Slashdot Mirror
Can Technology Prevent Cops From Forgetting To Turn On Their Body Cameras? (fastcompany.com)
tedlistens writes from a report via Fast Company: Axon, Taser's growing police camera division, has announced a new wireless sensor for gun and Taser holsters that can detect when a weapon is drawn and automatically activate all nearby cameras. The sensor, Signal Sidearm, is part of a suite of products aimed at reducing the possibility that officers will fail to switch on their cameras during encounters with the public. It happens more than it should: Last year in Chicago, for instance, an officer apparently forgot to turn on his camera before fatally shooting and killing an unarmed 18-year-old named Paul O'Neal. Taser isn't alone in trying to address this and other technical and procedural issues with cameras, but reformers emphasize that just as body cameras won't solve problems with policing, new sensors won't prevent officers from failing to record. Fast Company adds: "Automatically-activated cameras won't be completely effective at providing oversight of police encounters: As happened when Baton Rouge police shot Alton Sterling last year, cameras can fall off during physical encounters, a problem that Taser has worked to address. They can also malfunction, or videos can be deleted. And civil liberties advocates complain that cameras are only as effective as the rules that guide their use: [...] the ACLU has complained that current city policy allowing officers to switch cameras off for privacy reasons gives police too much discretion over when to record. Other issues with cameras being resolved at the local level include the heavy costs of cloud video storage, and the question of whether officers are allowed to view their footage immediately after violent encounters -- a privilege not extended to the public."
Was talking about this with my brother and he brought up the best Upton Sinclare qoute of all time:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
You'll always have footage go missing and cams get shut off because it's part of the system. The public is complacent in the whole thing. So a higher up comes along and tells the techies to make the footage disappear and it does. Period. And we all look the other way when a black guy in a poor neighborhood gets shot and 3-5 officers have a camera malfunction instead of demanding they all get fired for not maintaining their equipment. Hell, even when they do get fired they just move to another precinct...
I'm reminded of long haul truckers. I couldn't figure out how they cheated their books with GPSes and electronic logs. The answer: They only spot check individual logs of individual drivers and they warn the driver being checked before hand. My buddy hated it because he never cheated a log so his driver manager made sure he was always the one to get checked. He eventually gave up the line of work because he couldn't find a way to do it without cheating and he's the paranoid type.
This is the same damn thing. We don't need more tech. We need to use the tech we already have.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Depending on scenario, turning on camera(s) when gun is drawn could provide little to no context of actions leading up to shooting rendering video next to worthless in determining whether excessive force was used. Adoption of this tech by police departments would very likely encourage leaving cameras off and many recordings wouldn't provide anything of value.
The issue only arises if the video is required for a future trial. Hell, high-def video of what she looked like when the officers arrived on the scene might even be used as evidence IN HER FAVOR.
If the video is never requested for trial (maybe nothing happened, maybe there was a plea bargain or whatever) it just sits and collects proverbial dust on a hard drive somewhere.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yes, because you really want video proof to put those bastards behind bars for a long time.
No, I don't think they should be shot on the spot. I want a functioning justice system, and that means that the cop shouldn't pass judgement or act as executioner.
What we need to do is to stop taking a cops witness-report as more reliable than any other.
They should use that camera to collect evidence that is more reliable than just their words.
If the video handed in to the courts contains gaps it should be treated as if the video has been tampered with.
The video isn't something that should be available for everyone to tap into whenever they like. It is evidence that should be handed to the court to back up, clarify or disprove other reports given.
Step 1: remove the off switch. Step 2: there is no step 2.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
But we all know, with government's history of naming acts and such to mean the exact opposite (USA-PATRIOT Act, anyone?), it would end up with government twisting it around 180 degrees to civilians receiving the shocks if they're not under surveillance, not police.
But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address. It's the entire culture and mentality that must be addressed.
It used to be that in the US there were no such things as police sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc. The quasi-military rank structure came into being IIRC in Los Angeles California(?). It seems that since this change to quasi-military ranks and organization it has contributed heavily to a 'war' type 'us vs them' mentality. A military organization is good to occupy, pacify, and destroy. It's not good as everyday local domestic law enforcement in a non-wartime/revolution, peacetime setting.
The 'war on (some) drugs' also greatly exacerbates an already-bad problem.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"cameras can fall off during physical encounters"
Really? I wonder how often badges fall off during encounters. They're wearing a uniform. Make it a uniform standard to secure it in a field-proven way. Problem solved.
"They can also malfunction"
Make it the responsibility of the officer to check their equipment prior to going on duty, as they should do for ALL of their equipment. Any malfunction that impacts a legal case or fails to record a violent act will be thoroughly investigated by Internal Affairs and subject to 3rd party review. Cameras are evidence gathering devices, so any officer that purposely causes a "malfunction" will face charges of destruction of evidence.
"or videos can be deleted."
Cameras are the responsibility of the officer. Any reports of deleted data will be subject to investigation. If it is determined that the loss of data was not caused by malfunction, then the officer will face mandatory suspension without pay for 2 weeks. If the data loss interferes with a legal case, then the officer will also be charged with destruction of evidence.
If you're going to create a standard, then enforce the fucking thing. Otherwise, quit pissing taxpayer money away.
> But seriously, the problems with US domestic police forces run far deeper than what these programs address.
Yes. I was following along with the tongue-in-cheek, but you are right. The militarization of police (and the parallel degradation of the judiciary, in part driven by the "justice is revenge" frame of mind, instead of something trying to hold society together... don't get me started on jails!) is absolutely scary.
Especially because many people seem to favor that, especially the revenge part. The whole monster has democratic support.
This is a non-solution to a "problem" that those involved don't want solved. If you can't accidentally forget to turn off your camera just before you accidentally kill someone by accidentally shooting them by accident in an accidental way that accidentally doesn't get recorded, police will either find some other way to bypass it (it malfunctioned, ignore the hammer marks on the case) or refuse to use it.