3 ms·

Why don't more police cars have video cameras? (2006)

9 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

_delirium 17y ago
The $2,500 to $10,000 per car figure doesn't surprise me, but does seem like it could be brought down. A webcam with a suction cup would be better than no video camera, and is <$500. Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? My guess is that they're pricing Police Car Camera Systems, which is probably a market with very few, highly priced suppliers.
- JshWright 17y ago
  I've seen this phenomenon on display in the fire service. Somehow the exact same axe you can buy for $20 at your local hardware store costs 5-6 times as much...
  - TeHCrAzY 17y ago
    My guess is that it comes down to certification. That axe sold to the fire dept probably comes with a "certified to x standard" guarantee, the one in the hardware store only comes with "it's an axe" guarantee.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    You are probably paying for the ability to sue the manufacturer when it fails and kills someone.
  - patio11 17y ago
    Nobody in local government has an incentive for keeping their costs down. On the contrary, budgets are a sign of your personal authority, and cutting budgets is a sign of neglecting your priorities. ("My opponent slashed the funds available to save your wives and children from grizzly demise in a fire by 84%!" "But it was the same axe!" "SLASHED THE FUNDING!")
- anamax 17y ago
  > Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? I'd guess that police video systems have technical means to assure no undetected editing and possibly something related to chain of custody. "Signed image" versions (which address the editing question) cost order $1k more than comparable DSLRs.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Startup opportunity. gpg --sign file.jpg Cost: $0. But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze.
    - patio11 17y ago
      If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works, I think the video should probably mostly work, too. (Compare the amount of effort that it takes to doctor a video to the amount of effort it takes to, ahem, edit one's recollection of the events at issue to place one in a better light.) I realize there are human factors to consider, though.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works For some definitions of "mostly"... > I realize there are human factors to consider, though. Yup. In some ways, we demand more of technology. While that may be irrational, assuming otherwise doesn't work.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > gpg --sign file.jpg Cute, but since it's outside the camera, useless. (They're smart enough to figure out that alteration can occur before the image is signed.) > But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze. Experts aren't (necessarily) cheap and even then it's a crapshoot. I don't know that they've analysed the costs vs benefits of taking unsigned video correctly, but I'm pretty sure that they at least know some of the costs, so I suspect that they're closer than folks who think that there are no costs.
JshWright 17y ago
Cops in my area have cameras on their dash, cameras on their tasers, and audio recording devices on their person. (Taser-cams can make for some pretty hilarious video...)
jrockway 17y ago
I assume that the watchers don't want to be watched. If you do something bad, and it's his-word-against-yours, the consequences are minimal. If you do something bad, and there's a video of you doing it, that's the end of your career. I don't buy the "it's too expensive" argument. Considering how much money law enforcement puts into busting pot users, I think they can afford a few cameras if they really wanted to. But cameras are more beneficial to the public than to the police, and the police are writing the checks, so...
- thwarted 17y ago
  But cameras are more beneficial to the public than to the police, and the police are writing the checks, so... It's sad that we've gotten away from "To Serve and Protect" as a mindset. We'd be better off if public employees remembered that they are employees of the public. Really, it's the public that is writing those checks through tax dollars, the public just isn't interesting enough in watching the watchers.

9 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

The $2,500 to $10,000 per car figure doesn't surprise me, but does seem like it could be brought down. A webcam with a suction cup would be better than no video camera, and is <$500. Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? My guess is that they're pricing Police Car Camera Systems, which is probably a market with very few, highly priced suppliers.

JshWright 17y ago
I've seen this phenomenon on display in the fire service. Somehow the exact same axe you can buy for $20 at your local hardware store costs 5-6 times as much...
- TeHCrAzY 17y ago
  My guess is that it comes down to certification. That axe sold to the fire dept probably comes with a "certified to x standard" guarantee, the one in the hardware store only comes with "it's an axe" guarantee.
- jrockway 17y ago
  You are probably paying for the ability to sue the manufacturer when it fails and kills someone.
- patio11 17y ago
  Nobody in local government has an incentive for keeping their costs down. On the contrary, budgets are a sign of your personal authority, and cutting budgets is a sign of neglecting your priorities. ("My opponent slashed the funds available to save your wives and children from grizzly demise in a fire by 84%!" "But it was the same axe!" "SLASHED THE FUNDING!")
anamax 17y ago
> Surely there is an $1000 solution that's acceptable? I'd guess that police video systems have technical means to assure no undetected editing and possibly something related to chain of custody. "Signed image" versions (which address the editing question) cost order $1k more than comparable DSLRs.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Startup opportunity. gpg --sign file.jpg Cost: $0. But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze.
  - patio11 17y ago
    If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works, I think the video should probably mostly work, too. (Compare the amount of effort that it takes to doctor a video to the amount of effort it takes to, ahem, edit one's recollection of the events at issue to place one in a better light.) I realize there are human factors to consider, though.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > If we have a court system built on potentially inauthentic memory with people that have strong incentives to lie, and it mostly works For some definitions of "mostly"... > I realize there are human factors to consider, though. Yup. In some ways, we demand more of technology. While that may be irrational, assuming otherwise doesn't work.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > gpg --sign file.jpg Cute, but since it's outside the camera, useless. (They're smart enough to figure out that alteration can occur before the image is signed.) > But actually, isn't potentially inauthentic video better than nothing at all? At least it can be analyzed by experts. No video at all means there is nothing to analyze. Experts aren't (necessarily) cheap and even then it's a crapshoot. I don't know that they've analysed the costs vs benefits of taking unsigned video correctly, but I'm pretty sure that they at least know some of the costs, so I suspect that they're closer than folks who think that there are no costs.

JshWright 17y ago

Cops in my area have cameras on their dash, cameras on their tasers, and audio recording devices on their person. (Taser-cams can make for some pretty hilarious video...)

jrockway 17y ago

I assume that the watchers don't want to be watched. If you do something bad, and it's his-word-against-yours, the consequences are minimal. If you do something bad, and there's a video of you doing it, that's the end of your career. I don't buy the "it's too expensive" argument. Considering how much money law enforcement puts into busting pot users, I think they can afford a few cameras if they really wanted to. But cameras are more beneficial to the public than to the police, and the police are writing the checks, so...

thwarted 17y ago
But cameras are more beneficial to the public than to the police, and the police are writing the checks, so... It's sad that we've gotten away from "To Serve and Protect" as a mindset. We'd be better off if public employees remembered that they are employees of the public. Really, it's the public that is writing those checks through tax dollars, the public just isn't interesting enough in watching the watchers.