Slashdot Mirror
Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You
An anonymous reader writes "The trend of police officers using body-mounted cameras is going nationwide. As we discussed last month, the NYPD is pondering the cameras, and the LAPD is actively testing them. A town in California (population ~100,000) has tested them with seeming success: incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%. '[C]ops are required to turn on their cameras in any confrontation with a suspect or citizen. The footage is uploaded to computers when they return to the station, and is typically retained for one to three months.' The town's success is even drawing interest from police departments in other countries. The ACLU likes the idea, but has problems with it in practice, so they're opposing the trend (PDF). They worry about privacy abuses, and they want citizens caught on camera to be allowed equal access to the footage."
Yeah, but when the camera is obstructed accidentally, what's going to happen? NOTHING. There is NO police accountability anymore.
I just read about a cop yesterday who shot a 70-year-old in the chest because he pulled a cane out of the car. Look up the story. It was completely unjustifiable, and there was no recourse. Black kids beaten up because they look black, and NO RECOURSE. Gay kid kicked in the head and arrested because he had a picture of his "BFF" in his wallet which he saw the cop going through? NO RECOURSE.
PAPERS, PLEASE! *THWACK!*
if it is not equal footage and footage is not able to be retrieved from a FOFA or similar request, then it is unjust. If the cops have nothing to hide, it should be freely available for any defendant and for review in a public forum regarding police misconduct.
Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.
They should be required to wear camera, the cameras should record while they are on shift and video should be stored by an independent third party. Any missing footage should result in someone being fired.
Cool, more episodes of Cops!
Just wait, til the cops start uploading all their footage to a central server for the NSA to add to its collection so they can start cataloging every social interaction that cops see while on their beat. Someone who's face matches a potential subject of interest in a database will get flagged when they show up on the footage and the NSA will then start tracking them based on geolocation data in the footage.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
Run around and point a video cam at a cop.
Or ... better don't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I predict that these 'cameras' will have a higher then normal fail rate.
Do these record sound as well? How legal is this in an all party state, where everyone has to consent to being recorded and a suspect refuses?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I can already hear the excuses when the footage is "lost" over the one controversy an officer might have. Or (as previously mentioned), the camera magically shut itself off.
Whoops
FYI, "a town" is Rialto.
Just like those crazy Russians, we all need our own cameras now.
Fraud is the norm in an ever increasingly adversarial "civilization".
So, when cops have cameras, reported incidents of police using force dropped by half. I believe that means that 50% of uses of force were unwarranted or unnecessary, otherwise why would they have stopped?
This sound like pretty clear evidence that police think they can get away with bending the law as long as no one (except the victim) sees them.
You definitely need to be able to copy the footage before some unscrupulous police department runs it through a video editor.
It should be streaming to a central, offsite server where the images and sound can be saved, not deleted at the cop's convenience. The footage should be available to citizens and police alike.
Intentional vs. accidental obscuring the image would have to be on a case by case basis, but hopefully the sounds recording would still provide enough cues and clues...
I used to think that the ACLU was a force for good, and they might be. But they do not know when to quit, or compromise on anything. Here we are finally getting accountability for law enforcement, and now they want to stop the program?
I wonder if anyone told them that nothing is perfect and life is all about compromises.
Equal access is certainly an issue. But hey, complaints are down 90%. I just watched cell phone video of police brutality on last night's news. The cops are getting videoed anyway, they might as well have something on them to remind them.
when the car stops, it's turned on..
So how often will it happen that higher profile arrests of public figures has the tape released to the media or in the right circumstance (or cost) for the right person (government official) the video isn't available?
Sent from my TARDIS
I wonder how cops will react to citizens having cameras on their persons during altercations with cops? In theory it should be exactly the same thing, but in practice, citizens trying to (legally) film cops during such interactions have not gone well for the citizen.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Is the only things the ACLU can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues is retention length but they never states how long they consider optimal. If the bill was amended to have a retention time there is a good chance that the ACLU would object because it is too long or too short. Become part of the process instead of an obstructionist.
Unless of course it shows something that could get the department sued, in which case there will be a "computer error" and the video will be lost.
Requiring law enforcement to record their interactions with you may save your life someday. See http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/02/25/waltham-murders-boston-marathon/
Everyone knows that cops have had video cameras mounted in their cars, for decades. Neat how you skipped the parts of the summary talking about how police violence and complaints have dropped dramatically where these cameras have been used.
Almost like it's the cops who are the real jerks here. Interesting.
The problem with the "aww, it's just a few bad apples" canard is that one bad one rots the whole barrel. When all your "good cops" are willing to commit perjury to cover up for the "bad apples", there are no good cops.
Sorry, but our state constitution in Washington State is pretty darned clear on that.
You can't record people without a warrant. Or their express permission.
That includes you Google Glassholes.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I suspect you should have a good chat with Kelly Thomas and revise your storyline. Or read up on LEO departments stealing millions from people not convicted of any crime via "asset forfeiture". Or how hundreds of thousands of mostly black and brown men are stopped in NYC without probable suspicion under "stop and frisk".
I fail to see why police video footage being used to help the NSA track a person of interest is a bad thing? Sounds like the most valid example of proper resource use I've heard in a while....
Sigs are bad for you...
Solution: Live feed upload to YouTube, Why let the NSA have all the fun?
If an officer with a camera is in the presence of a man who facial recognition flags as a possible match for someone with an open warrant out on them, it would probably be a good thing for the officer to be alerted about the match.
Now, of course what I am thinking of is the situation where some guy with an open murder warrent in Florida is spotted laying low in Wyoming. Having that guy picked up is probably a good thing.
I wonder exactly what sort of abuse you foresee with that situation? I am sure there are things that can go wrong.
END COMMUNICATION
In most cases tampering with the video would be a felony. Any decision to delete video would have to be logged by a supervisor.
We're sorry your son was killed while being taken to custody Mr. Smith. He was resisting. No, there won't be any repercussions as the officer said he was acting in his own self defense. Camera? Oh, no ma'am we have no footage, while it is department policy to turn it on before any confrontation, the officer forgot to turn it on. He will be given 2 weeks paid suspension. ... Yeaaawn
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
That would be an awesome use of the technology.
Unfortunately, I expect people who think foreigners should have 4th Amendment rights to ruin it.
We need cameras pointed at cops 24/7 with websites allowing all to tune in to every feed. Why? The cop population perpetrate more crimes, per capita, than the population it polices. Also it needs to be very public because it's easy to imagine the professional courtesies (editing, censoring) extended to cops who happen to be too stupid to cover the recording of their illegal activities.
I noticed the borg when they pulled me over a few months ago. Interesting. :D
Anyway, cameras on cops probably fall into the "anything we record can and will be used against you in a court of law", but anything that helps your case will require a lot of legwork by your attorney to get. Not to mention "Oh, there was a malfunction that day" that you were conveniently beaten up on the side of the road.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
You think people who have read and understand the US Constitution ruin it?
Seriously, read it, and notice the distinction between "the people", and "citizens". They're two distinct terms, used quite intentionally, to designate two different groups. "Citizens" is defined in the document. By contrast, "the people" is defined in the supporting documentation to mean *EVERYONE* who is not a slave (a distinction which became immaterial after the end of slavery), whether they are citizens or not.
Yes, this means everyone in the US has the right to: free speech, practice their religion without government interference, peaceably assemble, keep & bear arms, be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their person, effects, and papers, refuse to incriminate themselves, etc.
I think that cops should have access to it, the police should have access to it, everyone should have access to it. Put it up on youtube to make sure it doesn't get deleted and the police then could get money from the ads.
this is one of the reasons i would wear google glass all the time in public. i've had a couple bogus tickets from cops and i'd love to be able to say "let's go to the video tape!". actually, i just want to say that anyway.
They won't be deleted. There will simply be a recording malfunction. At least, that is what all the records will show. No supervisor is going to sign off on deleting incriminating evidence. Plenty will sign off on a statement that no video could be recovered from the device.
Just wait, til the cops start uploading all their footage to a central server for the NSA
As someone who's dealt with government agencies before, I cannot imagine that local cops and the NSA would really get along that well.
Unless cops, and I mean a lot of cops, start going to jail for their criminal behavior, then this isn't working at all. I know for 100% fact that many if not most cops are criminals who commit perjury and break the law on an almost daily basis. Yet, somehow, magically - none of them ever does anything illegal, and no matter what they do they are da officas! Dey wouldn't do nuttin' wrong! Sure they kicked a guy repeatedly in the head, but hey - you don't know what it's like to get such an adreneline rush just from the idea that you are going to be able to kick some poor bastard in the head and then get away with it! Can't you see man! It's OK, cause deys da coppas, and dey get excited, so you can't expect them to not kick a sick and helpless guy in the head, or shoot an old man ... just in case, don't ya know!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's not a bad thing until they find _you_ interesting.
I think you're about 10 years behind on that one, smokey.
http://www.dhs.gov/fusion-cent...
Well, the police should be operating exclusively within the U.S. Anyone within the U.S. has 4th Amendment rights, regardless of whether they are a citizen, a resident, or a foreigner. While there is a foreign-intelligence exception (per court findings, not per the text of the amendment), that exception only applies when the intelligence-gathering is directed against a foreign entity reasonably believed to be located outside the US.
I'd love to see the justification someone gins up for tracking individuals that must be physically located within the US for the purposes of gathering intelligence on individuals that are required to be located outside the US.
Don't they already do that? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
There are no privacy issues if the camera is in a public place, so I don't see why the ACLU feels there are privacy issues. If I'm out in the street or visible through my bedroom's open window, everyone can take photos of me and facebook them or sell them, right? -- Sofia Koutsouveli
Hope this works better than audio recordings abused to provide inaccurate pretexts for all kinds of unnecessary unpleasantries.
I think cops recording their actions, and people recording cops actions both to be fairly good things.
But I see the ACLU advocating that people record cops, but don't insist cops get the recordings.
Things hsould go both ways.
Yes, bad guys don't want to get caught. So what?
Turnabout is fair play. It's 15 years overdue, if indeed not longer.
Cops look more and more like the Borg. It's a clever way to externally control people under the pretext of empowering them. I suspect it will eventually trickle down to the average person.
But of course all parties should have equal access to the recording which hopefully includes audio so defamatory speech on both sides can be prosecuted.
The cameras should run continuously and the footage stored and handled by an independent third party. This way it can be trusted and used in court.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
As long as we can guarantee that the police acted reasonably (ie. in a face-saving manner, ie. they look less bad than whoever they're arresting), and according to the rules of the system (not turning the hounds on a guy except as outlined in HND 1108), we can neatly sidestep the question of the merits of those rules themselves. Bonus: now you have high definition A/V to embarrass and shame enemies of the system with, as opposed to just mugshots!
The overwhelming majority of police have a genuine desire to do good in the world. Then again, most NKVD agents, Gestapo members and Berkut snipers had the same desire,
the overwhelming majority of police are good people with a genuine desire to do good in the world
This is exactly why they are evil -- they think they are above reproach, they think they know what is best for everyone, they think everyone must bow down to their enlightened superiority and everyone else is inferior. So any abuse is justified, because they know what is best.
Last time I checked, the 100% of police are there to enforce laws. They ARE NOT THERE TO SERVE AND PROTECT. THEY ARE NOT THERE TO BE YOUR FRIEND.
What kind of crooked advice are you giving people here? Any cops should be PISSED you are giving people a false idea of their job. Anyone who believes you will be wasting cops' time and sorely disappointed.
Give me the bad cops any day. They will have morals, because they will stop and think what what they are doing might be wrong. They will know there are grey areas in life, and legality != morality. They will know that not everything is in their control, not everything needs to be controlled, and they too are merely human.
The good people, will never stop, because in their minds they are good. So they will justify their excesses and abuses every time.
Until we get rid of this "protect the brotherhood above all else" attitude that's heavily ingrained in police culture, corruption will continue to reign and continually worsen.
They are no different than gangs.
Now if we can only get the police (including federal agents) to understand the Nuremberg Precedent applies to them, as an exercise of rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment.
In short, enforcing any law, executive order, or court order that violates fundamental rights, including any rights that the people might want to assert as being "retained by" or "reserved to" them under the 9th and 10th Amendments, is illegal. ANY precedents to the contrary are themselves illegal (these represent unethical practice of law and a violation of the oaths of the legal professionals involved in creating them).
If a Court, even the Supreme Court, says its ok to do something anyone with a functioning brain should be able to see is wrong (like put most Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, as happened in WW2) that's an illegal precedent, and EVERYBODY in law enforcement has a responsibility to refuse to carry out the wrongful action.
We'll never be able to get the US legal profession to be ethical so long as the police are willing to back up the lawyers no matter how unethical they are.
People should just get used to the idea that if they are dealing with cops, then they are being recorded. This reduces the potential for abuse from police officers, since they would have to account for times their camera was off (affirmative observance), rather than someone needing to discover or prove that they should have had it on. This seems plausible enough eventually anyhow, so why not cut to the chase?
I don't see the UCLA obstructionist reading. I see a vigilent legal entity doing their job, except that law lags behind technology in this instance.