Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the interesting-moves dept.

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.

12 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Nearly useless by barc0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Nearly useless by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Nearly useless by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      "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.

    3. Re:Nearly useless by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:Nearly useless by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Nearly useless by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      "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.

    6. Re:Nearly useless by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Nearly useless by pen-helm · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.")

  2. Should be compulsory everywhere by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

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

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Under their control is too soft by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    >> 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.

  4. Utterly. Fucking. Pointless. by geekmux · · Score: 2

    "...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.

  5. Pointless by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

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

    Straight from the Henhouse Investigation Committee chaired by foxes.