Slashdot Mirror
Obama Offers Funding For 50,000 Police Body Cameras
An anonymous reader writes: Today President Obama announced $263 million worth of funding for law enforcement agencies around the country to outfit officers with body cameras and improve training. The money requires matching funds from state and local authorities, and the $75 million dedicated to body-cams should buy about 50,000 of them. This is in response to the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. "Obama also plans to overhaul how the federal government disperses military equipment to local police departments, the White House said Monday. ... The Ferguson police department deployed officers wearing gas masks, military fatigues, stun guns and rubber bullets during the initial protests. Studies show the procurement of military equipment by police departments has been on the rise as law enforcement has been allowed to cheaply purchase gear originally deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Up here in Washington State, several police agencies have embraced the idea of Body Cams. And while there has been no philosophical push-back about public access to Body Cam footage by the coppers, a recent Public Records Request illustrates a more fiscal problem...
A public records request was made for all Body Cam footage for the last year from several local departments that have been experimenting with the technology. Why should this be a probem, after all, just burn it all to a CD and send it to the guy?
The are three issues: Privacy - not every interaction a police officer has is in a public place or does not contain things than fall under privacy rules.
Second is commercial use - You know those Mug Shot Extortion sites? The ones that publish mug shots but for a small fee of several hundred dollars will take yours down? Same thing.
Third is the fiscal issue - The time to parse through a requst for "all your files for the year" for privacy issues and other things that simply should not end up on a commercial "shock" site or YouTube, this will cost a butt-load.
So it's become an issue. Here is a Seattle Times article on the subject: http://seattletimes.com/html/l...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
it just seems another step to pervasive surveillance.
This is going to ensure police are held accountable but the root of the problem is the lack of respect people have for people of authority. Once suspects listen to police (e.g. stop running, don't resist, etc.) we'll have less problems.
Why is this a federal charge? While I firmly believe all cops should wear cameras, I also firmly believe individual departments should be paying for them.
time to buy some gopro stock?
Wyoming, maybe. there's lots of 'em.
$1500/badycam. Cheaper to get them all iPhones with lanyards.
What are they hiding? What else are they spending money on that they don't want us to know about?
Mod parent up.
Washington State has a very good public records law; but this is sometimes a problem. The press should be able to get police body cam feeds, probably, and certainly on matters of public concern but realistically it causes more harm than good to have all police bodycam feeds publicly available through, for example, data-mining firms.
Should the time cops broke up that party a kid was at be available, in video, for the rest of the kid's life?
How about the time the couple at the end of the block fought and a noise complaint got called in? Should future employers be able to get access to recordings of people at the worst moments of their lives?
Fortunately, you don't have the sense God gave a piss ant to find your way to a voting booth.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
won't fix the hiring process that lets many borderline (or perhaps not so borderline) psychos wear a badge and carry (and use) a gun... not to forget the equally psycho lawmakers that make the fucked up laws (not all laws are bad, however, just all lawmakers) the psychos with a badge (and a gun, don't forget), with the backing of the crazed psycho prosecutors, get to "enforce" (and often, interpret; and sometimes judge and execute punishment)
too bad more than half that money will go in the pocket of some a-holes instead of funding this.
The laws need to be changed to allow everyone (not 'on the clock' working in a public service job) to run around in masks.
There are already ways criminals can ensure their anonymity, even while committing crimes. Why don't honest citizens have those same protections?
society functions on trust. you can't have civil society with people who are anonymous. you need to see their emotions and their intent. even wearing sunglasses is evasive and makes you seem untrustworthy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
expansive much for a camera?!
I guess it's the body part that makes it a costly proposition
50,000 body cameras will cover about 7% of all (~700,000) sworn officers, 21% if you assume 3 shifts, with cameras shared across shifts. Of course, some departments have already deployed cameras, and not all sworn officers are out on the beat all the time, so that will improve 'coverage' somewhat. This will probably put us up into the 30-35% range.
Not a bad start, but it needs to improve.
You people are slipping.
Instead of the internet sites "teenage sexy webcams LIVE" There will be "best of" police body cam sites....geez... What it should be, is a 30-60 minute loop. It should work similar to an airplane cockpit voice recorder. Continuously record the last 60 minutes. If something happens, simply have the shift supervisor shut it off. Yeah not perfect, but something like that. You know good and well, if it is SAVED, and something "goes to trial" or something the news media will chop, splice it to fit their agenda, as well as the police, for their agenda.
I demand the return of 50,000 grenade launchers that were gifted to cops (I prefer the old-school "pigs") by DOD while Congress was distracted by something.
Will that quarter-billion dollars come from?
As a question, why is this a federal problem?
Ken
"Smile for your free Obamacam photo!"
For the most relevant example to this funding, go read the detailed incident reports Darren Wilson wrote about the Michael Brown incident, or the mandated ones from the Ferguson PD. Oh wait, you can't, since they contain little more than time and date and statement that there was a shooting, and were done too long after the incident. With an event like this, where the documentation is all but nonexistent - for whatever reason - cameras provide a more-reliable narrative. Wish it weren't so, but it is.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
FOIA also allows agencies to charge reasonable charges for documents they produce
FOIA only applies to the Federal government, not local and state government.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Demand all you want, it's federal funding for military gear, i.e. armored vehicles transferred to local police departments to carry out the police state. If it's coming from Obama, then that means more of your rights curtailed. If you don't Think of the Children, you're committing a thoughtcrime citizen!
-to you by Penisbird Exploited that. A enjoy the loud I'll 4ave offended
As the Yipppeeee poster, I am offended by your vulgarity. Frist Psot posts should be positive and respectful of all.
I might be rocking the boat by wondering this, but in most developed nations, if an unarmed person was gunned down the way Michael Brown was (regardless of what crime he had committed), you don't get rewarded with over USD 200 mil in gifts and training. Officer Wilson could have shot to disable rather than kill - but of course, someone will say he didn't get enough training. Officer Wilson could have toughed up and faced a charge by Michael Brown (if he was doing just that) without shooting his gun - but someone would point out that police training dictates another set of actions, and that the training was at fault. Officer Wilson could have just waited for backup to arrive instead of taking on two individuals by himself, and if he lost the suspects he wouldn't be losing mass murderers, since he would have been issued the code that the young man was wanted for.
By not doing what was needed, which was to make an example of Officer Wilson's incorrect decision-making, the US is creating a law enforcement precedent that allows blaming the training for bad decisions. IMO, the Obama administration is further highlighting this precedent by approving this funding for equipment and training. Does this not conflict with the legally established precedent of Graham v Connor, where it was determined that use of force must be governed by principles that any other reasonable officer would uphold? Is the US now saying that the majority of officers would have opted to shoot Michael Brown given the circumstances? Is that not what Obama is acceding to with his generous gift: that the current training dictates the same reaction across the board?
Will body cameras truly improve the reactionary measures taken by officers in the field? Had Officer Wilson been wearing a body camera, he may well have acted no differently. Officer Wilson did not take into account the audience on the street and in the buildings around him, nor did he wonder that there may be surveillance cameras of buildings, ATMs, etc., or the existence of smartphones. He was so caught up in the moment that he did not consider any of that. For an individual like that, would a body camera be a deterrent?
They foresaw the extensive used of rubber bullets forty years ago.
The Circle: Meanwhile, the Circle continues to develop a range of sophisticated technologies, including SeeChange, light, portable cameras that can provide real-time video with minimal efforts. Eventually, SeeChange cameras are worn all day long by politicians wishing to be 'transparent', allowing the public to see what they are seeing at all times.
Record everything you do, and only save the exculpatory footage*.
*footage - we all know what that means, right? Like "dialing" a phone...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
WTF?
They missed your script proposal. They were too amazed at how you shot the pen out of their fingers.
Sorry, I can't get past the concept "of shoot to wound" or "Let the assailant get closer to you" fallacies. What the hell is "toughed up" even supposed to mean? Get into a physical confrontation and possibly get your weapon taken away, etc? And if it was a female cop should she have "toughed up"?
You aim for the biggest part of the target, not the smallest that moves in unpredictable patterns.
Like police officers are being trained to take down opponents who outweigh them by 100 lbs.
You don't train one group of officers with one set of criteria, and another group with a different set. That creates more confusion in the deployment of force.
And I guess that is another "what if". What if the Wilson had been a female officer? Would the expectations have been the same? Would there have been rioting?
I might have a different opinion if i lived in ferguson. Of course, I might have monkeys flying out of my ass too. So, all in all, i'm glad i don't live in ferguson. It's a shithole.
In Wichita, Kansas we voted and raised funding for cameras worn on police. Many officers refused to wear them and wouldnt go to work until the were no longer forced to wear them. Their union went to bat for them and the city caved and no officer is required to wear them if they so choose not to..
So its the police.. they dont care.. they do what they want.
That DID NOT stop GW Bush from being elected, did it?
You spelled peasant wrong.
What's a few mil to keep law enforcement accountable? I just wished they were being purchased with DEA funds.
Why not fund cameras using the money they stole via civil forfeiture?
How generous of him and Michelle to dip into their personal fortune for this issue they care so much abo.... what? You say they're giving away other peoples money for this?
Yea, lets spend 263 million that we don't have. Nothing like spending money to try to get your approval rating up. Even with a video people would still protest and burn down buildings.
I don't object police from getting them, but don't use federal tax payer money on them, at very least cut spending from something else other then the military to fund it.
Is it just me or $1500 seems a bit overpriced for each camera (and that include probably a discount since they're buying so many of them).
They should ask GoPro to make one for them. I guarantee you they're gonna get more for the money and they will be a lot better.
until it becomes illegal to switch them off.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Police is not beholden to hand to defense record of your interrogation, police is not beholden to tell you the truth during interrogation, police is only disallowed a few obvious things (like hitting you physically) but pretty much the rest is allowed.
I think the Black community who may embrace this may think twice if its implemented. It may show a dark side of what Police deal with on a day to day basis that don't reflect well on the camera. I think its a great ideal, but it will definitely resolve many questions in cases of Police shootings and accusations. I wonder what would have happened if the officer that shot and killed Michael Brown had a camera and showed the violent record of what Brown and the Officer did? Would it change anything in the minds of the family or the community who generally seem to already have a distrust of the Police. Camera's on officers will obviously set the record straight in a court of law. But it probably won't help resolve the issues.
Where in the constitution is the president granted power to offer government money to anyone? Oh, it's not there, that's congress's duty.
If some town thinks they need this, let them spend THEIR money. Washington and Obama, STOP spending MY money!
The Police in my town do not need this, they are well trained and hard working.
Stop spending MY money.
How far will 50,000 cameras go, nationwide, when the NYPD alone has some 34,500 troops?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/h...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
start with traffic tickets no video = no ticket (even DUI's just to make the cops have the system working) with no need to go to court.
I thought Congress was the source of all funding for federal programs. Is the White House simply making the announcement that the funding is available?
Keep the National Government Out of Local Police Forces.
I would like to know why this (a good thing) is being intentionally confused in the media with the militarization of the police force with military gear and weapons (a bad thing)
... isn't that the usual argument from proponents of surveillance on everybody else?
That said, there IS a problem with privacy, even though this video will technically become a public record. Police see people at their worst and most vulnerable moments, and there's a big difference between "one or two human beings saw me" and "video of me is plastered online". (Note - I'm not talking about criminals, I'm talking about victims, or people in accidents, or medical emergencies.) Access to the video should be limited the same way that crime scene and autopsy photos are limited (or supposed to be) - anyone can look in city hall, but not copy or distribute. OTOOH video being "lost" or "missing" is blatant evidence that someone is hiding something.
There's no free lunch. If the feds pay for these cameras, they're going to want first access to all the video content.
Cameras are really, really cheap these days. They can be purchased for the cost of a single lawsuit. No fed $$ needed.
It's not 'coming from Obama'. It's coming from Congress. They're the folks who passed the law enabling the military to sell decommissioned gear to police departments.
No, but for an individual like Brown, knowing the cops wear cameras may have convinced him *not* to assault a police officer in the first place. Then he'd still be alive, and his town wouldn't have suffered through 2 sets of riots, arson and looting.
Doesn't technology exist for such capabilities of facial recognition and instant identification through Driver's Licenses and Passport photo data bases which when called upon by voice command such as 'Face ID', an officer who is active on line could call for such an instant identification and alert to potential threats if he was attached to a camera and digital voice microphone?
Seemingly, such a capability could eliminate non threats from being of high concern if there is a situation that needed to be quickly diffused.
Google, get busy.
What everyone is forgetting is that the President doesn't have any money to give anyone for police cameras. He can make all kinds of promises and do any kabuki dance he wants, but the money has to come from congress. At best, he can make a request to congress for the funding or put it into the budget he requests, but he can't just start handing out money. If the President really cared, he would work on something more substantial rather than simply concentrate on feel good theater.
Assume for the moment that the grand jury made the right decision in this instance, and that the officer had a video camera and what it showed matched all the evidence that the grand jury based its decision on.
How many believe this would have stopped, or even reduced, the riots?
Regardless of all the other considerations, what about the actual storage? 50,000 cameras that are filming most of every day is a lot of video footage. How are they storing the video, and using what rules (i.e. how long it is kept for etc...). (or even how it can be searched for or retrieved with that much video)
Just managing the storage requirements could be daunting, particularly if the Feds are picking up the cost for the units, but the local cop departments have to somehow be IT experts?
If the crime happens in public, and it IS a crime, I paid, I want to see it. Even if I have to wait til court is over, but as public OWNER of the footage I demand to see a return on my investment. Protect the innocent by holding the film 'till after court. If they are guilty release it, if not, it wasn't a crime and it's no ones business. Whatever I do with MY footage then, is MY business. Fuck the guilty.
Police officer finds 9-year old girl, unconscious behind some bushes IN A PUBLIC PARK, completely nude and obviously the victim of a sex assault. The scene is captured on camera.
Using this real life scenario, care to run your "I paid, I want to see it" rant by me again? Are you really that obtuse or unable to think analytically that you fail to see how your idea is utterly idiotic?
This will only give more data to misinterpret.
Obama also plans to overhaul how the federal government disperses military equipment to local police departments, the White House said Monday.
This is pure political spin since funding for militarizing the police is coming from the Obama regime via Homeland Security. Replace the word "disperses" with "pushes" and it would be more accurate. We don't have a lot of violent crime here and yet our town of 20,000 recently bought its police department an armored car, sold at a cut-rate to law enforcement by Homeland Security.
In a DUI case, the prosecution withheld the video evidence. Since a suite of other charges (something like 12 additional charges) had been added to the DUI--resisting, assault on officer, ...--the video was possibly exculpatory. When the defense lawyer pointed out that prosecution had not turned over the dash cam video as requested, the judge stopped proceedings and ordered the prosecution to produce the tape. He was mad, too, you could tell. IIRC, he said 24 hours or you'll be in contempt and we'll have a mistrial. Jury was dismissed until the tape was located.
When we came back, the tape was played. *Somehow* the tape showed the cops driving up to the scene, then 20 minutes of snow, then magically cleared back to normal video showing the tow truck removing the accused's car.
Because of that tape being withheld and then magically showing nothing for the duration of the event in question (erased? disconnected?), when we deliberated, the first thing we did was ignore all the tacked on charges. We considered and convicted on the DUI based only on the fact that the wreck happened and the BAC test was positive. Because of the prosecution and police actions with the tape, we basically ignored every word of testimony from officers on the scene and never considered a single charge except the original DUI.
As it turned out, we found out in sentencing that it was the 8th DUI for the guy, and the judge expressed his opinion that we had done exactly right in finding as we did for the other charges. He had words for the prosecution that were probably pretty damning for a judge not on a TV show.
nm
they robbed store and that was on the camera.
WTF is going on in that ferguson????
they robbed store and that was on the camera.
WTF is going on in that ferguson????
Sure, but in the US we don't allow summary execution for robbery. The fact that the guy who was gunned down is a scumbag isn't really relevant to the question as to whether there was misuse of lethal force.
Burning down the city isn't an appropriate response to all of this nonsense, but this was really just the spark that lit a powder keg. Cameras and openness make for good relationships in general. Lots of cities have cases where black people get shot by white cops and there aren't these kinds of reactions because the police have good relationships with the people being policed. Even so, I advocate cameras everywhere. They help defend the innocent as much as they indict the guilty.
All video, all the time via Goolge Cloud services!
Time to wear the T-shirts with statements like "Jury Nullification", "42USC1983", "Political Prisoner", "Orwell + 30", "Inadmissible As Evidence", etc.