Slashdot Mirror
Body Camera Maker Will Let Cops Live-Stream Their Encounters (fastcompany.com)
tedlistens writes: Police officers wearing new cameras by Axon, the U.S.'s largest body camera supplier, will soon be able to send live video from their cameras back to base and elsewhere, potentially expanding police surveillance. Another feature of the new device -- set to be released next year -- triggers the camera to start recording and alerts command staff once an officer has fired their weapon, a possible corrective to the problem of officers forgetting to switch them on. (The initial price of $699 doesn't include other costs, like a subscription to Axon's Evidence.com data management system.)
But adding new technologies to body camera video introduces new privacy concerns, say legal experts, who have cautioned that a network of live-streaming cameras risks turning officers into roving sentinels for a giant panopticon-like surveillance system. Harlan Yu, the executive director of Upturn, a Washington nonprofit consultancy that has studied body cameras, says that live-streaming could erode community trust and help enable more controversial technologies like real-time face recognition. "The capability to live stream all BWC footage back to a department- or precinct-wide command center... will further entrench body-worn cameras as tools for police surveillance of communities, rather than tools for transparency," he said.
But adding new technologies to body camera video introduces new privacy concerns, say legal experts, who have cautioned that a network of live-streaming cameras risks turning officers into roving sentinels for a giant panopticon-like surveillance system. Harlan Yu, the executive director of Upturn, a Washington nonprofit consultancy that has studied body cameras, says that live-streaming could erode community trust and help enable more controversial technologies like real-time face recognition. "The capability to live stream all BWC footage back to a department- or precinct-wide command center... will further entrench body-worn cameras as tools for police surveillance of communities, rather than tools for transparency," he said.
Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do?
Huh, wouldn't it seem that the events just prior to the cop shooting are what is actually relevant.
Perhaps they should figure out a way to trigger recording when the cop starts showing stress reactions (which could be triggered by fear, anger, etc)
The encounters will expose either the cop or the perpetrator. Now if you're a perpetrator you don't want the cop to livestream your encounter. You just want to be able to say cop was bad. Too many situations have brought us to this point of people not telling the truth
the body camera as soon as a weapon leaves the holster instead of when it's fired?
This may end up more entertaining than Russian Car Crash Compilations.
Seems to me that turning it on at the sound of the gun shot might be a bit too late to get the complete picture of if the use of force was justified or not.
How about they are always recording a 2 min buffer and the sound of a gunshot triggers it to write the buffer and start the recording at a point 2 min in the past..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is a rumor that the Romans had a double-sided ax that represented two things:
* Authority
* Accountability
Why?
* Authority without Accountability leads to abuse of power.
* Accountability without Authority leads to Bureaucracy and constant bikeshedding.
It's time that people start demanding accountability from those in power -- to keep everyone honest.
"MORE Video evidence? NO THANKS!" - Donald J Traitor
potentially expanding police surveillance
You misspelled accountability.
I thought the whole point of body cameras was to establish what happened during police shootings. Am I missing something? You can't have it both ways; either 1) you get recordings of police (mis)behavior, or 2) you get no recordings and your privacy remains intact. Pick one. Personally, I'd opt for letting the police record their interaction with me. I think it decreases the likelihood that things will end badly for me.
Uhh, shouldn't we be more impressed that the evidence they normally delete is going to be livestreamed instead?
Like a girl who accidentally (ha! "accidentally!") flashes her nipple on Twitch, and it's on the web FOREVER.
Granted, it's not necessarily online. But it's at least one step harder to delete incriminating videos when you need TWO or more people "in on it." When a cop can just shut his camera off (why tf was that ever an option?) then do something illegal, a livestreamed, hypothetically, requires the consent of whoever is at base watching the livestream.
So this is potentially a good thing. AND, it may be even better because this may allow us to enact FURTHER changes 10 years from now once this is standard, to force say, "citizen / watchdogs", to be allowed to watch the sensitive content live.
Also --> If there's a COP AROUND YOU, you're ALREADY BEING WATCHED. Does the damn camera change much? (And we already have traffic cameras that are always on.)
I'm not saying I'm for a "surveillance state", but that this isn't really any additional surveillance, and, it may even enact accountability in the long run because it's harder to delete a livestream.
Since all cops are at very least, "bad cop adjacent", this should make for some very interesting Twitch streaming.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can the officers add Snapchat filters to the feeds? Make it interesting...
Police cameras should be running 24/7. It's not surveillance it's evidence, both for and against police actions.
Which is why police would never agree to it willingly. Police love body cameras so long as they control when they get turned on, what gets saved and who gets to see the footage.
Otherwise, they hate body cams.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I'm happy if the authorities want to record what I'm doing for possible use in court against me, provided I am also free to do the same to them.
Recording after the gun has been fired is way too late.
Better would be to trigger recording on certain words/phrases.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Don't let the sleazeballs escape their name.
I think the honest police love body cams because they can protect them from false allegations or questioning their judgement once you have the benefit of hindsight. If someone pulls a gun on an officer and the officer fires, the body cam will show that the officer acted properly. The footage can help clear an honest police officer's name.
Now, corrupt police are another story. They hate body cam footage because the footage will show that the guy didn't pull a gun when he was shot, but that a gun was planted on him after he died of his injuries.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
In other words, NO CHANGE.
It's not like the cameras are going to catch you doing something naughty while you don't think anyone is looking. There will be a cop standing there facing you.