Slashdot Mirror
London Police To Wear Video Cameras In Pilot Project
An anonymous reader writes "The London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is reportedly engaging in a year-long pilot program to determine the benefits of its police force wearing video cameras during interactions with the public. 'The pilot will include a total of 500 cameras distributed across ten city boroughs.' London joins some major U.S. cities in this endeavor to improve the quality of policing through the use of wearable cameras. Privacy advocates argue, however, that police officers having these devices on their persons is not enough: 'the efficacy of police body-mounted cameras as a crime reduction and accountability tool hinges on enforcement of good policies and procedures—including something as basic as preventing officers from being able to deactivate the cameras at their own discretion.'"
You can (effectively) turn any camera off. Just "accidentally" point it the wrong way, or "accidentally" cover it up with something.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Except it seems to require a ton of scripts on to see the comments, slashdot and fsdn aren't enough.
I think it is unlikely that police would deactivate it without good reason. Where cameras have been used they have resulted in a large reduction in complaints against police . If they were widely used then switching them off would be seen as suspicious if a complaint was received.
There are some times when an officer might want to switch it off - for example when taking a toilet break or dealing with a vulnerable victim. Ideally switching on should be easy; a "one touch" operation, but switching off harder (hold two buttons for 10 seconds) so it cannot be done (or claimed to have been done) accidentally.
This is great, after all nobody has a right to privacy in public spaces, right? Alexis Orfanopoulos
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but I think this is overall a good thing. It will require more discipline from police and help reduce the number of unjustified police action.
As the same time this will serve to catch criminals and is a precursor to automatic face recognition (like they have with car number plates)
Just remember the next time you see police, you're on camera.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Unfortunately, the default for these cameras is to be off. They will only be turned on when something the officer deems worth recording is happening.
[FUCK BETA]
It was called May I Kill U?. '''offering criminals the choice of arrest or death. Baz sees his campaign as lawful killing. Lowlifes who are too stunned, confused, or drunk to argue when he politely asks, "May I kill you?" are merrily dispatched. All filmed on the helmet-cam and posted on social networks!'''
Turning a camera off - this should work the same as things like medical hotlines. For most hotlines, every call is recorded. You, as a patient, can request that the recording be turned off. Your request will be recorded, and then nothing more (at least, that's how it is supposed to work).
It should be the same for police officers: Sure, there are times they may need to turn the camera's off, but the reason should be clear and should itself be recorded. In the absence of a justification, the camera should always run.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
not really - "deems worth recording" isn't really the case.
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
So the officers will be sent to deal with an incident, and will be expected to have switched their cameras on when they arrive - and its pretty easy to see if they didn't as they'll have no recording to match to the case incident.
the cameras a re supposed to have a 30 seconds buffer that always records, so you get the 30 seconds before you press "Start". That, and the fact that the battery is supposed to last a whole shift, makes them a very interesting device. Where can I buy one of those?
They had to put cameras on LA cops because they were acting like street gang thugs, Has the London police lost the professionalism that was world renown and are now acting like thugs as well?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Power requirements go down a LOT if you're writing to RAM instead of flash memory and not displaying anything on a video screen.
eg. I've seen CMOS sensors that use less than 0.1W.
No sig today...
Power requirements go down a LOT if you're writing to RAM instead of flash memory and not displaying anything on a video screen.
eg. I've seen CMOS sensors that use less than 0.1W.
It would also seem reasonable for the 30 second prebuffer to run at a reduced frame rate to save battery.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
What if your boss told you "I want you to wear a camera that records EVERY SECOND while you are on the clock". Would you willingly accept? In the Police Dept. I do work for we are testing body cams but only with the ability to turn them off. Why? Due to Freedom of Information that video is available to the public upon request. Think of all the Youtube moments that would give rise to, from bathrooms to discussions about possible suspects. "Always on" cameras will never be the standard for body cams.
You don't get out much, do you?
I lived in London for a few years, and watched with fascinated delight as a London traffic warden carefully took pictures of a vehicle and the "No Parking" scenes on the same streeet to make it *look* as if the car were illegally parked, when from a broader angle view showed it as clearly legal. (I took more pictures of the area and of the officer doing it, pretending to be sightseeing, and left my email address on a note next to the traffic warden's ticket after they left.) Sculpting video and audio recordings through careful editing, and refusing to record evidence that contradicts your claims, is an art form. Network News does it as basic editing, FOX News is even worse about it, so it's not a new practice. It's particularly likely for the police to *break* or lose the cameras if they are corrupt, and to turn them off when using bathrooms, eating donuts, or talking about how much their job stinks.
The recordings, *of course*, will not be available to the public except for what the police elect to provide. I've tried to get video from British police when my wife had baggage stolen from a public train station, and the "cameras everywhere" are not actually used for crime control. But show up at a political protest, or worse when I was there, attend the London Central Mosque near the London Zoo, and you can expect your pictures go in a file.
Here is Georgian police. .
http://www.interpressnews.ge/photo/0000000marti13/samxre-video-kamera-patrulis.jpg
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
Aside from the fact that I regularly see plenty of uniformed police officers or PCSOs patrolling on foot around the city in which I live (Norwich, UK), try going to a population centres club district and see how heavy the police presence is then - here in Norwich, its not unusual to see 50 or more police on one stretch of road (Prince of Wales Road - the main nightclub district for the city) at the same time on a friday or saturday night. This is a road I can typically walk from one end to the other in less than 15 minutes.
So yes, the police do "just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening", they just do it when appropriate.
"The London Met Police are reporting a sudden outbreak of vandals with tiny cans of spray paint, waggishly obscuring the copper cams at the worst possible moment."
From the manufacturer. Just say you want to evaluate one of them :)
This is the device most police are using in the UK.
they're still sent to that location as part of a organised system though, not just at random which is what I meant.
and most people would hope they're there more as a deterrent.
That's like saying they are sent to Norwich as part of an organised system, rather than randomly patrolling the countryside.
They go where they are expected to be required - in general that's the population centres, and in specific that's where the population congregates at that particular time. Go to a cities shopping centre at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon and you will see a lot more police than you would at 7am on a Monday morning in exactly the same place.
Your original comment comes across much more as if they are sitting around in their police station until they are dispatched, on a per call basis. Which is patently not true.
It must be true, an anonymous coward with a dodgy caps-lock key said so.
> dealing with a vulnerable victim
in other words the officer dictaminates who is the victim and who is the offender (or guilty).
Now they have thousands of mobile cameras aimed at the civilians recording everything in sight .. nice job .. Yaaaay .. we're way past his worst nightmare.
Orwell was an optimist
I used to write software for the control centres. One thing I know is that there are many more calls than there are officers to deal with them.
so no, they're not sitting in the coffee house eating doughnuts, they're permanently going from one incident to the next. The only time they're not doing this is when they come back to base to fill out the mass of paperwork between incidents.
That;s not to say that some are sent to areas to "patrol" but these are also organised areas, the police don't stray out of their assigned patrol zones for the duration they're assigned there. But such things are relatively rare, considering the demand placed on police response.
"If they were widely used then switching them off would be seen as suspicious if a complaint was received."
Doesn't seem to stop all the convenient "missing tapes" problems with cameras in police cars.
Photography and filming in public are not crimes, "no expectation of privacy in public" and all that. So there should be no reason to oppose this (as long as they're used in public only of course). If nothing else, it makes the case for the public being allowed to film the police stronger. I'm also very naive.
This is a topic highly prone to what AC was meant for in the best sense.
It's rather narrowly presented - all on the officer side. Pretty soon the members of the public will have their own running cameras if for no other reason than just in "today's social media / blogging culture". So then suddenly the defendant has a video but the cop doing something "forgot" to turn his on?!
That's gotta be good for a defense lawyer!
So the next level is both sides have theirs on, and everyone is tracking everyone else, and we become a giant game of Pac-Man. Go Atari.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
... cops can show the footage "we never laid hand on him", the arrested will say "they turned the cameras off in the end, then knocked me down off-record."
but switching off harder (hold two buttons for 10 seconds) so it cannot be done (or claimed to have been done) accidentally.
There should be no local controls for turning the camera off - they should have to radio in and someone at a remote station can disable the camera. And even then, only for limited periods of time before the camera automatically turns back on again.
Of course, there could be different levels of flexibility here based on an officer's record. For example, if they have been with the force for >10 years with zero complaints, then they could get more options with controlling the camera.
If all police are going to wear cameras, I demand public outcry equivilant to Google Glass for any police officer entering a bar, going to the bathroom, or hanging out around playgrounds.
You think I'm joking... but if I take a video on Google Glass, it's for private use. If I take a video as a camera enabled police officer, that embarassing moment is caught on police video, which can be seen by anyone with authorization... and just look at all those "authorized" videos showing up on Cops, Amazing Chases, etc. And the show Cops proves that people will sit for hours watching mundane police activity so long as there are a few drunk/stupid/lying/disfigured/crazy citizen to laugh at.
I8-D
So . . . police won't be able to use the Restroom for an entire shift . . . since they can't turn off the camera and, while they may be willing, can't require others in the Restroom to permit filming them ???
Seems like we still have a few loopholes to work through.
No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
And didn't the LA cops have a rash of "accidents" with their video equipment rendering most of it useless. Antennas were snapped off of audio recorders, belt microphones were "lost", etc. Using cameras/microphones as a means of preventing abuse are meaningless without concrete punishments for turning them off/destroying them (which of course no one was).
So you walk into the restroom wearing the mandatory always-on camera ... there's usually mirrors for total room view ...
I disagree - that 30s may well contain critical evidence justifying the officer's response, it would be pretty sad to have it lost due to a low-quality recording. If we're going to keep them under surveillance we should do what we can to ensure it covers their ass as well. Assuming they're acting in accordance with the law of course.
Besides - if the camera takes 0.1W to record then it takes 0.1W - all reducing the footage quality does is reduce the amount of RAM needed as a buffer.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Besides - if the camera takes 0.1W to record then it takes 0.1W - all reducing the footage quality does is reduce the amount of RAM needed as a buffer.
Not at all. The amount of power used by CMOS hardware is basically proportional to the number of transistors that are being switched, and how frequently they are switching. So each time you capture a frame you have to:
- reset the sensor's pixels
- read the sensor's pixels
- amplify the signal
- debayer the data
- possibly compress the data
- store the data somewhere
Each of these steps will take a certain amount of energy. Obviously the more frequently you capture a picture, the more frequently you have to do all of the above and so the power consumption increases. There's a reason why your laptop or phone puts the CPU to sleep between operations, and it's the same reason why your computer gets hot when asked to do more work.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I was recently pulled over by on the Highway north of Toronto for not having a valid license plate sticker on my car. Honest mistake. I also didn't have my current insurance slip in the car as it was sitting with the renewal form in a pile of papers that I forgot about.
The officer informed me right up front that he was wearing a camera and that this interaction was being recorded. He asked me if I had any objections, to which I responded no. I wonder what would happen if I said yes? But I digress...
I received tickets for both traffic offences. I was told that if I wanted to discuss this I would have to report to the prosecutor's office in Richmond Hill. In days gone-by, this type of non-offence would (in a non-confrontational encounter with a person who has a clean record) have resulted in a warning to get my shit together and show up at the police station within 24 hours to provide proof-of-insurance.
I wonder if having cameras recording everything removes the "officer's discretion" from these types of situations lest an officer be accused of showing favoritism/bias towards certain racial-types/genders over time?
Oh yeah, Halting State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
there is no expectation of privacy in a public place what so ever.
People keep saying that, but it's obviously nonsense.
If you walked around obviously looking up women's skirts in a park, I imagine they would quickly demonstrate that they expect a level of privacy even in a public place.
If you followed someone around with a video camera (or Google Glass or whatever) recording their every move, I imagine they too would quickly demonstrate that they expect a level of privacy even in a public place.
If you walked down the street peering into everyone's front window through a 2in gap in the curtains at night, do you really think most people would consider that normal, acceptable behaviour?
Try explaining to a police officer why you were hanging around with a video camera filming people entering their PINs at a cash machine, and see how far an argument that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place gets you. Or, you know, don't, because it's obvious that people do expect privacy under those conditions and that someone violating that privacy is unwelcome.
The "no privacy in a public place" mantra needs to die. It's an absurd proposition even today, as readily demonstrated by everyday examples like the above. Moreover, the origins of any laws that might (arguably) support the position from a legal rather than ethical perspective today are found in times where the risks to privacy posed by being seen in public were on a completely different (and much lower) level than they are today. Changes in those laws to reflect the capabilities and risks posed by modern technology are long overdue.
In terms of if the police enter a private place like your home the police can probably just declare they are constantly recording at all times before they enter and most of the public would not have a problem with it.
There is a difference between having a problem with some behaviour and being willing to do something dramatic enough to get that behaviour changed. It is unfortunate that such things are left to laws that are readily amended by the administration of the day for political reasons, almost invariably after some high profile but statistically outlying event that turns public sentiment enough for at least a brief period that the changes can be pushed through. This makes such illiberal measures borderline voter-proof, and IMHO that sort of situation is one of the most dangerous threats to civil liberties in modern politics.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So what? They already do where I live. You know, where we're free!
If interested, check out www.meetipal.com, an eyetracking wearable computer with eye gesture control technology. iPal smarglasses is re-inventing the camera!
That's not the case here.
Then get a job which doesn't involve subjugating the very taxpayers who subsidize your lifestyle.
Does your work grant you great power over the average citizen? In your industry, are employees known for excessive force, falsifying evidence, committing perjury in court, and murdering the occasional innocent person? Are you likely to be merely fired if you commit a crime that would send anyone else to jail for years or even decades?
Watched cops are less abusive cops.
From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p...