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."

Comments

Make it illegal to not turn them on

[future assassin]

If they got nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[Calydor]

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.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[TheRaven64]

Yes. The system should be designed so that everything is recorded and encrypted with one of a rolling set of asymmetric keys. Nothing can be played back without accessing the decryption key, which should not be available to the individual police precinct without oversight. Everything recorded should be stored and, unless needed, deleted a month later. Any decryption keys that are not used within this period should be deleted without ever being released, so even if someone takes an unauthorised copy of the video, they can't decrypt it.

It absolutely should not be up to the judgement of an individual in a highly emotionally charged situation to decide what should be recorded.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[Opportunist]

We're not talking about average citizens. We hand these people a LOT of power. Essentially they have the power monopoly in the country (in most countries at least). They are granted powers above and beyond what the average person may do. But those powers are not granted to them as individuals but as their function, and they are not granted to be used at their whims.

These powers are handed to them so they can use them to protect our common interests.

The same applies to politicians, by the way. Oddly enough you never see anyone wonder why they aren't under surveillance, considering their ability to harm our interest is by some margin greater.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[JaredOfEuropa]

Cops have a right to privacy too, to some extent. That doesn't mean the camera shouldn't be always on, but it does mean that there should be some rules and regulations to protect the privacy of everyone being filmed, including the cops themselves. Rules that determine when the footage may be used and for what purposes. For example: not to be used for job performance reviews, nor to check how many donuts each cop consumes on the job. Only to be used for training purposes with the consent of everyone in the video (or properly anonymized). Proper process for using the videos in after-action reviews. Access to the videos to be regulated and audited. Etc. The cops should be certain that if they harass someone or use undue violence, it will be on film and can be used against them. But they should also be certain that the videos will only be used as evidence in case of complaints or interventions where some violence occurred, and that they won't be done for publicly picking their nose or not being polite enough to a member of the public.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[jellomizer]

There is a difference between a police person and the private individual rights. Once the police person is off duty they are allowed their personal freedoms and privacy. However when they are on duty they are acting as part of the government and the community. While on duty they are granted extra rights and privileges, as they can cross the line to catch the bad guys. Also if hurt in the line of duty the punishment for the person who hurt them is often more severe as it is considered more than an attack on the individual but on the community.
That said, unlike many other careers to become a police there is only a 6 month academy for training, for a job that requires them to be an athlete, lawyer, investigator, public servant. In a high stress environment, all for low/mid middle class salary. Then you combine it with the standard motivation to become a police officer is to be able to fight people. That means most people who become officers may not be the best person for the job that society demands of them. And that extra power they have while on duty can easily be abused, even with the best of intentioned officers.
The course of work requires a lot of judgment calls, in judgement calls your prejudices and feelings are strong factors. So these police body cameras are actually an important tool.
1. It shows the activity from the point of view of the officer. Mistakes will be made, but that you tube video taken at a different angle may put the officer in a bad light where if shown from his point of view you could see that the actions may had been more menacing.
2. Being that they just can't get away with it. Means they will be more apt to follow correct policy and procedures. Some say it may stop the officer from making the quick decisions however American justice system is suppose to protect the innocent even at the expense of letting the guilty go.
3. Most of the time the police are fighting the bad guys in the act. So having actions on film can stop the word of mouth evidence. Causing the guilty to be more easily punished.
4. Help increase faith in our police that they are there to protect us In many areas and community the fear of police means that they will try to solve their problems their own way, or let them slide

Now that we have the technology for police body cameras it really should be a normal tool. Or we will need to find a harder fix towards the systemic problems we have with our police force.

Re:Make it illegal to not turn them on

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Of course, proven police misconduct is so rare

Have you ever wonder why so much of the misconduct allegations have not been proven? If you are predisposed to think ALL the accusations are false, and ALL the police officers are saints ALL the time, you are biased.

No

[rsilvergun]

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.

No context

[ratpick]

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.

"heavy costs of cloud video storage"

[physicsphairy]

A 256 GB micro SD card weights 0.4g, is less than 2cm in width, and costs around $40. I have 1080p movies on my computer that are about 1 hr/GB. So I'm quite sure that one of these body cam devices could record a couple weeks of continuous footage and probably much, much more. That's plenty of time for legal action to initiate and the data to be uploaded if there is any debate over what has happened during an arrest. Privacy is not an issue if the data is stored encrypted. You just require that a judge has to sign off on it before the decryption key can be accessed by anyone (including the cop).

Re:"heavy costs of cloud video storage"

[jabuzz]

I am not sure where you get a microSD card that is really 256GB in size (rather than a fake) for $40. More like $150, but that is just a minor detail.

Yes

[fph il quozientatore]

Step 1: remove the off switch. Step 2: there is no step 2.

Re:Yes

[cdrudge]

And when the officer enters a locker room or rest room? Not in the course of their job but in the course of their life? Do they or anyone else in the room not have an expectation of privacy? Or since recordings could/should be subject to FOIA requests, what if a person (victim, perpetrator, bystander, informer, etc) being recorded also has an expectation of privacy or confidentiality? Or if the officer is officially off duty and is just a private citizen prior to starting his day, or has just ended it?

Not saying that I necessarily disagree with you, but there are circumstances where just not having an off button may not be appropriate.

Re:Easily

[BlueStrat]

Just shock them if they move while the camera isn't on.

This would be a double-duty taser! Synergies, sustainability, Internet-of-blah.

Fully buzzword compliant. You're brilliant!

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

Solving the Destruction of Evidence problem.

[geekmux]

"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.

Re:Easily

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Probably

[arglebargle_xiv]

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.

Re:Probably

[dougdonovan]

hr and dispatch will have the schedules and should automatically turn the camera on for you at the beginning of your shift when you start so you can get paid to carry a gun and a badge. at the end of your shift, hr and dispatch will turn the camera off no matter what time of day it is.

Re:Probably

[gweihir]

Indeed. As long as Cops do not get a "go to jail directly" card when their cameras are off in such a situation, this is not going to change.

Forgot the air quotes

[sjbe]

Can Technology Prevent Cops From "Forgetting" To Turn On Their Body Cameras?

The title is missing some air quotes around "forgetting" because it's very unlikely that they forgot to do it. Only way they will stop "forgetting" is if there are real consequences with real teeth. Like all charges get thrown out, evidence inadmissible, suspension from job without pay, etc. Otherwise you are going to continue to see a rash of camera failures with curiously convenient timing to the benefit of the officer.

Re:Easy solution

[Baron_Yam]

Don't be foolishly reactionary.

Just imagine you roll up on a scene where there is an armed and dangerous person. How likely are you to be thinking about turning on your camera and ensuring it's working before you're dealing with the problem?

Or, from another perspective... someone's pointing a gun at you, and you see a cop arrive but he spends 30 seconds or more in his cruiser pushing buttons before he comes to help you.

Something like a 'GoPro for guns' is probably the best possible solution. A little bullet cam mounted like a scope, that activates when pulled from the holster. There'd still be the issue of keeping it charged and checking that it works, but that could be a start-of-shift check (and there'd be a convenient record of that check, too).

There's a very simple technology

[Chris Mattern]

It's called "not installing an off switch".

Re:Probably

[drinkypoo]

Indeed. As long as Cops do not get a "go to jail directly" card when their cameras are off in such a situation, this is not going to change.

Even that isn't necessary, although I am on board. All that has to be done is to assume the cop is lying about every statement they make while the camera is off. We should have a legal requirement for this: the cop's word is never enough, there must always be evidence. (It doesn't have to be video evidence, but there has to be more than their word, which is provably not good.) Problem solved.