Slashdot Mirror


NYPD Starts Body Camera Pilot Program

An anonymous reader writes: In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting, calls for continuous recording of all police activity have become loud and strenuous. Now, one of the biggest police forces in the world will begin testing body cameras. The New York Police Department announced a pilot program to test the wearable cameras in high-crime districts. "[T]he participation of the New York department, with its 35,000 uniformed members and vast footprint on the country's policing policy, could permanently shift the balance in favor of the cameras, which both civil libertarians and many police chiefs have cited as a way to improve relations between citizens and law enforcement, particularly in heavily policed minority communities." The NYPD will be testing hardware from two manufacturers: Vievu and Taser International. While the 60-camera pilot program will get running for about $60,000, IT costs are expected to quickly outstrip that amount.

170 comments

  1. Deblasio has been working hard by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

    He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.

    He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.

    Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are.

    The police have a hard job and the violent nature of their business tends to make certain foolish people think their job is to be as powerful as possible.

    Glad to see that NYC is moving in the right direction.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      It's certainly subjectively good. But I think it's also an important case for monitoring data wise to see the objective value of these things. My hope is that it's a net positive for every important metric, because an even slightly mixed bag of results could be enough to talk a lot of departments out of the idea.

    2. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by silfen · · Score: 2

      To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

      In what sense? The NYPD kills people all the time (they seem to be found guilty of misconduct more frequently than other police departments):

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      However, as elsewhere, the police killings appear to be representative of the population of suspects and perpetrators:

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

    3. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4

      Of course it happens more frequently in NYC than elsewhere. It's a city with 8.4 million people, and 35,000 cops. The number of cops alone is larger than most towns. As an example, Ferguson, MO is only 21,000 people - there's 14,000 more cops alone in NYC, plus another 8.4 million people. Ferguson's entire population is literally a fucking rounding error relative to NYC's population.

    4. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      Don't confuse a PR campaign for how they actually feel about their fellow citizens.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to chime in with pretty much the same deal - the NYPD has about 4k more people than Juneau, the capital of Alaska.

      On the topic of the IT costs - 60 cameras and associated gear for $60k sounds about right for hardware cost alone. IT costs, if you're counting labor it's going to cost more than that to obtain a person with a background in security video and preferably justice in the first quarter alone. Then you start looking at storing all the video...

      Given the task, I'd probably go with the netflix solution - lots of hard drives. Speed isn't really required since the video will only be pulled up if there's a question, and any video pulled up is more likely to be viewed again, so if the main array starts getting too slow, put a caching SSD in as necessary. There's going to be just too much video to justify SSD storage. Heck, off-line tapes would be an eventual step if the program expands.

      On the topic of the CAMERAS. From various places such as Canada deploying them, I've heard that rates of both assault of police officers AND allegations of police misconduct, verified and unverified both dropped with the introduction of the cameras. To me at least, it seems that people tend to 'be on their best behavior' when they know they're being recorded. It's just that to keep the 'bad' cops* from turning them off or such you need to regularly review the records and punish improper shut downs and/or abuse of the equipment. Get it to the point that 'turned off the camera' counts less as lack of evidence and more evidence that you concealed/destroyed evidence.

      *Many of whom I think belong in prison.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day finally arrived when numbers alone don't just indicate that it MIGHT happen more often, but that _it's okay when it does_.

      Thanks for being That Guy.

    7. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And for the Ferguson thing....let's take a wait and see attitude to see what the evidence presents as what really happened.

      So far, the kid seems to possibly not be quite as innocent as originally depicted by the news and Al Sharpton types....

      So, at this point, best to wait and see what the evidence and witnesses show as what happened that day.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. It's absolutely not OK. But even if we do everything we can to lower those numbers, unless it's at effectively zero, there will always be more incidents in NYC than (insert random town whose population is an order of magnitude or more lower than a rounding error compared to NYC's).

    9. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Some smaller police departments give out trading cards of the officers to kids.

      I remember it was pretty hard to get them as each officer only gave out his/her own cards at parks and schools. Still I managed to acquire one of only two known complete sets from my hometown when I was a kid.

      Forcing positive social interaction can help lessen the "us vs them" mentality. Plus officers get a sense of pride if people know them by name and care more about their reputation.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    10. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That's a $1000/camera before IT costs, that seems a tad excessive although it's well within range of any government program. You can get fully functional camcorders for $100.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

      He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.

      He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.

      Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are.

      The police have a hard job and the violent nature of their business tends to make certain foolish people think their job is to be as powerful as possible.

      Glad to see that NYC is moving in the right direction.

      Moving in the right direction?

      I'll believe that bullshit when stop-and-frisk laws are not just frowned upon, but made illegal, as they should be.

      For fucks sake, you're talking about a goddamn town that tried to control how much sugar water you can put in a fucking cup. Like we should be taking cues from that special flavor of fucktard.

    12. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by myth24601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Money can be shunted away from buying SWAT gear toward the cameras.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    13. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      To make sure that NYC is not Ferguson.

      He has a couple of "meet the police" fairs, which I never saw before.

      He has done everything right that Ferguson did wrong.

      Now, the NYC police is not perfect, but at least they are actively attempting to do a better job, rather than attempting to prove how 'tough' they are. ...

      This initiative, in particular, is unusually progressive.

    14. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's certainly subjectively good. But I think it's also an important case for monitoring data wise to see the objective value of these things. My hope is that it's a net positive for every important metric, because an even slightly mixed bag of results could be enough to talk a lot of departments out of the idea.

      I agree. That's why I think it's important that ground rules be firmly established.

      For one thing, camera use must not be discretionary. It must be used every time there is an interaction with citizens. Because otherwise, there is too much potential for them to be used only when it is in their favor, and at other times, "Oops, I forgot to turn it on."

      So if a camera is not turned on, or data is missing or shown to be deleted, a serious inquiry should be made to determine the actual reason why.

      Why do I insist on this? Because I was once a victim of "missing" camera footage. I was told everything was being recorded, and the light on the camera was on. But when it came time to go to court and testify, they claimed there was no recording and it had "never existed".

      Which was complete bullshit, of course.

      Never mind what it was all about. It was a non-criminal charge and despite their bullshit stories I was not convicted. But "I forgot to turn it on" is too easy of a bullshit abuse of authority.

    15. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To whomever wrote the summary, the relevant name you forgot to add is: Eric Garner.

    16. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Worth bearing in mind that if it's going to be used by the police, it's going to much high specification.

      No, I'm not talking image quality - I'm talking about battery life, weight, reliability, and robustness. Cheap consumer stuff tends to be bulky, have a high power draw, be vulnerable to being sheocked, dropped or crushed, and doesn't tend to do well in adverse weather conditions. If you think about what the police actually do with these things, their requirements aren't that far off of military grade - the only thing they probably don't need is to be EMP hardened. This is one of the few areas where mil-spec gear in police hands actually makes sense.

    17. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BS! I'm sorry, but we really don't need to wait.

      As a society, regardless of the situation, a representative of the state should NEVER shoot an unarmed man. Period. I don't care if he was holding a stolen television or smoking a crack pipe in front of the cop. That changes nothing.

      Firearm usage should be the absolute last thing a cop uses. Not, as we've been seeing, one of the first.

    18. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because this won't be used as more fuel for the "cops are always wrong" brigade.

      I can't wait for the first time a cop kills someone within reason and within rights, and the videotape completely corroborates the story -- and the same old clown car full of idiots will roll up arguing that "you can see on tape, the cop had plenty of time to do X, Y, or Z and avoid killing this poor, sweet delightful boy who wouldn't hurt a fly."

    19. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The witnesses came out immediately, and they all had the same story:

      Officer pulled up to the kid, told him to get on the sidewalk, kid refused, they exchanged words, officer tried to open the door of his SUV but couldn't because he'd stopped right next to the kid, officer grabs the kid's head through the window, kid pushes off the SUV and runs (possibly the officer pulled out and fired his gun while grabbing the kid; no witnesses have claimed to see the kid reach into the SUV and we've been shown no evidence of a bullet hole in the vehicle). Officer steps out and fires some shots at the fleeing kid, who acts like he might have been hit, stops, turns around, and surrenders with his hands up at a distance of about 35 feet. After the kid surrenders, the officer fires a bunch more shots at him, killing him. Witnesses each reported a total of ten to twelve shots.

      The only hard evidence to come out has supported these witness accounts:

      The autopsy indicates the six shots that hit Brown did so either while he was fleeing or while he was facing the officer and his hands were up.

      The audio recording indicates the officer fired six shots initially, waited three seconds (presumably while the kid was turning around and surrendering as per witness accounts), then fired four or five more shots.

      At the moment, unless some surprise witness comes out of nowhere, there is zero evidence in favor of the officer. By all appearances he used lethal force on an unarmed fleeing/surrendering suspect while the suspect posed no immediate danger to anyone. If you have seen any evidence to contradict this (and the "Al Sharpton types") I'd love to see it.

    20. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, word for word almost from the Brown family's attorneys and "independent" autopsy. Which of which is most impressive that it could tell the suspect's hands were up.

    21. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've said before and I'll say again -- the cop cams must, MUST be subject to the missing evidence rule: If the footage is not available, regardless of reason, the court shall assume that the missing evidence is maximally against the cops.

    22. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money can be shunted away from buying SWAT gear toward the cameras.

      I think you misspelled the name of the DoD to police equipment transfer program.

    23. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, what bullshit.
      Original witnesses claimed the poor innocent boy was shot in the back while trying to run away. The man with him, who had just helped him rob a convenience store, told this story about how Brown sacrificed himself. "Keep running, Bro!" Yeah, bullshit.

      Then it turns out, no, Brown was never shot in the back. He was shot exclusively in the front. That's from the Brown Family report, btw, because the police report hasn't been released.

      Some witnesses were caught talking on camera about how Brown turned around and charged the cop. Where do those witnesses fit into your story?

      As for "The cop's story", it hasn't been released yet. So any claim that "the cop's story" is wrong is bullshit.

    24. Re: Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck hasn't this information been released? Why did they wait weeks to file an incident report and then file an incomplete one. Why the fuck did hey wait weeks to release the officers name? There are no witnesses corroborating the police's version of the event unless you count a second hand retelling of the officers version as a "witness".

    25. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Brown's death was merely a trigger - the "Ferguson thing" was about much more systemic problems than that one incident. But it's easy to attack one kid ...

      Radley Balko just published an amazing, detailed, well-researched piece on some of the issues in the area:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    26. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as much the shooting that concerns me (though it is a pretty f**ked up situation), it's the militarized police response and the Ferguson PD declaring war on its citizens.

      They shouldn't have been met with bottles when they tried to break up the protest, they should have been met with overwhelming force by the unorganized militia aka the people. The NG should have been shutting down the cops, not the citizens. Paramilitary thugs with less training than a real soldier, less self control, a Rambo complex and no respect for the citizenry should not be patrolling our streets and I certainly wouldn't tolerate such thuggery in my town or any town within reasonable driving distance. They have become the domestic enemy they are supposed to be protecting us from.

      Those bastard cops in Ferguson should be thankful the populace allowed them to live after the militarized response. A lot of other places and they would not be so lucky.

    27. Re: Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck hasn't this information been released?

      Because you dont release evidence prior to a trial just because internet know it all holier than thou posters are preaching horseshit and parroting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    28. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you that everyone should hold-off judgement until all the evidence comes out, but I'm confused why you would start making judgements about the dead guy right after saying that. Your second sentence does not fit between the other two.
      You are probably a smart person, so I think you should ask yourself why you decided to single-out the dead guy. You probably meant to say that news reporting is biased and quickly jumps to conclusions which mislead people and unfairly portrays the event.

      P.S. Fuck Beta.

    29. Re: Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't just Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that are angry at the Ferguson PD's cover up you fucking idiot racist. There is zero justification for the misinformation the Ferguson PD has been peddling. There are no witnesses corroborating the police's version of events. Instead we have second and third hand accounts from WIlson's acquaintances being served up as credible evidence. BTW, dumbass you never answered my questions. Why wait weeks to release the name? Why take weeks to file an incomplete police report?

    30. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As a society, regardless of the situation, a representative of the state should NEVER shoot an unarmed man.

      The nice incentive with that is that you know that when the cops say "freeze" it's a bluff. They have to tackle you, so the optimal strategy for every guilty person is to run and hope for the best, because nobody is going to punish you for it.

      Oh wait, I forgot that we're not allowed to punish criminals any more. We're supposed to pretend that serving time in prison, in the company of many other hardened criminals, is something that will magically reform them.

    31. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No human being is ever completely disarmed. Also, some versions of the story of what happened in Ferguson say the the man killed was vigorously struggling to become the armed man, i.e. trying to wrest the policeman's gun away from him.

      The truth is going to be determined eventually. When it is, we'll all need to settle for it and we will ALL need to stfu about our prejudices. Ah, I'm such a dreamer....

    32. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by silfen · · Score: 1

      Of course it happens more frequently in NYC than elsewhere

      I didn't say that "it happens more frequently in NYC", I said "they seem to be found guilty of misconduct more frequently than other police departments". Are you too dumb to understand the difference?

    33. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by silfen · · Score: 1

      I was going to chime in with pretty much the same deal - the NYPD has about 4k more people than Juneau, the capital of Alaska.

      And that is relevant to what I was saying ... how?

    34. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made no claim about "the cop's story." Those words, which you even put in quotes, exist nowhere in my post, not does anything remotely implying it.

      The "just helped him rob a convenience store" is both unproven (the convenience store owner himself has said he didn't call in a robbery) and utterly irrelevant to the interaction between Brown and the officer. The only reason to bring it up is to make it sound like Brown deserved to be shot.

      Witnesses said it looked like Brown got hit before he turned around. This is consistent with both the autopsy results and the audio: six wounds, when only four or five shots were after the pause, and the position of the arm wounds indicating he was either hit facing away with arms by his sides (running) or facing toward the officer with arms raised up high. Obviously at least one must have happened before he turned, and some of the rest after when he had his arms raised. And nobody charges at an officer with their arms high up in the air, unless you think they're a literal gorilla.

      The claims about Brown attacking the officer inside his car and about Brown charging the officer afterward came from "Josie," someone who claimed to hear the story from the officer's girlfriend. The only "witness claims" that Brown attacked the officer came vague and second-hand from a tweet by Christine Byers that she later retracted. This is Josie's original account of Brown "charging" (remember, her account set up the original narrative for the "cop's side"):

      "Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So he stands up and yells, ‘Freeze!’ Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed,” she told the station. ... “So [Wilson] really thinks [Brown] was on something, because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. And so he finally ended up, the final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two to three feet in front of the officer,” she said.

      The audio of the shots totally destroys her narrative. The officer shoots a bunch... then pauses three seconds... then shoots a bunch more. The officer just decided to pause shooting for three seconds during the "bum-rushing"?

      Testimony from witnesses including Dorian Johnson: The only difference of note I can see in Dorian Johnson's claims are that he thought Brown was hit once by the shot that went off in the officer's car. His claims are consistent with the audio recording of the shots. Tiffany Mitchell's story is also consistent. Piaget Crenshaw: Consistent except about the exact number of shots fired (missing a couple). Emmanuel Freeman: Not a lot of detail here. Testimony via tweet sucks. Anonymous dude: Also consistent except for the exact number of shots fired (overstated by one or two).

        Your mystery witness: Doesn't make any claim of Brown fighting the officer in the SUV - just pushing away like others have claimed. He claims Brown turned around and started back toward the officer, but he doesn't at all say whether Brown was returning to the officer aggressively or surrendering. Again, the autopsy results indicate a surrendering posture (arms up in the air)

      It's also worth noting that your favorite witness agrees that the officer began shooting at Brown even while Brown was at a good distance from him and running away. No matter how you slice it, the witnesses agree the officer was in the wrong.

    35. Re: Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you dont release evidence prior to a trial just because internet know it all holier than thou posters are preaching horseshit and parroting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

      Strange, then, how they released evidence of an alleged robbery just to make someone look bad...

    36. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by silfen · · Score: 1

      As a society, regardless of the situation, a representative of the state should NEVER shoot an unarmed man. Period.

      How nice for you to hold that opinion. Why don't you become a policeman and then see whether you'll stick to that principle when a 6'5" violent criminal is rushing at you "unarmed".

      Firearm usage should be the absolute last thing a cop uses. Not, as we've been seeing, one of the first.

      It's pretty simple: in most places in the US and Europe, if you don't stop when police tell you to stop, you risk getting shot. Don't like it? Try to convince your fellow citizens to change the laws. Good luck with that.

    37. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the words "officer" and "Brown", your entire account is pretty much a fabrication.

      There is a good chance Wilson won't even get charged. If he gets charged, he will almost certainly be found "not guilty". And instead of accepting that, people like you will be screaming "racism" at the top of your lungs and keep tilting at windmills.

      Accept the facts: you're wrong.

    38. Re: Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wait weeks to release the name? Why take weeks to file an incomplete police report?

      Because guilt and innocence are decided in a court of law, "you fucking idiot racist".

    39. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Because the cameras the cops will be using will be built to a much higher standard of durability, battery life, recording capacity, and reliability than that $100 camcorder.

      In fact, that seems pretty reasonably priced for a device that will probably be required to record for the duration of a cop's shift on a single charge, withstand the rough treatment it'll get in a physical alteracation, foot chase, or other strenuous activity, and provide reliable and decent-quality video through all of that, without impeding a cop's ability to do his job, or requiring him to strap on 10 pounds of batteries every time he goes out on patrol.

    40. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a society, regardless of the situation, a representative of the state should NEVER shoot an unarmed man.

      Yes, those'll be some great headlines.
      "Unarmed man threatens to throw baby off cliff. Police ask him calmly to be a cool guy. Baby dies."
      "Man with gun holds up bank, murders tellers. Police can't stop him from leaving the scene because he dropped left his gun in the safe."

      There is such a thing as a just war, and there is such a thing as righteous violence, friend. That's not a blanket defense of violence, but I'd much rather have a cop ready to shoot the shit out of someone who needs shooting than tie his hands and leave him unable to do his job. Rather than tell cops they can never be violent, let's focus on measures that will minimize the abuse and misuse of violent behavior.

    41. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an asshole.

    42. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      And for the Ferguson thing....let's take a wait and see attitude to see what the evidence presents as what really happened.

      So far, the kid seems to possibly not be quite as innocent as originally depicted by the news and Al Sharpton types....

      So, at this point, best to wait and see what the evidence and witnesses show as what happened that day.

      Of course the guy wasn't "innocent". He apparently stole some cigars.

      But here's the thing. It is not the policeman's job to mete out justice by death, and the death penalty is probably never justifiable for stealing cigars. Can you think of any reason you should be killed for that? Even if you resisted arrest, would you prefer being tased, or shot and killed.

      How much "wait and see" would you accept if it was a son of yours who was killed for stealing some cigars? Or would you say, "Hey, it's a hard job they do, so I'm okay with them killing my son. After all, he did something wrong, so seems legit."

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    43. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Get a big enough police department and you can expect incidents.

      Let's say you have a murder rate of 1 in 100k people. Pretty good. A village of 1k people should expect 1 murder every 100 years. A city of 10M will be averaging a murder almost every 3 days.

      You're just as likely to be murdered in either area; but which will be known for murder?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    44. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by silfen · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. My comment wasn't about the absolute number of incidents in NYC (obviously, a big city is going to have more than a small city), but I observed as an aside that an unusually large proportion of incidents in NYC actually involve police misconduct (as opposed to justifiable use of force).

      Nevertheless, as I also pointed out, even in NYC, police misconduct is representative of the population of suspects and perpetrators.

    45. Re:Deblasio has been working hard by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Research shows that they're selling the cameras for $400-800 depending on options, with the more expensive types being built into the safety glasses many police wear.

      But if you figure in buying accessories and spares, 'rounding up' to $1k per doesn't seem odd at all, especially if you're buying storage and not including it in 'IT costs' as a continuing expense.

      As for 'fully functional', you can't get one for $100 when required functions include:

      1. Must operate continuously for 8+ hours on a single charge and storage device. If you can't meet this it means that the officer might need to trade out during his lunch break and that means you need TWO per officer.
      2. Must be waterproof to ~30 meters - Rain, officer needs to go into the water for some reason. I say 30 because I'm used to adding a zero to the 'max anticipated depth' to make sure that it's good even at the lower depth.
      3. Must be shockproof against being dropped/slammed into pavement - officer is hitting the ground taking cover or happens to hit it while putting down/fighting a suspect.
      4. Must be light weight - cops already carry lots of stuff, a 5 pound unit isn't going to cut it. One of the reasons we're only seeing body cameras now, years after seeing them in cruisers.
      5. Must have a high enough resolution to be useful
      6. Must work even in dimly lit locations 'well enough'.
      etc....

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  2. HA! by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am normally against increasing the number of cameras around and being under surveillance all the time. That said, I think NYC needs this to finnally start putting nails in the coffin of their stop and frisk program. Finally either one of two things HAS to happen: Either they collect massive amounts of evidence about how they have been stopping random people and trumping up charges, or.... the number of incidents must go down. Either way, its progress.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:HA! by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Either they collect massive amounts of evidence about how they have been stopping random people and trumping up charges, or.... the number of incidents must go down.

      I'm sure they'll have like a 15 day retention period, after which they'll destroy the footage so it can't be used against them.

      In practice the body cam footage will only be used to support their perspective, but only if there is a major public outcry about some incident; which will always be timely.

  3. Include infrared by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    So they can't be blocked with a simple piece of tape. Because that that's gonna happen is just a no-brainer.

    1. Re:Include infrared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And when it gets to court, any halfway decent lawyer will get the case thrown out. Then it will come from the highest ranks of the DA to stop covering your f'cking camera and letting criminals go free. Or there were never that many criminals to begin with in the first place.

      Don't be so quick to judge judgement.

      -dk

    2. Re:Include infrared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would, unfortunately, raise all kinds of extra privacy issues, and probably still not penetrate whatever tape or other obstruction somebody chose to use. But then, when whomever is tasked with reviewing the footage sees that the camera is blocked, that will likely be met with about as much draconian smackdown as fiddling with an airplane smoke detector.

    3. Re:Include infrared by tibit · · Score: 1

      Ahh, you think that most obscure tapes (think electrical tape) are IR-transparent? You're nuts.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Include infrared by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So they can't be blocked with a simple piece of tape. Because that that's gonna happen is just a no-brainer.

      I have a better idea: after their shift is over, analyze the footage after every day. For any time during the shift that their camera was active and working: their rate of pay will be higher.

      If their camera was malfunctioning or inactive for more than 60 minutes during the day, then their pay for the entire shift is reduced, and they get a warning.

    5. Re:Include infrared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they need 35,000 more employees to review the footage of 35,000 cameras?

    6. Re:Include infrared by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      how's the weather in the all-logical-universe in which you live? good luck with that. last time i heard of a caesar threatening to cut the praetorian's pay...

    7. Re:Include infrared by praxis · · Score: 1

      So they need 35,000 more employees to review the footage of 35,000 cameras?

      Or a small number of IT-types, some hardware and some software.

  4. And make video available when asked by parallel_prankster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There have been numerous instances where the cops have reported "malfunctioning" devices to avoid providing videos of situations which may have provided incriminating evidence. Just yesterday there was news about how a guy fell from a cop car into the water below while handcuffed and the police couldn't provide any video evidence! Maybe there should be strict penalties for losing video recordings as well.

    1. Re:And make video available when asked by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Maybe there should be strict penalties for losing video recordings as well.

      One can also view it as a problem with how the system works. The car cam, and proper treatment of its tapes, shouldn't be the responsibility of the officers in the car.

      If there were a designated 'cam tape librarian' for the department, and that person alone were allowed to manage the tapes, this stuff would presumably be much less of a problem. (Naturally, if tapes go missing, that should be enough to put the tape librarian's job on the line, and the don't screw with the tapes unless it's your job to rule would have to have teeth.)

    2. Re:And make video available when asked by peragrin · · Score: 2

      There shouldn't be tapes. The feed from those cams should be directly sent IA. It can them be used as needed to clear officers.

      Local storage is an issue.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:And make video available when asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember that you're talking about "a lot of data" that must be cataloged so as to be easily retrievable. That's not cheap, inherently easy, or going to be done perfectly.

      I still maintain that a court order must be the only way to produce the footage; there are a lot of people who are pretty close to victims who will be recorded, most with no charges when the police are doing beat work, who's privacy must be protected.

    4. Re:And make video available when asked by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      There are 34000 uniformed officers in New York City, and they have 8800 cars. Lets assume that there are 5000 officers working at any one time (that's probably understimating it). Let's say it's 1 mbit/s to get decent video recording. That means the generate 51 TB of data every day. That's 18 petabytes a year. That becomes a storage problem really fast.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:And make video available when asked by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Except you don't need to store the videos indefinitely. I imagine a couple of months is long enough. It's a pretty huge amount of data, but I'm sure it's not that hard to cope with a couple of petabytes of simple video files. That's on the order of a thousand hard-disks full (not counting redundancy), and there's no fancy database requirements here, just a huge pile of videos indexed by car ID and day.

      Anyway, I don't think peragrin was saying anything to the contrary, but was instead just suggesting IA could act as the 'tape library'.

    6. Re:And make video available when asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple solution, just upload it all to youtube.

    7. Re:And make video available when asked by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i think 30 days prior to purging is fair (obviously unless the tape is being used.) Also a lot of tape can get trimmed as there is no need to keep the tape when the officers are not making contact. Still a nightmare, but better than what we have now which is nothing more than he said she said

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:And make video available when asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might not be that bad actually. You could probably setup computers in all the cop cars with 802.11 wireless links to sync the majority of the video with body-cams. A 2TB hard drive could easily store six months worth of high quality video. That cop car computer could then be automatically syncing with a main station and/or other cop cars in the area. A decentralized system makes it very difficult to argue 'technical glitch'. Cops work together and will play dirty together, but its unlikely they'll risk a career over it if they feel its likely to come back and bite them. When they know that they can't just destroy there own car to destroy the evidence they'll probably think twice about it. One cop car goes missing you can write it off, but two and its a conspiracy. You could top it all off by using cellular links with dynamically encoded (lower quality) and streamed video when cops 'move out of range' and on-board drives could retain the HD versions (again, SD cards can even store up to 16 hours of HD video).

    9. Re:And make video available when asked by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      If you think that 18Pb of data is a massive storage problem then I have news for you it is not, and can be done in a handful of racks these days. Of course you would probably archive anything over six months old to tape so you could easily store a few decades worth.

      Really 18Pb is small beer these days.

    10. Re:And make video available when asked by Wootery · · Score: 0

      I presume you are a troll. Convince me otherwise, and I will explain to you why this is a stupid suggestion.

    11. Re:And make video available when asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Storing these videos for an average of 90 days would require a 5PB datacenter, which would cost about $20-30million per year if you built it near NYC. The NYPD budget is $4.6billion per year.

      This is completely feasible.

    12. Re:And make video available when asked by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Screw IA, they're police themselves. Put it in the hands of a non-paid but elected group of citizens to store and review. That way you eliminate the potential for the police to alter / destroy evidence.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    13. Re:And make video available when asked by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      18 petabytes a year isn't much.
      Taking the assumption above that there are 5000 cameras working at once.
      They are paid around $35/hour. This would make the wage bill 1.5 billion. Budget is $5B - so this seems order of magnitude right.
      18 petabytes, on amazon redshifts '$1000/tbyear' is only $18M.
      It seems quite plausible to get that to $5m without trying really hard.

      Perhaps more important than storage, is access.
      It should be possible to say 'show me a list of officers and car cameras within 1000 yards of 1 WTC between 8Am and 9am last friday'.

      And yes - this implies the cameras must have GPS too.

    14. Re:And make video available when asked by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It may be peanuts to a company like Google that is used to dealing with large amounts of data. But to an organization like NYPD which isn't used to handling such large amounts of data, and it becomes a problem. Do they try to manage it internally? Do they contract it out to someone else? We saw how well that worked for Obamacare.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:And make video available when asked by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      Every second of video GPS timestamped, and the GPS logs extracted and used to index the video.

      Privacy is a hard topic.
      To a degree - I find the fact a police officer, who could have arrested someone was on the scene - makes the case rather different from that of a random surveillance camera.

      My starting point would be that all video from cameras while the cop is in a public place have a much, much, much lower threshold for access.

    16. Re:And make video available when asked by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      That still requires somebody to review all the daily tapes and purge non-interaction times, and you don't want the officers doing it themselves. Even if you have a guy doing it mostly on fast forward, that's 1 reviewer for every 10 cops or so.

      It'd probably be cheaper to just store everything, and no, I don't think 30 days is anywhere near enough given how long it can take to generate a court case and have the records subpoenaed. I'd consider 90 days the bare minimum.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:And make video available when asked by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i just chose 30 as a number but yeah I agree that 30 may be too short for that very reason.

      on the other hand im sure software can be written where as for example no one is talking to anyone - delete this section, no one is moving - delete this section, there is no audio being captured - delete thiss ection

      In no way perfect and simplified for argument sake, but im sure software could be written to handle it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:And make video available when asked by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      Some automated tools could be applied. For example, the audio could be scanned for gun shots, or other loud noises (signs of a struggle), which triggers an automatic hold on that video. The real trick is going to be dealing with the FOIA requests. I could see where the police would want to review and possibly redact sensitive video, such as a conversation with a confidential informant. That means if I make a request for all the video from an officer for the last 90 days, or all officers on duty during a 6 hour time, someone needs to review it all.

    19. Re:And make video available when asked by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      constantly stream to the web and 6 months no pay, no exceptions if it the body camera is not working. Problem fixed.

    20. Re:And make video available when asked by penix1 · · Score: 1

      You may as well put it on YuoTube if you are going to put it anywhere with / via the Internet. It won't take long for the feeds to get hacked and then where is your chain of evidence? Would be funny though if someone did hack it and streamed a whole bunch of kiddie porn to it instead of the real feeds. The cops would then have to arrest themselves for possession and be placed on the sex offender lists forever...

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    21. Re:And make video available when asked by Wootery · · Score: 1

      You may as well put it on YuoTube if you are going to put it anywhere with / via the Internet.

      Might as well take the locks off our doors while we're at it - they're not perfect, after all.

      Anyway, who says they'll be connected to the Internet?

    22. Re:And make video available when asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cameras won't need GPS. I'm pretty sure that police cars have GPS tracking already, and their locations are saved somewhere, so all you need to do is query the existing database, which gives you the list of cars at that time in that location, and then you just grab the video files for these cars/days from the new storage.

    23. Re:And make video available when asked by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Plenty in this topic saying that. Everything from streaming it from the cars via WiFi to storing it in the "cloud". The point is, the minute it leaves your custody and can be accessed by others, you lose the chain of custody evidence requires. That is why they still use tapes. It is a physical object that can be put under lock and key with special handling requiring a huge paper trail.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    24. Re:And make video available when asked by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You can, but how long before the gun shots do you record? Personally, I think 1 gunshot should be enough to more or less permanently archive the whole day, same with any 'serious' incident.

      But yeah, after 90 days or so, go through and kill off meaningless portions of the video, but I figure that any automated tools are going to have to be set fairly loose, leaving lots of irrelevant stuff in there in order to make sure to keep the relevant stuff. Having watched some police video, they're nearly always in a fairly noisy environment - both audibly and visibly.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    25. Re:And make video available when asked by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In no way perfect and simplified for argument sake, but im sure software could be written to handle it

      It can, but then the question becomes - how much can the automated tools cut safely? I imagine that a police body camera is going to always have a fair bit of motion associated with it. If they're standing around they're generally talking. Even slight shifts of the body can present lots of motion to the camera, etc...

      I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it'd be complex programmatically and couldn't cut as much as a live review because you'd need to keep the parameters loose to avoid false negatives.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  5. Equipment from 'Taser International'!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tase me, bro!

  6. Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The camera man that operates the body cam is going to get beaten into a bloody pulp. //convinced there's a camera man in my trunk for my backing camera ///convinced that camera men died to get NASA's close-up photos of Jupiter and Saturn.

  7. its the cops, not the cameras. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Eric Garner was choked to death by NYPD cops, cameraphones were rolling to capture the event. when they shot dead a man on 37th street for brandishing a knife, video was taken through bystanders. two years ago when a cop shot a homeless mans dog in East Village there was plenty of footage from bystanders. 11 months ago when the NYPD fired haphazardly into a crowd of people to control a single disorderly man, there was quite a bit of footage. when the NYPD dragged a nude grandmother from her apartment last month, plenty of cameraphones picked up the action.

    Strapping a camera to a police officer at this point is moot. its designed to deflect attention from the routine use of disproportionate force against the citizens theyre charged with protecting. the actual issue the NYPD needs to deal with is either burned out or unfit for duty officers. Rookies fresh from Afghanistan and 10 year veterans with a calloused trigger finger need training, counseling, and support to help correct a systemic 'us vesus them' mentality. PTSD evaluations and regular, significant performance reviews should be a part of every officers career and something the police union should champion first. Strapping a go-pro to your departments beat-cops will result in either a glut of abuse evidence or no footage at all. Do not promote unfit officers to higher ranks either; the glut of stonewalled or ignored FOIA requests is evidence this is a bad practice.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by disposable60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those cameraphones capture late-stage action and aftermath. The bodycams should capture the leadup and escalation that are really needed for an impartial/fair evaluation of the event. The events you cite do sound damning, but more footage would be helpful in evaluating the encounter. Knowing that footage exists helps, too - if only to slow the officer's reach for applied violence.

      Y'know, if I've got that cellphone app that streams direct to the cloud for protection from abuse of power, can't the bodycams do the same thing? Local-only data is too vulnerable to loss or abuse.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    2. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
      You fail to understand the difference between spot detection and permanent detection.

      If you sample one out of every 100 cars, all you are really doing is determining if a problem exists, not actually fixing the problem. Not even if you fix the randomly selected problem cars. You still need a separate program to analyze the manufacturing problems causing the defects then fix the problem, if it exists.

      But having someone check ALL the cards, allows you to remove the bad ones and fix them before you sell them. You don't actually need a separate program, because your analysis IS the fix.

      Similarly, a constant video recording program is the solution to the problem we detected by using random video recordings. Random recordings allow problems to flourish between the recordings. Constant recordings do not have this issue.

      The fact that random recording don't fix the problem is no surprise, and constant recordings are qualitatively different so your argument is flawed.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 0

      ...Strapping a camera to a police officer at this point is moot. its designed to deflect attention from the routine use of disproportionate force against the citizens theyre charged with protecting. the actual issue the NYPD needs to deal with is either burned out or unfit for duty officers. Rookies fresh from Afghanistan and 10 year veterans with a calloused trigger finger need training, counseling, and support to help correct a systemic 'us vesus them' mentality. PTSD evaluations and regular, significant performance reviews should be a part of every officers career and something the police union should champion first. Strapping a go-pro to your departments beat-cops will result in either a glut of abuse evidence or no footage at all. Do not promote unfit officers to higher ranks either; the glut of stonewalled or ignored FOIA requests is evidence this is a bad practice.

      I wish I had mod points today, so I'll just settle for a reqoute and a THIS. THIS for days.

    4. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I would hate to imagine the data bill that would be incurred from uploading all that data, It would probably be a couple gigabytes, per shift. NYC has a lot of police officers. Also, there's a lot of cases where there would be no cellular connection, like in subway trains, or under bridges. Certain buildings do a pretty good job of cutting off cell reception in the elevators. All the tall buildings in New York create quite a few dead zones, or at least places with less than optimal signal levels which would make uploading video in real time a big problem. Also, what happens when there's a riot, and you get 100 officers all standing in one spot trying to upload video in real time to the same cell tower. Can the towers handle that kind of traffic?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure plenty of people here will be outraged by this, but the fastest way to fix issues with police brutality / police corruption is to ban police unions. The union always fights tooth and nail to keep bad officers from being fired and in the rare instance where a bad cop does lose their job, the union frequently tries to get them reinstated (like Officer Harless from Canton, OH who was fired after public outrage over video of him threatening to murder a man pulled over for a traffic stop).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Also did the cops in those incidents even notice the cameras on them?

    7. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that the simple fact that those people didn't get their cameras confiscated leads to a big "no" on that one.

    8. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bodycams should capture the leadup and escalation that are really needed for an impartial/fair evaluation of the event.

      Um, I don't follow. All the examples you listed were so far removed from how cops should act that there can't really be an evaluation of the event other than, 'Fired, criminal charges filed.' The role of cops is not to be a group of thugs and murders. It's not to physically assault people. If someone isn't complying with their commands, then they need to be patient, not get physical with them, and not turn into angry murderers. Sure, there will always be the handful of events where people are actively being a danger to the public and the police will need to use force. But in all the cases you listed, and in fact, most of the ones that make the news, the escalation of force was simply not warranted.

      You don't need to evaluate all the events that didn't happen because cops weren't being murderous thugs. How about we cut down on those events, rather than slapping cameras everywhere? It's a piss-poor us-vs-them, powerful cops vs dehumanized civilians attitude that's the problem. If you want to be a cop, you don't get to be an untouchable terminator - you have to be humble and realize that you might die protecting the public. That's not the current attitude among most officers.

      Drop the APCs and tanks, drop the assault weapons and body armor, drop the elitist us-vs-the-goons attitude, walk around and actually treat civilians like people, and harshly punish cops for breaking the law, and the problem largely goes away.

    9. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Salgat · · Score: 1

      ...why not both?

    10. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by irq0 · · Score: 0

      I would hate to imagine the data bill that would be incurred from uploading all that data, It would probably be a couple gigabytes, per shift. NYC has a lot of police officers. Also, there's a lot of cases where there would be no cellular connection, like in subway trains, or under bridges. Certain buildings do a pretty good job of cutting off cell reception in the elevators. All the tall buildings in New York create quite a few dead zones, or at least places with less than optimal signal levels which would make uploading video in real time a big problem. Also, what happens when there's a riot, and you get 100 officers all standing in one spot trying to upload video in real time to the same cell tower. Can the towers handle that kind of traffic?

      Only stream the secure hashes -- then we know the video exists and it can't be faked. If a particular officer "loses" their video too often, discipline them. You could also do P2P hash sharing, so even if wireless is down each officer is carrying the hashes from their fellow officers.

    11. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are the ones bringing in the numbers that the Police chief can show to public.

      "Look at all these criminals (mostly homeless bike thieves) we got off the streets, without us they would be running around town killing people."

    12. Re:its the cops, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hate to imagine the data bill that would be incurred from uploading all that data, It would probably be a couple gigabytes, per shift. NYC has a lot of police officers. Also, there's a lot of cases where there would be no cellular connection, like in subway trains, or under bridges. Certain buildings do a pretty good job of cutting off cell reception in the elevators. All the tall buildings in New York create quite a few dead zones, or at least places with less than optimal signal levels which would make uploading video in real time a big problem. Also, what happens when there's a riot, and you get 100 officers all standing in one spot trying to upload video in real time to the same cell tower. Can the towers handle that kind of traffic?

      If that's not a great argument for municpal wifi, I don't know what is.

  8. Who gets access to the video? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is it the police only? Defense lawyers with a subpoena? The public? There's this:

    Officers would be permitted to view video they recorded before making statements in cases where their conduct was questioned

    I would vastly prefer they make statements without access to the video. Seeing the video allows them to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up. If they don't know exactly what the cameras saw, they have to stick much closer to the truth.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Who gets access to the video? by jd.schmidt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why, have you never remembered an event wrong? The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video, by contrast every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie.

    2. Re:Who gets access to the video? by houghi · · Score: 1

      If they don't know exactly what the cameras saw, they have to stick much closer to the truth.

      You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
      We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Who gets access to the video? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why, have you never remembered an event wrong?

      Sure I have. So what? If police misremember the event, is that somehow not relevant?

      The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video

      That was actually caught on video, that is. As I explicitly pointed out. I spoke - direct quote here - about the ability "to craft a story that fits what was recorded, and leave out or invent things that weren't picked up". What happened before, or just offscreen? Police are known to claim that someone was "reaching for a gun" - even when it didn't happen. But if the camera angle is bad, they will know they can claim that regardless of what they actually remember.

      every lawyer knows the trick of picking out one detail someone got wrong and spinning that into proof that everything they say is a lie

      But... but... if "The behavior of everyone will be plain to see on the video", how could a lawyer get away with that?

      Frankly, I consider that a feature, not a bug, anyway. Eyewitness testimony really is ureliable. 'Bout time juries learned that applies to police too.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    4. Re:Who gets access to the video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that line of thought suspects should be able to see all evidence against them before a police interview so they can make sure they don't "misremember" anything. But the reality is police routinely lie to suspects, telling them they have evidence implicating them and/or eyewitnesses who can ID them even if they have nothing. Why officers who may be suspected of misconduct should expect any less is beyond me. There are droves of cases where police reports paint one picture and then after people get home and start uploading their camcorder/cellphone videos onto Youtube offices scramble to "amend" their reports to be "more accurate". Examples include the BART shooting of Oscar Grant, initial police statements claimed that Grant was fighting with officers whereas video from multiple angles proved beyond all doubt he was laying still, handcuffed, with an officer holding him down at the time of the shooting. The beating of Michael Deherra, initial police reports claimed that Deherra attacked an officer, the CCTV system proved that he was stationary on the sidewalk a distance from an arrest talking on his phone and his free hand was across his chest griping his other arm.

    5. Re:Who gets access to the video? by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the person sees video of the event, THEN gives their testimony, it largely defeated the purpose of the testimony. You want to know what they remember, tainted by their emotions and perceptions at the time. If the testimony is merely a narration of of the video it told you nothing new. And if one of the people is lying, you won't catch them if you give them a chance to see what the camera caught.

      Perhaps they need to give testimony, then watch the video, then have the opportunity to revise it. But both should be admissible as evidence.

    6. Re:Who gets access to the video? by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

      Cops use that logic and technique to railroad innocent people all the time, it should not happen to defendants or cops either. Really, watch some of the documentaries about people "confessing" to crimes.

    7. Re:Who gets access to the video? by irq0 · · Score: 0

      And if one of the people is lying, you won't catch them if you give them a chance to see what the camera caught.

      Ironically, officers of the court are not allowed to testify *or let others testify* to something which they know is false. A lawyer cannot put you on the stand to say something they know is not true, and if they do, they're liable. You can see how this creates a problem for police officers, who are also officers of the court.

    8. Re:Who gets access to the video? by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

      Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway? If not then I guess, NO it isn't relevant. Look, you are making a leap that is very normal for people to make, but still incorrect. What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason, or at least unreliable in some other way. Someone mentioned that the defendant should be given access to evidence also before making a statement if the cops should. Funny thing is that isn't a gottcha against me, I agree completely. When you look at the most egregious cases of abuse and false imprisonment, the cops playing the same kind of tricks by deliberately withholding evidence are pretty much central to all of these cases. Trying to trip up people looks great on Perry Mason, but in the real world it is subject to abuse. It is a very dangerous tool to use in our justice system, even if it has good results sometimes, it dangerously undermines peoples confidence in the systems when it goes tragically wrong.

    9. Re:Who gets access to the video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I would vastly prefer they make statements without access to the video.

      I would vastly prefer that this statement apply evenhandedly, both to the police and defendant. This would be a great way for them to assess exactly to what degree the particular people in that case were willing to make stuff up and firmly establish their relative credibility in an objective manner.

  9. Pilot program alright by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The participation of the New York department, with its 35,000 uniformed members... While the 60-camera pilot program will get running for about $60,000, IT costs are expected to quickly outstrip that amount.

    So, 0.171428571429% of the NYPD will have a body camera. And as nimbius said above, it's not a problem of monitoring, it's a problem of psychology and mindset. It seems police officers think of themselves as soldiers fighting enemy forces instead of officers serving and protecting the public.

    1. Re:Pilot program alright by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, reports from Canada is that cameras DO reduce the number of offenses, reducing assaults both on and by officers.

      With the cameras you have a better chance of catching said burned out people before they're pulling the trigger of their firearm...

      *They'll need a few spares to replace those lost, stolen, or destroyed beyond warranty repair/replacement.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Pilot program alright by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah but Canada is Canada, and the USA are the USA. The mindset of American cops is extremely different from Canadian cops.

  10. Not perfect, but good by Kohath · · Score: 1

    This should help. For really incriminating behavior, I would expect the cameras to "malfunction" most of the time. But for ordinary, day-to-day contact with the public, it will be a lot easier to just not act like a complete asshole than to hide the evidence later.

  11. What good are cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What good are cameras, when the officers are not held accountable for their criminal actions? Cameras have been around for over a decade, though maybe not as body cameras, yet many times police have been caught on film.

  12. Double-edged sword by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    When these cameras are used to feed a policeman's AR glasses and are running full-time face recognition, gait analysis and LPR along with a comms interface, you're going to have hivemind supercops, not necessarily a good thing with a so very imperfect set of laws.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When these cameras are used to feed a policeman's AR glasses and are running full-time face recognition, gait analysis and LPR along with a comms interface, you're going to have hivemind supercops, not necessarily a good thing with a so very imperfect set of laws.

      That goes both ways. AR + Google Glass + data source (which can by anything from a database of speed trap spots, radar detector reports, etc) == "Speed trap ahead." "Plainclothes cop detected." (In fact, if there's a wireless signal between the cop-cam and the mothership, that, in principle, could be detected, and since the only people using body-mounted cameras with datastreams characteristic of TASR and DGLY devices are going to be cops... the playing field might very well be even.)

    2. Re:Double-edged sword by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      ... not necessarily a good thing with a so very imperfect set of laws.

      Maybe it'll then point the finger towards the need to reform the laws themselves; assuming that better enforcement of an imperfect set of laws reveals more underlying problems.

  13. video retention by raind · · Score: 1

    "While the 60-camera pilot program will get running for about $60,000, IT costs are expected to quickly outstrip that amount."

    The idea of video seems good, just wait for the requests for compliance, data storage, lawyers etc. Can't see it going very far with 60K

    --
    Get up!
    1. Re:video retention by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Can't see it going very far with 60K

      ... which is why they said 'IT costs are expected to quickly outstrip that amount'.

      However, with that said, this really isn't any different than all the other evidence handling. Storage space is cheap and small. Throwing a few SD cards (or something with better lifetimes) into a box with the rest of the case information and keeping online copies for recent cases isn't really that big of a deal. They already do all this for photos, videos are hardly any more difficult to manage. Just another item in an existing process.

      Realistically, once the kinks are worked out, this really shouldn't cost much extra at all.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  14. $10,000 per camera by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you, the reader, has any experience with office politics or politics you know the popular underhanded technique of supporting something while undermining it.

    Overhead, corruption, and incompetence are too often used as an excuse; many times it IS simply an underhanded attack by the "supporters." When NYPD spends $60,000 while saying it's going to cost more for only 60 cameras there are people involved who WANT it to be as expensive as possible of a deterrent. A high profile test group like NYPD will get cited all over the nation. Given how badly it is needed and demanded by the public, the costs are going to have to be high to deter widespread common use. Despite how actually cheap it would be - I bet their flash lights cost more... I had a cheap pen camera from china that was in that price range; it didn't last long or store much video but that was 6 years ago.

    This is also where greedy capitalism comes in because that is all about how much the market is willing to pay--- and they've got to make sure this is a niche market so it doesn't have to compete with the extremely cheap mainstream market.

    Sure, the way public budgets are managed is they take all projected costs (on the high side) then divide them out in ways that makes things like this seem like it's $10,000 a camera -- and one can sometimes spot the traitors because they'll focus on such false estimates.

    Now it could be this is a totally honest move by NYPD and their high costs are because they are preparing for a full scale deployment with this just being a testing group. I'm just too cynical to take things at face value... wonder if any reporters exist who can hang around enough to pick up on such things anymore.

    1. Re:$10,000 per camera by dj245 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you, the reader, has any experience with office politics or politics you know the popular underhanded technique of supporting something while undermining it.

      Overhead, corruption, and incompetence are too often used as an excuse; many times it IS simply an underhanded attack by the "supporters." When NYPD spends $60,000 while saying it's going to cost more for only 60 cameras there are people involved who WANT it to be as expensive as possible of a deterrent. A high profile test group like NYPD will get cited all over the nation. Given how badly it is needed and demanded by the public, the costs are going to have to be high to deter widespread common use. Despite how actually cheap it would be - I bet their flash lights cost more... I had a cheap pen camera from china that was in that price range; it didn't last long or store much video but that was 6 years ago.

      This is also where greedy capitalism comes in because that is all about how much the market is willing to pay--- and they've got to make sure this is a niche market so it doesn't have to compete with the extremely cheap mainstream market.

      Sure, the way public budgets are managed is they take all projected costs (on the high side) then divide them out in ways that makes things like this seem like it's $10,000 a camera -- and one can sometimes spot the traitors because they'll focus on such false estimates.

      Now it could be this is a totally honest move by NYPD and their high costs are because they are preparing for a full scale deployment with this just being a testing group. I'm just too cynical to take things at face value... wonder if any reporters exist who can hang around enough to pick up on such things anymore.

      Hint- Industrial type equipment designed for daily rough use is expensive. I have a Motorola Pro5150 radio on my desk here which apparently costs about $400 (finding an actual price on this thing isn't easy) depending on which model it is. For a radio. But it is built like a tank, designed very well, and looks a lot like what police departments use. A wearable camera built like this radio costing $1000 each might be expensive, but it wouldn't be absurdly expensive.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:$10,000 per camera by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      When NYPD spends $60,000 while saying it's going to cost more for only 60 cameras there are people involved who WANT it to be as expensive as possible of a deterrent.

      As somebody who once worked in government purchasing, $60k for 60 cameras didn't even make me blink at the expense, to the point that I was figuring it's equipment expenses alone, not including labor and such.

      Let's start with the camera: $399
      One mounted on a pair of glasses: $599
      Miscellaneous:
      Dock hardware (price not listed), a few different mounting options(price not listed), etc...

      IT costs, well I figure the NYPD will want to set up it's own solution but the same company offers cloud storage specifically for the video with the necessary bells and whistles for chain of evidence/custody at evidence.com: Starts at $15/month, though I wouldn't see the NYPD going for less than the 'Pro' Package at $39/month per officer(because that includes redaction and agency reports), and it could go as high as $55.

      That's $468/year for storage, putting us right at $1k for the glasses and storage** for 1 year, and we don't even have anybody administering the program yet!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:$10,000 per camera by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Hmm...as a citizen, I wonder if I wear a number of HIGH powered IR LED's on my hat/person, if that would blind out these officer cameras?

      I've been dying to find out if surrounding my license plate on my car, would fsck up the video from the speeding/stoplight cameras too....easily viewable to naked human eye, but blind out the cameras.

      Hmm...sound like a fun weekend project.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:$10,000 per camera by sabri · · Score: 2

      I wonder if I wear a number of HIGH powered IR LED's on my hat/person, if that would blind out these officer cameras?

      You mean like this?

      This German exibition is showcasing bright infrared LED devices that overwhelm the CCDs in security cameras, allowing you to move through modern society in relative privacy. I used this as a gimmick in my story I, Robot -- now I want to own one!

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:$10,000 per camera by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Let me know your results for toll road cameras. For...uh...science, yeah.

    6. Re:$10,000 per camera by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      http://www.vievu.com/vievu-sto...
      The $1,000 price is totally reasonable. Start with a ruggedized HD camera: a few hundred dollars to start. Now add a battery that can last all day in any weather - that's pricey. Now add that it can record video all day - that's quite a bit of flash in a small space. Put a wearable mount on it. Now add a lot of security features. Lastly, get it certified. I think they did okay.

    7. Re:$10,000 per camera by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      The price tag is important but what is more important is that people that are given high levels of power are also held accountable for abuse. The presence of a camera alone will deter cops from applying excessive force and abusing their power. Some say this was tried in LA and failed but only because it wasn't properly implemented.

      I think the cost of the equipment will be offset by the reduction of abuse and crime tied to police. I cannot provide proof but I can almost guarantee society as a whole will benefit from the increased accountability.

    8. Re:$10,000 per camera by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, infrared filters are standard now on cameras that aren't meant to be easily fooled.

      That hasn't worked in years.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  15. Re:dear NYPD thug, by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

    step 4: When challenged by the victim as to police misconduct, assume the office is guilty in court and proceed with prejudice since you have a video of the officer disabling his camera.

    Do you really think your idea is THAT clever? Do you REALLY think its not going to be obvious when there is video showing the officer putting tape over the camera?

    Are you really that stupid? That question is directed at all the people that think 'putting black tape over the lens' is a way out. For fucks sake, how dumb do you think people are?

    Hint: You aren't nearly as bright as you think and probably less so than the rest of the public who would watch the video of the cop putting tape over his camera and lying about why it was happening and convict him on the spot to prove the point.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  16. Don't Let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    Yes, police body cameras are far from a perfect solution. They're a definite improvement, though, both for citizens, and for honest police officers. Certainly, they won't record all interactions, and you might have situations where the camera "malfunctioned." That "malfunction" is going to create questions in and of itself, though. If you're an attorney suing the city over a complaint of police brutality, and the officer claims that, during the time your client claims he was being mistreated, the camera "malfunctioned," that's something the jury is going to take into account, particularly if the camera worked just fine the rest of the time.

  17. These are great money-makers for cops and ex-cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In Albuquerque we struck on the perfect balance. Our ex police chief now works for the company that sell us our cop cams, and the cops are required to wear the cams (probably a good idea) so he has guaranteed pension-enhancing revenue.

    And since the cams just happen to "malfunction" literally over half of the time whenever a cop shoots someone, the cops don't have to worry about the things generating evidence of police wrongdoing.

    Even better, the police now say they spend about 15%-20% of their time (i.e. about a sixth of the public's policing budget) every day "processing" the downloaded video. So the police don't have to work quite as hard for their paychecks.

    Everyone wins.

  18. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think this is just to monitor police activity, think again. The camera is pointed at you and is gathering evidence. Add in facial recognition and automated warrant / terrorist / no-fly list / social networking checks and you are one step closer to 1984.

  19. Re: dear NYPD thug, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure the poster you replied to was joking...

  20. Re:dear NYPD thug, by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    what's the difference between a joke and 3 dicks? (hint: in answer, substitue 'BitZream' and whoever down-voted me for 'your mom')

  21. $10,000 per camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $60,000 for 60 cameras = $1000 per camera.

    You fail basic math forever!

  22. Re:dear NYPD thug, by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    in seriousness though, away from insulting your lack of joke-taking ability, you are also ignorant as to how cops and the real world works. i can think of many ways that cops could still effectively get around the camera and it's ultimately being used in court. any number of things could be done to disable to camera and appear innocuous.. (how about black tape taken out of your pocket off camera.. OMG genius!!! couple that with the old 'hand over your badge' technique, and good luck picking one out of a lineup with your 2 swollen shut eyes.)

    but more importantly, any record could get 'lost' just as easily. so long as the means of monitoring is physically in the realm of the cops themselves, you can count on them finding ways to deal with the evidence.. maybe not in all circumstances, but probably in many where it matters. if you think it can't or won't, then turn on the news and see the countless stories of late where with the whole 'country' watching, evidence/emails etc. have 'disappeared'. oops!

    this is not to say that the whole idea is without merit - far from it. but if you think you can cure behavior that is a function of a rotting and broken widespread mindset with just a piece of hardware, you're in for a shock.

  23. Re:These are great money-makers for cops and ex-co by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    Well now that Heisenberg is no more, has your crime rate dropped at all?

  24. Yes, But How Would YOU Design the System? by eepok · · Score: 1

    I know next to nothing about what is required to inventory, issue, use, download, store, index, and recall all the hardware and video that would be required for such a system. I can only speculate. Has anyone had experience in this realm? Creating massive databases for video or images and indexing them in such a way that police reports could be tied directly to them and be pulled up as necessary?

    If so, in your perfect world, how would you build the system and how much would it cost?

  25. Re:dear NYPD thug, by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    I'm going to take a shot in the dark (no pun intended) and guess you've never been in a court room. The police, district attorney / prosecutor, the public defender, and the judge are all best friends. It's a rigged system and they will not turn on their friends, because as the police bring in BS cases it keeps the public defender employed, keeps the DA / local prosecutor employed, and it lets the judge get re-elected by saying they're "tough on crime".

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  26. Fuck da police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bunch of brainless thugs.

  27. An interesting additional idea. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

    The cop cameras will presumably have evidential and tamper resistant design.
    if you're concerned about off-camera and camera broken incidents - it would be interesting if you could also purchase one of them.

  28. its the cops, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Training? Counseling? Support? Those are needed BEFORE an instance of police misconduct but after one firing, criminal charges & jail time are what is needed. No one would suggest that a convenience store robber should be punished with financial assistance, or a wife beater simply get counseling. Offices who respect members of the public and do their jobs well should be praised, those who abuse their positions and beat suspects should have the law book chucked at them at supersonic speeds out of an air cannon.

  29. corruption by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    This could also help with corrupt cops, ones on the dole you know? wont be able to try and bribe a cop if hes wearing a camera

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:corruption by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, you just do it when he's not on duty ... kind of like they do now. Perhaps its time to lay off the smoke man

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:corruption by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well yeah its not perfect, but you wont see the cops enforcing the corruption with the shield any longer

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  30. Re:dear NYPD thug, by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Dude, just fucking quit. You're idea is retarded. Everything you can come up with short of a MASSIVE EMP would leave obvious evidence of the tamper. The EMP size required would leave evidence as well in other ways that would be fairly easy to spot. You'd need a truly large EMP to destroy the recording of you trying to disable the device, and thats just not something thats going to go unnoticed ... destroying flash memory for instance, is non-trivial without begin obvious.

    Thats the point of a recording device like these, even if you cover your tracks by disabling it, you've still shown that you intentionally disabled it. You seem to live in some hollywood style world where all these cheese movie ploys work in the real world.

    You weren't making a joke, you were being a dumbass, stop trying to pretend otherwise. Stop with the 'putting tape over the camera' ITS GOING TO RECORD YOUR HAND PUTTING TAPE OVER THE LENSE DUMBASS. It doesn't matter where you pull the tape from, its going to be easy to spot when the recording goes from working fine to suddenly having a black object slide over it and it goes dark ... hmmm ... I wonder what that could be?!?!?!? Just stop mentioning it. Its a stupid idea.

    At no point in history did having a badge number have any meaning what so ever. This isn't Starsky and Hutch. Badge numbers are public information, now days you can find them on a website. Spewing one out of your mouth is as easy as spewing a random name you find on a police department roster. Its meaningless.

    Records getting 'lost' is called 'spoliation of evidence'. When it happens in any trial, the police/DA are almost always assumed to be completely wrong/guilty from that point on as a matter of standard procedure ... BY LAW. The problem you're trying to claim exist was solved years ago by making mysteriously disappearing evidence essentially an admission of guilt ... BY LAW. Any 2 bit lawyer on the planet would have a field day with it.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  31. Re:dear NYPD thug, by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    I have unfortunately. There is a reason they are 'friends'.

    The police, DA, judge ARE buddy buddy, they see and work with each other every day, its dumb to expect them not to trust each other ... but as soon as there is evidence rather than heresy they tend to back off and hang the cop out to dry. They protect the cop by default because 99 times out of 90, the 'victim' isn't a victim and is lying to deflect blame, get out of trouble or get some sort of money out of the police. Ferguson is a prime example of this. Multiple witnesses claiming the kid was shot in the back while running away with his hands up ... yet all the bullet wounds show that to be complete and utter bullshit ... all the wounds entered from the front, and the wounds in his arm made it clear they were not in the air when he was shot. This came from an autopsy done by someone hired by the victims mother, NOT the local government. THAT SHIT is why the judge/da believe the cop by default, and THAT is why cops get by with being thugs in some instances. That sort of shit is also why MANY of them ARE thugs, because they deal with the trashiest of trashy people most of the time. Thats their job, by definition.

    These cameras will stop both sides from being such open and obvious racists. Well, no, it won't stop them, but it'll make it obvious for everyone else so we don't have riots in towns because a bunch of people wanted to cover each others asses and start shit because one guy was a different color than the other.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  32. Re:dear NYPD thug, by Cardoor · · Score: 1

    i stopped reading your novella after the first two sentences.. the stupidity made my brain hurt, so i skimmed a little of the rest.

    a) tongue-in-cheek humor is still humor. b) you still believe equitable resolution occurs a majority of the time by things going (and making it) to trial? how adorable.

  33. Re:dear NYPD thug, by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    but as soon as there is evidence rather than heresy they tend to back off and hang the cop out to dry Not true at all. I've sat in my local courthouse to watch for a few hours and see what really goes on - I watched multiple cases where there was no evidence at all, simply a cop's claims and they all resulted in guilty verdicts.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  34. Does it mater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If police are reluctant to share the names and details "death by cop", why should we expect them to share their videos?

  35. Houston by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Better get some for Houston too

    "Houston police shot to death a double amputee in a wheelchair who they said was trying to stab an officer with a pen."

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/...

    You can't make this shit up.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  36. Industrial equipment isn't customer equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't WANT it to be expensive, its expensive because they're built to be fucking tanks.

    http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e6420-xfr/pd

    And then theres military-grade (or MILSPEC) which is EVEN higher than that.

  37. Wasted money.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be amusing, since VieVu makes some of the shittiest body worn cameras on the market. We used to sell them, then dropped them because of poor quality, like the micro usb charging port that breaks all the time. Seriously, who's idea what THAT? Giving ham fisted police a delicate connector like that to use on a daily basis.

  38. Nope. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    Let's be clear, does the policeman misremembering and event change what actually happened in anyway?

    Doesn't change the event itself, no - but a pattern of errors can speak volumes about intent and state of mind. And many crimes (and torts) depend on intent and belief. So, note, do many defenses.

    What is being unsaid is that you are accusing either side of lying to cover up and thus the lying person must be a bad person worthy of punishment for that reason

    No. I am, in fact, relying on the deterrent effect of the video. I am trying to prevent lying, not catch someone in a lie. If you know your actions are being monitored, you will behave differently and note what happens more carefully. I'm not trying to 'trip people up'. I am trying to help make it so that testimony is actually accurate. If people are given the opportunity to slant their narrative, they will - this a human thing, hardly limited to police. By reducing the opportunity for this, by requiring people to more carefully examine their memories and words, I'm hoping to make "our justice system" better.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Nope. by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way, it is not like the Cop is going to forgot about the camera on them, there will already be a deterrence. However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

  39. can those $100 cameras by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    record for long enough on a charge, storage card, be pinned to a lapel and survive even a minimum of abuse?

  40. Price is shocking by maliqua · · Score: 1

    I honestly expected to see the camera's priced at like $20,000 each not because they need to be, just because of all the corruption fees all the way up.

    so kudos NYC i'm impressed 1k/camera is pretty close to reasonable.

  41. $10,000 per camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh..., that's $1,000 per camera...

  42. How about Freedom of Non-Association... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what? All the 'racist' whites who simply want to live around their own race, would MOVE to do so, and then the only whites left in contact with the poor, hard done by blacks, would be the insane libtards who actually WANT to live around them (yet think they have the right to FORCE the other 95% of white people, who don't want to live around other races, to do so, against their will).

    Why aren't all these poor, hard done by blacks MOVING TO AFRICA, to get away from whitey? Is there something wrong with Africa, that makes them not want to live there? Could it possibly be AFRICANS?

  43. Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if police didn't have enough stress, I don't understand why the camera in front of the car isn't sufficient. If an officer has any reason to take the suspect away from the camera, then something fishy is happening anyways, but to record every cop scratch and fart is taking it one step too far. I don't understand this record all mentality, you'd think we wouldn't have survived this far without it. Plus if any real corruption is going to happen, rest assured there will be unexplained gaps in the recording, so indeed this is only to shut any corruption claims up and nothing tangible in my opinion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  44. Re:These are great money-makers for cops and ex-co by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    That was a TV show.

    A work of fiction.

    You shouldn't take what you saw seriously. It's not real.

    What I'm trying to delicately explain to you, is that Heisenberg is still alive.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  45. Re:dear NYPD thug, by suutar · · Score: 1

    I'm not quite sure how your description of what happens when there is no evidence refutes GP's description of what happens when there is evidence. Although I'm pretty sure he meant "hearsay" instead of "heresy"

  46. Re:These are great money-makers for cops and ex-co by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is, if a knock arrives at my door -- under no circumstances should I answer it?

  47. I have an interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been thinking about this whole police brutality (or sheer abuse of power) for several months now and I think there may be a way to fix it.

    An act of reward and punishment. If someone at the police does a good job even if it was a little thing they should be rewarded. If however someone at the police has done something bad no matter how minor it might be they should be punished. Reward and punishment should fit the bill as well, which is very important.

    Officers with 12 strikes against them (think of it more as demerit points) i.e. too much force used, etc. should be sent to be re-educated. In addition to the re-education, they are required to perform a minimum of 200 hours of community service, outside of their police duties, and need to be on probation while performing their police duties for a minimum of 6 months to a year. If the officer racks up an additional 3 strikes during this time, their case will be reviewed by a jury (not a judge or committee or anything in-between). If found guilty, and all 3 strikes are used up, they would be removed from their police duties and cannot re-try again to be a police officer for a minimum of 3 years or more depending on the severity of each individual case.

    I believe this gives the power back to the community by a huge degree and all the bad apples would fall pretty quickly.

    How do i know this would work? I've been a police officer for 15 years (outside of the U.S.)

  48. Risks vs benefits and tradeoffs by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    However I think there is a real danger of honest mistakes being abused, and like I said most of the abuses I know about used those.

    If the cameras are only under the control of the people they are supposed to be monitoring, they will wind up being used only to clear, never to convict. I don't want the police getting any access to the videos that the accused doesn't have.

    Honest mistakes are already 'abused' in our legal system. Cameras add nothing to that. But they can - if the system is set up properly - reduce a whole host of other abuses.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!