Slashdot Mirror


Taser Offers Free Body Cameras To All US Police (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Taser, the company whose electronic stun guns have become a household name, is now offering a groundbreaking deal to all American law enforcement: free body cameras and a year's worth of access to the company's cloud storage service, Evidence.com. In addition, on Wednesday, the company also announced that it would be changing its name to "Axon" to reflect the company's flagship body camera product. Right now, Axon is the single largest vendor of body cameras in America. It vastly outsells smaller competitors, including VieVu and Digital Ally -- the company has profited $90 million from 2012 through 2016. If the move is successful, Axon could quickly crowd out its rivals entirely. In recent years, federal dollars went to police agencies both big (Los Angeles) and small (Village of Spring Valley, New York), encouraging the purchase of body-worn cameras. However, while cameras are rapidly spreading across America, they are still not ubiquitous yet. Axon wants to change that. "Only 20 percent [of cops] have a camera," Rick Smith, the company's CEO, told Ars. "Eighty percent are going out with a gun and no camera. We only need 20- to 30-percent conversion to make it profitable," he added. "We expect 80 percent to become customers." "Our belief is that a body camera is to a cop what a smartphone is to a civilian," Smith said. "Cops spend about two-thirds of their time doing paperwork. We believe, within 10 years, we can automate police reporting. We can effectively triple the world's police force." The offer is only available to American law enforcement, but Smith said the company would consider foreign agencies on a case-by-case basis.

82 comments

  1. year's worth of access - not a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    A year's worth of access means the local municipalities are on the hook to figure out how to fund all the remaining years. It's rope-a-dope charity.

    1. Re:year's worth of access - not a deal by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the cost of processing everything for the inevitable FOIA requests.

    2. Re:year's worth of access - not a deal by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Are you really surprised? A lot of pushers will always give you the first hit for free.

      Not to say that body camera's are necessarily a bad idea, but they can be implemented without relying on a third party service. There are those who would argue that the police can't be trusted to manage it themselves so a third party system may have some allure.

  2. RaceRelationsDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    In the coming days, I'll be launching an account called RaceRelationsDot (preliminary name) to discuss race and race relations in journals and articles. It will provide an unprecedented forum to discuss how dark skinned individuals are destroying America and Europe. This is a critically important topic, because dark skinned individuals like to break the law and then complain about law enforcement actually enforcing laws, which is why those body cameras are necessary at all. Its a place to discuss important topics like this. Many Slashdot users have asked for this for years, so I'm pleased to announce it is coming soon. Stay tuned for more updates in the near future. So excited!

    1. Re: RaceRelationsDot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying Taser's camera firmware needs to be optimized to capture more of the darker pixels?

  3. the first hit is always free by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and then pay yearly subscription fees for storage & analysis to the end of time.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:the first hit is always free by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's fine with me.
      The more cops wearing body cameras that stream to the cloud for storage (ending the missing SD card issue) the better!

      There are tons of reports where adding body cameras has decreased both actual and claimed police abuses.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:the first hit is always free by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The best one was where nobody but the cops knew they had cameras. 60%+ reduction in citizen complaints and violent incidents.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:the first hit is always free by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      and then pay yearly subscription fees for storage & analysis to the end of time.

      Actually I am fine with this with one caveat to follow. Of course the company plans to make money in the future on re-occurring revenue. The caveat is that it really needs to be possible for the police departments to store their own video or use another cloud provider after the year is up. As long as there is the possibility for competition in the future, why not take the deal? From Taser's point of view, it is likely a good business investment, as many departments out of inertia would continue to buy services. Even if Taser doesn't allow local storage or competitive cloud offerings, as long as there is not contractual obligation to buy service after the year is up, it is still a good deal for departments to learn how to use the technology and decide if it is actually practical or not.

    4. Re:the first hit is always free by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      and then pay yearly subscription fees for storage & analysis to the end of time.

      Or, "forget" to pay the fees, and, "oops, that evidence of police wrongdoing was automatically deleted. Oh, well."

    5. Re:the first hit is always free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you have to throw all your money at the first contractor who promises you the world. Don't come running complaining about the government wasting money later if you're willing to jump the gun "for the children".

    6. Re:the first hit is always free by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      Or, "forget" to pay the fees, and, "oops, that evidence of police wrongdoing was automatically deleted. Oh, well."

      -5 for ignorent bullshit. Kindly pul your head out of your ass.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:the first hit is always free by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      That's why I bought the stock a year or so ago when it was $20. Wish I'd sold last month at $28 so I could but it again but oh well.

    8. Re:the first hit is always free by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      That's true, but if this gets adoption rates up, then even if they switch to another vendor they still have cameras. They'll find it hard to justify discontinuing cameras once they have them.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:the first hit is always free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The more cops wearing body cameras that stream to the cloud for storage (ending the missing SD card issue) the better!

      Is that what these cameras do?

      Trick question. No, it isn't, unless this is a new generation of them.

      After our police chief got recruited by Taser and mysteriously secured a no-bid contract, Albuquerque started using Taser's product. It used SD cards, and as our police records custodian noticed, the videos didn't always manage to later get uploaded. Some darker things were alleged as well though it's not clear if they really happened.

      DoJ is looking into it. Or they were, before the president came out against police oversight. #ThanksTrump

      Anyway, the only reason I bring this up, is that at least with the machines APD has, the videos definitely are not streamed directly to the servers without the cops having veto (or editing) powers. Whether they use those powers, is a matter of how much you trust them.

    10. Re:the first hit is always free by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Don't come running complaining about the government wasting money later if you're willing to jump the gun "for the children".

      Decent body cams have been available for years and there is overwhelming evidence that they reduce violence, reduce misconduct, and pay for themselves many times over in reduced lawsuits. So adopting them now is certainly not "jumping the gun".

      More cameras. Fewer donuts.

    11. Re:the first hit is always free by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Or, "forget" to pay the fees, and, "oops, that evidence of police wrongdoing was automatically deleted. Oh, well."

      -5 for ignorent bullshit. Kindly pul your head out of your ass.

      Cop-like typing detected.

    12. Re:the first hit is always free by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      You don't see a problem with a single company controlling the entirety of the evidence collected by police cameras? In the cloud no less. Or the vendor lock-in for that matter?

    13. Re:the first hit is always free by arth1 · · Score: 1

      More cameras. Fewer donuts.

      More donuts too. A cop that's busy eating donuts is relatively harmless.

    14. Re:the first hit is always free by swillden · · Score: 1

      You don't see a problem with a single company controlling the entirety of the evidence collected by police cameras? In the cloud no less. Or the vendor lock-in for that matter?

      I see no reason to expect either of those to happen. Yes, this company will probably buy itself a nice chunk of market share, but there's no reason to believe that competitors won't be able to enter.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:the first hit is always free by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The problem that I see is that taser have a vested interest as to how taser equipment and cameras are perceived by the courts and the general public. Sure, give the contract for cameras to taser but give the evidence handling and image processing to a competent competitors. One company doing the whole thing from filming to court presentation is just corruption waiting to happen.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re: the first hit is always free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They can most likely not just switch vendor. At least not the first ten or fifteen years or so.

    17. Re:the first hit is always free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      switch to another vendor

      The question is whether they can do this at all. As I understand it, evidence recorded by those cameras is stored on Taser's cloud. If they discontinue their contract what happens with said evidence? Are they even legally able to discontinue the contract without risking a ton of mistrials or whatever results from losing evidence?

      Plus, with this move Taser could simply wipe all competitors off the market, granting them a juicy monopoly. They're not doing this out of benevolence or because it would benefit anyone but themselves.

    18. Re:the first hit is always free by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any specifications, but I would bet these devices store locally and upload to the cloud from a wireless or wired connection. Streaming to the cloud without wifi is probably cost prohibitive.

      Source: I used to work for a PD, and this is how the car cams worked.

    19. Re:the first hit is always free by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately one it is common place it will not take long before political activists start to complain about local surveillance from same said body cams.

    20. Re:the first hit is always free by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Good to know!
      The article did not say it streamed to the cloud, but did imply it.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    21. Re:the first hit is always free by swillden · · Score: 1

      Meh. If they do a lousy job a handling the data, whether that means not having it available when needed, or leaking it when it shouldn't be leaked, they'll lose market share regardless of how good their cameras are. I think the free market is perfectly capable of sorting this out. That's not true of everything, but I see no reason it won't work here.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Hahaha! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Cops spend about two-thirds of their time doing paperwork. We believe, within 10 years, we can automate police reporting. We can effectively triple the world's police force."

    Yeah, like the middle managers in any enterprise are going to let manually-done paperwork go away...

    Although in this case, I have my doubts that police reporting can really be automated away in our lifetimes. I can see automation eventually handling the "who, what, when, where" part, and probably the "how" - but the "why" is going to be a harder nut to crack, and that's the most important part.

    It's like when I was a kid, way back in the stone ages. This was before personal computers; but business use of computers (at least for larger businesses) was beginning to gain traction. Companies like Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific were publicly stating how they thought their paper businesses were going to collapse in 20 years... HA!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Hahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police can be automated away in your lifetime. Just program a robot to use its nightstick attachment on anyone who triggers too many dark-detection sensors.

    2. Re:Hahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So have the cops speak the why to the microphone after the interaction, or type in in to computer in the car.

    3. Re:Hahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wiped with some Georgia Pacific just this morning.

  5. The camera's aren't the hard part by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    Once you give officers cameras, you're going to need to store and make searchable the video and likely for a long period of time... Imagine an officer gets accused of excessive use of force it might be years before a jury sees that video..

    Now just imagine a police force like the NYPD that has 35,000 officers... So... sounds like the NYPD or some company working for them is going to be in need of a ZFS admin!

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:The camera's aren't the hard part by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Imagine an officer gets accused of excessive use of force it might be years before a jury sees that video..

      Nope. If the video shows misconduct, then the case will be settled quickly. If the video exonerates the officer, the plaintiff will drop the case. Either way, a jury will never need to see it.

    2. Re:The camera's aren't the hard part by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      But they're still going to have to hold on to it. My point wasn't so much about it being used on court as much as that police departments are going to need to have insane retention policies or people will accuse them of destroying evidence.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  6. what about the terrorist risk? by ozduo · · Score: 1

    they now have PHOTOBOMB opportunities. Ha Ha!!!!!

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  7. And after the first year? by Pollux · · Score: 2

    How much after the first year, Axon? It's a good strategy...offer the cameras for free, then making departments dependent on Evidence.com for cloud storage. (Because what business would give away cameras for free that could work with alternative cloud services, or local department servers?)

    That makes as much sense as departments agreeing with GM to get free Impala cruisers up front, but also agreeing to buy all gasoline from Chevy at $10 / gallon.

    1. Re:And after the first year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and after the fir second, who owns the videos?

      Can the PD download the database and move from this service,
      or are they forced to used the service to have access to the first year's video's?

      So has anybody got a url for the terms of service that go with this 'free' offer?

    2. Re:And after the first year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be a great strategy to force all evidence into this cloud storage, because it would make tampering with evidence more difficult for officers/prosecutors.

      I had police body cam footage begrudgingly turned over to my lawyer after months of requests. It was received only a few days before trial.

      The video was cut into 3 parts with ~20 minutes missing in-between. There were no timestamps. The audio was heavily redacted (when the cops were doing/saying illegal things). We need to prevent this sort of abuse.

    3. Re:And after the first year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it'll just plain suck to be anybody who might catch a minor case of the deads if it gets found out that they're talking to the police. Remember, the cloud is not secure.

  8. Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is.. if they can't be turned off.

  9. Real Value in Reoccuring Cloud Services Costs by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    Sure, give away the cameras for free. The real value is in locking them into the Axon data storage infrastructure. Once police departments get used to storing data in Axon's cloud, it's going to be too much trouble to try and change the system.

    1. Re:Real Value in Reoccuring Cloud Services Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the value to "Taser" (soon to be "Axon") is that if a cop has a camera on them, lethal force becomes less desirable... So they reach for a taser rather than gun.

    2. Re:Real Value in Reoccuring Cloud Services Costs by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The only way this should even get anywhere near approval would be if the cameras were based on some open standards so that any competitor could connect to them if the deal gets queered. Locking 80+% of the nation's police camera evidence into a proprietary technology owned and operated by a single private corporation is a horrifying prospect.

  10. uhm, what? by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They want all police to store their body cameras data on their services and it's free for a year? I am not sure they could pay enough for all the police to store all their footage on their servers forever. This kind of footage should be stored in police evidence lockers under lock and key. They want become the universal street surveyor without paying for it and they want the people working for them for free to pay them (at some point) to work for them for free? Wow. Just wow. The value of that data is more than the value of all the satellite imagery combined. Oh and spare us the soliloquy about compartmentalization. If they have access to the data, it will be datamined.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:uhm, what? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      This kind of footage should be stored in police evidence lockers under lock and key.

      Yep, but doing that correctly and legally is gonna be expensive to get right. So Axon pays the development costs, hires enough lawyers to ensure they're doing it right, (hopefully) hires enough computer security folks to make it as secure as possible, then selling the service to the nations police departments.

    2. Re:uhm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double edged sword. Keeping all the video files locally is a great way for data to "go missing" from time to time.

    3. Re:uhm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now that all the video files will be kept in the cloud, data for the entire country can "go missing" at the same time. Progress~!

    4. Re:uhm, what? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      If they have access to the data, it will be datamined.

      They don't even need to go that far.

      They can just ransom that data once that first year has elapsed (because they're counting on the fact that most police departments will be too inept to backup everything correctly).

      And voila, profits!

    5. Re:uhm, what? by trawg · · Score: 2

      If they record me, I'd like the option to get a copy of the recording, so that I can back it up. In the event of any action against me I'd like to not have to rely on some cloud service, the technical competence of the police, etc.

    6. Re:uhm, what? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Why would they care about those pennies? They have the power to become the all-seeing eyes and they care about the extra pennies they can gather from local police departments? Sounds like they want local tax dollars to pay for their taking of the entire country hostage.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:uhm, what? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Really? Storing evidence in police lockers would be expensive and hard to get right? Should we store all evidence in 1 central national location? C'mon.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  11. How about free body cams for civilians? by MrCodswallop · · Score: 1

    How about free body cams for civilians?

    1. Re:How about free body cams for civilians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link I believe you can even get waterproof ones. But Mr. Swift isn't going to be buying one for you.

    2. Re:How about free body cams for civilians? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How about free body cams for civilians?

      Just make sure you've got a lawyer and sufficient money to get bailed out of jail if you plan on photographing/video-recording law enforcement officers. Although courts have ruled that citizens have the 1st-Amendment right to record police while in public performing (or not) their duty as officers, many will still harass and/or arrest you, or even employ threats and violence.

      http://photographyisnotacrime....

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  12. I'm amazed it's 20% already by blindseer · · Score: 2

    It doesn't seem that long ago when police having a camera on their person was something out of science fiction. We've see police with cameras for a long time now but they've been limited to cameras on cars, buildings, or on a person only in cases of an undercover police going after high value targets. I'm amazed at the speed in which they are being adopted.

    I can see why police are wanting them, it keeps everyone honest. Before such audio and video recording devices were common we'd have to rely on witness testimony, which has been proven to be terrible at keeping things straight. Cameras have shown many accusations of police abuse to be false, as well as caught abuses that may have gone unseen before.

    What is disturbing is how there is evidence that cameras have tended to encourage police shootings. Before cameras there was always doubt in a police officer's mind of having a use of force shown justifiable after the fact. Now with cameras much of this doubt is removed. I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand we see people that assault police get shot, when they likely deserve it. On the other hand we see police get "lazy" and shoot at the first sign they might be in danger, when a less lethal means might have been effective.

    As with all things this comes with its ups and downs.

    Another thing, there's this quote, "Eighty percent are going out with a gun and no camera. " I saw a video yesterday of three female officers getting beat up by a single enraged man. He was picking up rocks and tossing them at the officers and their car, with enough force to crack the windshield. The officers would try to tackle the guy but he'd throw them off and swing his fists at them. Why didn't they shoot the guy? Because in the country they were in the officers are not armed with guns. They get batons, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Did he deserve to get shot? Probably not. I do think though that if he knew the officers had the ability to use lethal force that he'd sober up real quick and either submit to arrest or be free to go on his way.

    To anyone that thinks that swinging a fist is insufficient reason to shoot someone then I have a problem with that. A 200 pound man throwing a punch at a 150 pound woman is lethal force in my mind.

    They got this one maniac on camera beating up three female police officers, but none of the officers were effectively armed. Cameras are nice, guns are better, having both is great.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a video yesterday of three female officers getting beat up by a single enraged man... Because in the country they were in the officers are not armed with guns.

      The country they were in shouldn't have diversity hired 3 females to do the job of one male. No guns needed.

    2. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the dude just takes one of the little girls' guns as she is trying to cuff him with her delicate manicured fingers and shoots all three dead. Average cop should be able to win a fistfight with the average citizen. Lots of males wouldn't be qualified, girls don't deserve the paycheck because they are even less qualified

    3. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by nasch · · Score: 1

      Did they use the batons and pepper spray?

    4. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by swillden · · Score: 2

      I do think though that if he knew the officers had the ability to use lethal force that he'd sober up real quick and either submit to arrest or be free to go on his way.

      I agree with the rest of your post, but this assumes he has some degree of rationality. That's often not the case. What the officers needed in this case was a good taser. Pepper spray is good against most humans, but people who are sufficiently angry or have their mood sufficiently chemically altered can ignore it for a while. Given three on one, they really should have had a relatively easy time subduing him with batons as well, regardless of size/strength difference. But tasers would have put him down. Good tasers cause a significant part of the musculature to lock up, and basically no amount drugs or emotion can overcome that. The downside is that tasers are significantly more lethal than pepper spray or a properly-handled baton (an improperly handled baton is more lethal than either).

      Guns have their place, too, of course. Tasers are short-ranged, inaccurate, single-shot weapons. Handguns are longer-ranged, more accurate and carry lots of cartridges... though they're not as effective at instantly stopping people as tasers. Police really should have all of the above, *and* solid training in their use.

      To anyone that thinks that swinging a fist is insufficient reason to shoot someone then I have a problem with that. A 200 pound man throwing a punch at a 150 pound woman is lethal force in my mind.

      A 200 pound man throwing a punch at a 200 pound man can be lethal as well. The human body is tough, but also has some crucial vulnerabilities. A lucky punch can be the end.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 3 police officer thing happened in Sweden, they had guns.
      They chose not to use them.

      The problem in this case is that the swedish police does not have any tools between baton/pepper spray and the gun. Such as Tasers.

      Similarly police in Sweden do not have access to proper riot control tools such as water cannons or rubber bullets.

    6. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Bingo. But in most American's minds a gun is magical. You point it at someone and they do what you want.

    7. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Cameras have shown many accusations of police abuse to be false, as well as caught abuses that may have gone unseen before.

      To my mind, this is the most important point. For every cell phone video of a couple of cops beating the shit out of somebody for no good reason, there's body cam footage of somebody standing ten feet away from the cops, yelling 'help help these police are beating on me.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re: I'm amazed it's 20% already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, if someone points a gun at me, I'll likely do what they want, unless the thing they want me to do is somehow worse than getting shot.

    9. Re:I'm amazed it's 20% already by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Good. Better by far to let him vent his rage on their police car then arrest him. Nobody needs to get hurt.

      Tasers and rubber bullets can kill (as can a baton) and you're not going to bring a riot control van to spray water at a single individual. So I'd say they picked a good option.

  13. Can't wait for that to get hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And dumped.

  14. Set tasers to stun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and by stun i mean kill.

  15. Own the retention platform, own the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Owning the video storage/retention platform by marketshare will effectively kill off the remaining players, or force them to be compatible with that platform. Network effect and cloud costs rule here.

    The real power is is the service though. Imagine what the bribe pricing will be to disappear/edit undesirable video evidence? How about faking video and loading into the platform?

  16. What about a court order after they stop paying? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    What about a court order after they stop paying?

    Will taser be held to the law and not to some EULA?

    What if there is a court case and the defense wants the logs / maybe even a raw files will they give them out or try to hide under a NDA?

  17. This part was the scariest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...We can effectively triple the world's police force."

    The world doesn't need more jack boots. The world is already f'd enough, because of jack boots doing what their masters order them to do.

  18. Triple police force? Who the hell wants that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany had "police" everywhere once. If I go out in public and can't turn around without seeing a cop, people will officially stop being themselves and mold into whatever social Darwinism your government wants. Do you act the same when your boss is around? Hell no. Why would a guy with a badge and gun on every corner be any different?

    1. Re: Triple police force? Who the hell wants that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should this be bad? The goal of a Safe Society can only be realistically achieved through enforced conformity. What is so great about being "you" - largely the byproduct of your upbringing and the chemical reactions in your brain and hence nothing you are in control of nyway

    2. Re: Triple police force? Who the hell wants that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway vs being part of a community with clearly defined standards? You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Try to see it rationally, unclouded by emotion and empty pride or delusions of individualism.

    3. Re: Triple police force? Who the hell wants that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem, if you can get the cops to do that first.

  19. I'm not sure they can afford to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are about 800,000 police in the US. I doubt Axon can afford that.

  20. Not Charity--Business by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 2

    It's not charity, just business. Understand what you buy when you buy it and what's behind the scenes.

    For example, there is a line in the summary that says, "In addition, on Wednesday, the company also announced that it would be changing its name to "Axon" to reflect the company's flagship body camera product[,]" In reality, they're a business and are concerned about their brand, and (1) tasers have high brand risk because of viral videos and (2) the term "taser" has arguably become a generic term for stun gun, so it may be that they will lose a trademark fight in court over their major brand if anyone challenges them.

    There's nothing wrong with them doing that--it makes good business sense--but it would be a bit naive to take the company's statement at face value without understanding its implications.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  21. Hardware is free, it's the data that costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like printers are to printer cartridges, so is this taser scam

  22. Tasing is not funny, instead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it annoying when tasing people in movies are considered fun. If I were even threatened with being tased in my country, I would think of it as being a potential attack with a lethal weapon.

    1. Re:Tasing is not funny, instead.. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Look at Mr Pessimist here, whose risk aversion shows that he obviously does not live in a movie.

      Have you ever thought about the upsides to real life? You aren't going to be killed by 1) velociraptors, 2) alien chestburster, 3) death ray from flying saucer, 4) kaiju falling into your office building after being punched by a jaeger, 5) death star demonstrating its power to the princess, and are very likely not going to be killed by 6) Terminators, 7) a meteor the size of Texas.

      It's not all bad, man. So get on with your death by heart disease, cancer, auto accident or weird auto-immune-system disease like the rest of us. Or a taser, yes, that's on the list too (though way way down), but it's not like getting torn apart by zombies, is it?!?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  23. I'm ok with just reducing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the claimed abuses. Regular abuses can carry on as usual.

  24. In Game Payments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please press this button to erase last 20 minutes of footage of "...20 years in prison for major law violation..." [* for only $10K now, or 5 year full obedience **other charges may apply]

    Seriously? I do know how cops can act. I met bad ones. I met good ones. They are just people. But this seems to create _the_ perfect "obedient to the system" cop.

    Hell, let's implement it everywhere. From the cradle to the grave.

    Like my friend's wife said: "Trust is good, but controll is better".

    What can I know? I'm single :)

  25. They'll probably take that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the reasons police are so violent has got to be all the paperwork they have to do.

    Of course, if you're a corrupt cop involved in human and drug trafficking and perhaps running a protection racket, what are you going to do?