing the footage or having a 'malfunction'. These two things both sem to happen at a shocking rate whenever a policeman is accused of misconduct.

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
  72. Robocops by csdarknightcs · · Score: 1

    What a great idea! Eventually, they can just start sending out "drone" cops, and the real humans can sit in a safe office monitoring activity.

  73. Argh! Glass!! punchypunchy by DQKennard · · Score: 1
    Other articles on /. have brought out commenters claiming if they ever even see someone wearing Google Glass, they'd punch the person in the face. The simple act of wearing the device is apparently sufficient justification for otherwise unprovoked assault.

    Cops wearing Google Glass could be your opportunity!

    Let us know how it goes.

  74. Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 by Meski · · Score: 1

    I'm no photographer, but it seems to me it'll still have the standard crap lens system all phones have. And stick on lens miss the point of phones - that you should be able to put them in your pocket.

  75. "NYPD must have purchased the units on its own" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impossible, given that Glass hasn't been officially released yet.

  76. Information is power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we can get the videos, it is a good thing. If only cops get the videos, it's a bad thing.

  77. Cops with Google Eyeglass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gosgog:

    Hell yes, like DNA, if it gets to the truth of who, what. where etc., in terms of resolving crime...then again HELL YES!

  78. go fuck ur self ya piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go fuck ur self ya piece of shit

    1. Re:go fuck ur self ya piece of shit by Brad1138 · · Score: 0

      I posted that, it was an accident posting anonymously. You sure make a well thought out point...smh

      Obviously there are "bad" people in all walks of life, including the police, but it is the vast minority. Generally speaking, people that have trouble with the police, have a reason they were involved with them in the first place. You didn't like how they handled your drug arrest?

      There are so many thugs, punks, gang members etc. out there, the officers doesn't always have the luxury of assuming whoever they are dealing with is a "good guy", that might get him killed. If you live your life in a matter that doesn't attract police attention, most likely you will have no problem with them and respect them for what they do, you might try it sometime. I get pissed if/when I get a speeding ticket, but I am not really mad at the cop as much as myself.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  79. Fuck you for saying "fuck beta" you are BORING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you for saying "fuck beta" you are BORING

  80. As long as they don't complain when we wear it. by sts2nihon · · Score: 1

    I probably won't own Glass until it can actually be built into eyewear directly and is more affordable, but I'm fine with law enforcement using it as a tool, as long as they agree that we can use it too.