UK Police Begins Deployment of 22,000 Police Body Cameras (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: London's Metropolitan Police Service has begun a roll-out of 22,000 Body Worn Video (BWV) cameras to officers over the city's 32 boroughs after ten years of country-wide trials. The device, which records video only when the officer decides, has a 130-degree field of view and a 30-second buffer which permits police to begin recording even after an event has started. The makers of the camera also provide an Android/iOS app which can allow a remote viewer to connect to an officer's camera, effectively turning police operatives into walking CCTVs. Academic research has suggested that use of BWV cams can reduce complaints against officers by 93%, and the Met contends that the new technology, whose cloud-based systems erases unwanted videos after 31 days, is particularly effective in domestic violence cases.

Comments

Nearly useless

[barc0001]

"The device, which records video only when the officer decides"

That says it all. If it doesn't record all the time, there's no point to deploying them at all.

Re:Nearly useless

[Joce640k]

Not 100% true.

a) If a camera isn't activated during an incident then the officer puts his own word in doubt.

b) Police need privacy too. They have to pee and stuff, just like other people.

Re:Nearly useless

[pr0fessor]

The makers of the camera also provide an Android/iOS app which can allow a remote viewer to connect to an officer's camera, effectively turning police operatives into walking CCTVs

is it just me or does this sound like a hack waiting to happen... if they take the time to change the default password and actually secure them.

Re:Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Baby steps my friend.

It's easier to get buy in if they are in control of when it records. Once a body cam is as common as a badge, you start holding them accountable for unrecorded incidents or use unrecorded incidents as a reason to force them always on.

Re:Nearly useless

[barc0001]

"It was a fluid, dangerous situation and I didn't have time to be fumbling with a camera when my life was potentially at risk!"

"At the time it didn't seem worth recording"

Either of those will work quite well in court to the types that worship the ground cops walk on.

Re:Nearly useless

[CaptQuark]

b) Police need privacy too. They have to pee and stuff, just like other people.

Since when are Body Worn Cameras pointed at the officer's crotch? At best it will show a picture of the urinal or stall door. I doubt the police would release video of bathroom breaks. Unless the officer is facing a mirror, nothing will be on video.

--

Re: Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

You must also remember that most U.K. police do not carry guns. They're far less likely to kill someone than a trigger happy US cop.

Re:Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper control for needed privacy is a 5 minute stop recording button, automatic to reduce the incidence of "oh oops I forgot to turn it back on". And if the officer pushes that button and then acts officially in that time there should be doubt cast on the legitimacy of their actions. If the officer obviously uses the stop recording button when they aren't headed to the jon (or other permissible use) they should be punished.

Re:Nearly useless

[PhrostyMcByte]

b) Police need privacy too. They have to pee and stuff, just like other people.

It should be a 2 minute long off switch that beeps to warn it's about to reactivate. The action to stop recording needs to be an explicit recorded choice and made difficult to do for long periods of time so an officer can't claim to have "forgotten" to activate it. I'd rather have an accidental piss take than a convenient lack of recording when an officer is accused of excessive force.

Re: Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked with the Met for several years I can say, anecdotally at least, that they have a culture that would warrant heavy monitoring. Even though they don't have guns they have the ability to allow a suspect to "fall down the stairs to the cells" (an expression I've actually heard used by a Met officer).

Re:Nearly useless

[wonkey_monkey]

"It was a fluid, dangerous situation and I didn't have time to be fumbling with a camera when my life was potentially at risk!"

Yup, that pretty much sums up going to the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Nearly useless

[Joce640k]

"It was a fluid, dangerous situation and I didn't have time to be fumbling with a camera when my life was potentially at risk!"

Not gonna happen. Police need to arrive at incidents.

Plus there's no reason to think they won't have the camera on by default most of the time. Your assumption is that it will always be off and they need to turn it on when something bad happens. Who's to say it won't be the other way around - switched on by default?

This rule sounds to me like they just want to give officers the illusion of control. Officers might find it's in their best interests to leave it on all the time, just so people believe them.

Re: Nearly useless

[Joce640k]

Believe it or not, there are total gobshites who need to take those falls - people who spit in policeman's faces, etc.

Re:Nearly useless

[Joce640k]

Maybe that will be step 2. Firmware update.

Re: Nearly useless

[queazocotal]

So you record the fact of them spitting in the officers face, and you book them for it.
Policemen deciding to beat up people is never, ever the right answer.
Especially when their actions may not be what they appear on the surface.

Re: Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because police never use public restrooms that other people may be in at the time.

Re: Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the Irishman!

Re:Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like we are going to need a bigger Youtube.

Re: Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they usually that dark and with woolly hair?

Re:Nearly useless

[StormReaver]

"It was a fluid, dangerous situation and I didn't have time to be fumbling with a camera when my life was potentially at risk!"

"The Court is grateful that you were not hurt, but considering the importance of your actions to this proceeding, and the rampant lying the Court has experienced when lacking video evidence of Police actions, the Court rules for [the other party]."

"At the time it didn't seem worth recording"

"Considering the importance of your actions to this proceeding, and the rampant lying the Court has experienced when lacking video evidence of Police actions, the Court rules for [the other party]."

Problem solved.

Re:Nearly useless

[Ol Olsoc]

Not 100% true.

a) If a camera isn't activated during an incident then the officer puts his own word in doubt.

b) Police need privacy too. They have to pee and stuff, just like other people.

I'm not certain how it works in GB, but here in the states, the policeman's word is golden unless there are some pretty serious reasons to believe otherwise.

Re: Nearly useless

[Ol Olsoc]

Believe it or not, there are total gobshites who need to take those falls - people who spit in policeman's faces, etc.

And there are people who deserve molten iron enemas, too.

That's why we have the rule of law, not just someone who is pissed off at someone dispensing instant justice.

Re:Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

It then goes on to say "and a 30-second buffer which permits police to begin recording even after an event has started. "

so the initial statement is actually a lie, it is recording all the time, it just doesn't save it more permanently unless the officer tells it to within that 30 second grace period.

Re:Nearly useless

[jxander]

Cops are just digging their own graves if they don't record everything.

Bystander takes some cell phone video of an incident, maybe even edits it down to show a more anti-cop version, and what's that? ... the cop wasn't recording at the time??

Well doesn't that all seem rather suspect.

Re:Nearly useless

[AHuxley]

To get around clothing, glasses, fashion that makes traditional look down CCTV facial recognition useless.
With better 3d like facial recognition a side on or more direct image can match a face that could have been lost to a gov database.
To get a legal voice print.
The classic big camera of what was a Forward Intelligence Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would often stand out and might not get that face image needed.
A lot of smaller cameras covering a group of protesters at a closer range might just get that a new face of interest.
Great for chat downs too. A part of the uniform over time it might fool a person into talking, away from the camera in a sit down interview setting.
With open boarders and mass illegal migration the only way to get people into any gov database is to get a lot of street level image to make up for a totally non exist boarder control.
A totally illegal network of support services ensures a lack of contact with any other gov id networks.
Medical, taxation, employment documents are just not been ask for i.e. the expected internal photo id system is not working at any level.

Police walking down a busy street and seeing if people walk away, change direction, run, look away or try to alter their clothing can be a good result to add to a national database. The remote viewers might have decades of local knowledge, be an informant or have real time language skills.
Captured sentences or words of warning in a foreign language or slang as police walk the area everyday can build up a database of all locals employing illegal workers.
In the past it would be a routine patrol in uniform, smiles and nods, hearts and minds, chat downs and trying to create informants. Now almost every word and every new face is on file.

Re:Nearly useless

[pen-helm]

An in-depth article about when cop cams work and when they make things worse:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consu...
("... the problem seems to arise mainly when officers are allowed to turn cameras on at times of their own choosing.")

Re:Nearly useless

[rtb61]

The camera needs to be activated by the officer using their radio. Dispatch can then switch off the camera upon request of the officer. Officers should also carry a phablet with all the laws searchable, so they can substantiated their claim with the citizen, that the citizen, that the officer claims they witnessed the citizens breaking a law and there is the law as proof and video evidence. So use the radio, switch on the camera and dispatch then switches it off (should be two cameras, a higher resolution forward camera and a low resolution back facing camera, safety issue, when camera goes on, there should be an officer monitoring the output again as a safety issue). Every formal interaction should be recorded but the officer does have the right of a hard wired off switch.

Re:Nearly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the right solution to b) is a lapel pin light that says "ON DUTY", perhaps paired with another one that says "OFF DUTY". If the light is on, the camera is recording, and the officer is on duty.

If the light is off (or OFF DUTY is lit), the camera is not recording. The police officer is now a normal citizen with normal citizen's rights.

Now the officer can have his privacy during his breaks, including restroom breaks, and the rest of the world knows when they're on a break (and thus not a police officer) and when they're not in a break (and thus can do things a police officer can).

I'd also say if there's no video, the court must assume the police officer was off duty and thus has no special rights and thus can't effect an arrest, detain people, write tickets, etc etc. Anyone in court should win by default by saying "Show me the video" and if the cops can't provide, case closed.

Re:Nearly useless

[RivenAleem]

You know you are perfectly entitled to wear a body camera of your own that records only when you want it to?

Re:Nearly useless

[barc0001]

If courts worked like that now we wouldn't need police cameras. Do you seriously think there's going to be a sea change in their attitudes? Doubtful.

Re: Nearly useless

[barc0001]

While the idea is tempting, the problem is the impossibility of even enforcement and the whole judge/jury/implementer problem.

As an example, say your best friend gets a little drunk and a cop comes up to him to try to get him to go home. He's not having any of it and spits at the cop. So the cop takes out his baton and clocks your friend across the head to "tune him up a little" and then takes him in. Your friend sits in the drunk tank with a pounding headache and is released in the morning with a bump on the head for being a doofus, lesson learned. Fair play right?

Now imagine that blow had the same force but was at just the wrong angle. Your friend suffers a small brain bleed from the impact but since he's drunk nobody listens to his complaint or notices the odd coordination problems. He sits in the drunk tank until the morning when he's found to be unresponsive. He's rushed to the hospital and after surgery has permanent brain damage. Did your friend deserve to be crippled for life by spitting on a cop? No?

That's why we don't hand out physical violence as summary punishments.

Should be compulsory everywhere

[Oswald McWeany]

Should be compulsory everywhere, and subject to checks by independent reviewers. Helps prevent police abuse AND false accusations against the police.

Re:Should be compulsory everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Helps prevent police abuse AND false accusations against the police.

Here's a few arguments against. I agree with two, and disagree with two, but the idea that more surveillance solves everything is a very bad one to hold to.

Clean cops: "While I generally don't see the harm, having every slip-up recorded and held against me at internal review would make me nervous and impair my ability to do my job."
Crooked cops: "The rules on the books form an impossible standard to follow and accomplish anything. Sometimes, you just gotta break a kneecap."
Lawful civilians: "Sounds good in theory, but I don't want someone fishing through recordings of traffic stops for a misused word that can be taken out of context and used to get a search warrant. I like my dog."
Criminals: "The only defense I've got is a pity play claiming that the cops used excessive force. No way I want contrary evidence."

Should be recording all the time

[hawguy]

If it has a 30 second buffer to let the camera capture events that have already passed, then it must be recording all the time.

So why not save recorded video all the time? A GoPro can record 4 hours on a 32GB flash card, so a 128GB card would hold 12 hours of video -- more then enough for a shift.

The video doesn't need to be saved forever, it can be held on a storage system for 2 weeks (which is only around 1TB of storage per officer) to allow requests for video to be held for investigation.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

> only around 1TB of storage per officer

so with 30000+ officers that's "only" 30 petabytes of storage they'll need.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

You make that sound like it's not feasible to do.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[HornWumpus]

Even with what government pays: About 2 days pay for the force of 30,000.

I think they could drop the frame rate a bit as well.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[hawguy]

> only around 1TB of storage per officer

so with 30000+ officers that's "only" 30 petabytes of storage they'll need.

Right. Is that a lot of storage these days? Anything times 30,000 is a large number, if a police officer's badge costs $100 to make, it costs over $3M just to outfit the force with badges.

A TB of enterprise storage, including backups costs around $500 - $2000/year these days (Amazon will rent you 1 TB of triple replicated storage for around $300/year) -- just a few percent of an officer's salary, and if the camera keeps the officer out of court just once for a false claim of abuse, it will have more than paid for itself.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

A single 1TB drive costs what? $100 absolute max? And how many officers in your average station? Say 20 on average? So that's $2000 worth of storage per station, depreciated over say 3 years. All the officer needs to do is plug in his camera after his shift and let the video upload (with files > timeout old automatically deleted). Seems like a drop in the ocean budget-wise, and does what the GP wants.

Remember that not everything needs to be centralised: sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[jezwel]

The video would be an official record, which means retention schedules kick in - you can't just delete it because no one has asked for it yet.
It could quite easily be required to be kept for 2 / 6 /10 years.
Oh and they need to be managed, so you can search for the time/date/officer/location.

That 1TB per officer per fortnight could end up being a billion dollar information management system...

Re:Should be recording all the time

[hawguy]

The video would be an official record, which means retention schedules kick in - you can't just delete it because no one has asked for it yet.
It could quite easily be required to be kept for 2 / 6 /10 years.
Oh and they need to be managed, so you can search for the time/date/officer/location.

That 1TB per officer per fortnight could end up being a billion dollar information management system...

They are already discarding the videos after 31 days:

The new cameras are turned on by officers as necessary during dealings with the public or attendance at crime scenes, and automatically upload stored video when reconnected to a dock later at the station. Videos saved are discarded after 31 days unless earmarked as evidence, and any affected member of the public may request a copy of the video within that time-period.

Re:Should be recording all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

point being that if it's not in the original budget then getting an extra couple of mil isn't an "only" thing.

otherwise "a few percent" salalry increase for the cops wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Re:Should be recording all the time

[hawguy]

point being that if it's not in the original budget then getting an extra couple of mil isn't an "only" thing.

otherwise "a few percent" salalry increase for the cops wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Point being that it should be in the budget -- having police cameras that the police can decide when to turn on protects the police more than it protects citizens.

Under their control is too soft

[JustNiz]

>> The device, which records video only when the officer decides,

I realise no-one wants to watch them in the bathroom, but having it totally under their control is too soft.
There at least needs to be a way to ensure they can't just turn it off then give someone a beating or whatever.
Maybe a rule that says they HAVE to have it turned on whenever they are dealing with the public, and that any arrest made without camera coverage is illegal/invalid.

Re:Under their control is too soft

[Anonymous Coward]

arrest made without camera coverage is illegal/invalid.

Much as I agree with the sentiment, there's always the "busted camera" situation/excuse, which the defense might use to put a criminal back on the street.

sooner or later, Rule 34

[turkeydance]

comes into play.

Utterly. Fucking. Pointless.

[geekmux]

"...The device, which records video only when the officer decides..."

"...the new technology, whose cloud-based systems erases unwanted videos after 31 days..."

Well, I'm certain court cases will be delayed just long enough for the cloud retention rules to take care of any issue that might arise against the police department.

Seems we've forgotten about the entire fucking purpose of these things.

Actually, it's ALWAYS ON

[l2718]

Read the story: the camera is actually continuously recording into a 30-second buffer. When the officer starts recording, the previous 30 seconds are uploaded as well as any ongoing video. This actually has serious privacy implications:

1. Authorities can remotely access the feed even if the officer hasn't "turned on recording". They can even remotely record the feed independently of the officer. So now whenever you see a police officer the police may be recording you even if the officer says otherwise.
2. The officer gets no privacy from his supervisors. He can't speak privately with his family members, or just talk to a shopkeeper.

That said, I agree that there should be an evidentiary presumption against the government whenever camera footage is claimed to be unavailable though it should be rebuttable (e.g. in the case of a true malfunction).

Re:Actually, it's ALWAYS ON

[queazocotal]

Err - no.
It will be likely recording into an internal buffer, not streaming.
Streaming would be quite expensive for 30000 officers.
The problem is that the officer has privacy against internal affairs.
Supervisors should not get routine access.

Re:Actually, it's ALWAYS ON

[l2718]

Plaese read the story: the camera records into an internal buffer and also streams in real time.

It's actually worse than you think

[l2718]

On the one hand, the story makes it clear that the camera is always on and viewable by authorities; the officer just has control on whether it is locally overwriting a 30-second buffer or keeping a complete record. So even if the officer "keeps it off" in the bathroom, his supervisors can still snoop on him (no sound is transmitted though).

On the other hand, I agree that there needs to be a rule requiring officers to turn the cameras on -- but I don't think that arrests without the camera on should be invalid. Police have been making valid arrests without cameras for a long time. Rather, when there is a dispute between the police and a member of the public about the interaction (say, did the officer use excessive force? did the suspect make a threatening motion?), if video is unavailble there should be a evidentialry presumption against the government (so by default their story is not believed if they can't produce the video). But this should be rebuttable -- if the camera really failed, for example (say it was damaged during the altercation) then we should be back in the pre-camera world of competing stories.

Re:It's actually worse than you think

[JustNiz]

>> if the camera really failed, for example (say it was damaged during the altercation)

Need to be VERY careful about ruling around this otherwise there WILL be a spate of officers "accidentally" damaging/disabling it.

Re:It's actually worse than you think

[JustNiz]

> Police have been making valid arrests without cameras for a long time.

Sure but this technology wasn't really available. You could make a similar argument that people have been driving relatively safely for hundreds of years, but you can bet that won't stop the government from making humans driving cars illegal (on safety grounds) the moment that self-driving cars are perceived to be able to reliably take over.

Re:It's actually worse than you think

[swillden]

On the other hand, I agree that there needs to be a rule requiring officers to turn the cameras on -- but I don't think that arrests without the camera on should be invalid. Police have been making valid arrests without cameras for a long time.

Over time, that may take care of itself. When judges and juries become accustomed to always having footage of the arrest, often from multiple angles, they may begin to consciously or unconsciously discount the officer's statements if not supported by video evidence.

Also, unless they have a very specific reason to turn it off, most cops will realize they're better off having it on because the fact that they're not recording doesn't mean someone *else* isn't, and that someone else may well produce carefully selected out-of-context footage that shows the officer in a bad light. In various articles I've read from around the US, police on the street are overwhelmingly in favor of body cameras. They feel like the cameras do more to protect them than to harm them.

In addition to

[AndyKron]

This is in addition to the 22 million cameras already in place.

Pointless

[ThatsNotPudding]

The device, which records video only when the officer decides...

Straight from the Henhouse Investigation Committee chaired by foxes.

Wait... these allow remote viewing by app?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The makers of the camera also provide an Android/iOS app which can allow a remote viewer to connect to an officer's camera, effectively turning police operatives into walking CCTVs"

Apps that allow anonymous public viewing of officer cameras nearby coming in 3... 2... 1...

Apps that can forcibly connect to these cameras and can turn them on/off will be available shortly thereafter...

Russia to be blamed for developing these apps (in an attempt to influence anti-government sentiment) are expected immediately after the release of said apps.

7% too stupid not to fear retribution

[Anonymous Coward]

If the video isn't on all the time, there is no point. By "video only" did they mean it would only record then, or it wouldn't do audio for awhile while the police officer in question says something he or she shouldn't.

Kettle of fish

[Anonymous Coward]

... particularly effective in domestic violence cases.

The UK police doesn't have a history of random assault on citizens. They've certainly haven't shot a law-abiding citizen. They don't carry guns, not even in their cars: The only country to do so, although several countries have disarmed their citizens, similar to the UK. So all those Yanks can shut the fuck up, about police brutality.

The need for the police to be watched 24/7, is a lot lower in the UK. There's still a camera in the car, so the police are being watched sufficiently. This additional camera is more for collecting evidence at the scene. Since a UK cop can't claim he "feared for his safety" and start shooting, he has an incentive to escalate conflict in a controlled manner and provide evidence that the suspect was a threat to the safety of other people.

Re:Kettle of fish

[radio4fan]

They've certainly haven't shot a law-abiding citizen.

Here's three straight off the top of my head, and that's just the Met:

Harry Stanley
Jean Charles de Menezes
Stephen Waldorf

It goes both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for everyone else to get body cams now too.

Everyone is putting cameras in their vehicles so why not.

Re:It goes both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, the courts might not work anymore, but as long as everyone is secretly videotaping everyone else, justice will be done."
- Marge Simpson (ex-policewoman)

Re:Utterly. Fucking. Pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

The entire fucking purpose is to get police officers getting off the hook?

Re:Utterly. Fucking. Pointless.

[geekmux]

Huh?

The entire fucking purpose is to get police officers getting off the hook?

I was being a bit sarcastic here, but yes, the purpose of police officers wearing cameras stemmed from illegal acts of aggression towards citizens, which we are now able to see and address when it occurs. The issue I have with the cloud retention rules is it tends to open the door for other questionable tactics to delay complaints against officers, and could easily allow evidence to essentially vaporize in the cloud after 31 days before the evidence can be presented or properly flagged and retained for a trial. My sarcasm was identifying that rather obvious (by design?) deficiency.

History has shown us what happens when law enforcement has almost no accountability. And it's unacceptable.

free p0rn

[Anonymous Coward]

Call the police on a bogus complaint to a brothel or strip club, activate the android app linked to the body camera, then you have free p0rn. It also works if you want to embarrass someone or catch a soon-to-be ex-lover while recording the video for your attorney.