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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
If the cops have the footage, they'll show it.
If there's a mysterious gap in the video? The jury will most likely believe the arrested.
No sig today...
So what? They already do where I live. You know, where we're free!
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.