8 ms·

This is a good step in the right direction. What I would ultimately like to see is mandatory, impossible to shut off, police wide body cameras. There is no reas

by 14 8y ago

This is a good step in the right direction. What I would ultimately like to see is mandatory, impossible to shut off, police wide body cameras. There is no reason in this day and age to not have it.

User23 8y ago
So you plan to ban duct tape?
- 14 8y ago
  I don't think you add to this conversation. No I do not want to ban duct tape. But I still want a camera that is not possible for the officer to shut off without some procedure like radio in to dispatch and saying "all clear I am about to go take a pee can I get my camera turned off for a moment?". There is no need reason in this day and age for them to not be accountable. Yes an officer could still remove the camera, pick up a rock and smash it and probably take his tazer to it and just fry or many other ways I am suret but all that would have to be explained. Maybe they can explain it sometimes but it makes it harder.
- dkersten 8y ago
  If placed over the bodycam, sure. There should be harsh penalties for officers who purposely obstruct the camera while actively on duty (I don't count a toilet break as "actively" on duty, so its ok to obstruct it while on a break, but there should be penalties for doing "police work" with the camera obstructed).
AmericanChopper 8y ago
>There is no reason in this day and age to not have it. Sure there is, there are enormous privacy concerns with how police body cameras can be used, and barely any of the departments which have adopted them have reasonable policies for governing that. What about interviewing vulnerable victims? How do you handle FOI requests? What about the departments that want to incorporate facial recognition into their body camera program? Would you like the police to have a database of your movements, or the political events you attend? None of this even addresses the fact that these programs have also largely failed to provide the transparency and accountability they promised. I’m not arguing for one side or the other, but to claim there are no reasons against them is dismissive and ignorant.
- OrgNet 8y ago
  We definitely need laws regulating facial recognition (both for the government, and companies), but police body cameras make the public safer because they might think twice about shooting you if they know that they are being recorded. But of course we also need to make them accountable for their wrongdoings otherwise the cameras won't help much.
njacobs5074 8y ago
Well there is the use case of the PO exercising his or her judgement in a situation where there may technically be a violation, e.g. carrying an open bottle of beer. Today, a PO can simply require the perpetrator to discard the beer and then both parties move on. If we have cameras in that situation, the PO will have no choice but to issue a summons to the person and then potentially have to show up in court if the person requests it. Is that the best use of our police officers and the courts time? I think your intention is to provide citizens protection against police abuse of our rights but I think that the situation is more complex and getting the right mix of tech and humanity in police practices requires better training and education of both the police and the citizenry.
- gortok 8y ago
  If we suddenly have a rash of police under enforcing, is that really a problem? Body cameras aren’t there to ensure police enforce the law, they’re there because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- __s 8y ago
  Under enforcement based on individual judgement easily introduces racist bias I agree with your point tho, bureaucracy has trouble thinking about edge cases, it's hard to create a complete spec of things like not requiring bringing someone in for an open beer if they aren't clearly drunk
  - vageli 8y ago
    > I agree with your point tho, bureaucracy has trouble thinking about edge cases, it's hard to create a complete spec of things like not requiring bringing someone in for an open beer if they aren't clearly drunk. It is very much the job of the courts to interpret the law with respect to those edge cases and their judgements can provide guidance to politicians about how to more narrowly define the law. This is how things are supposed to work _in theory_.
maxlybbert 8y ago
I like body cams, video of all interactions with police (compare to the FBI refusing to record interviews because they believe handwritten notes are better), and similar ideas. But, at least with body cams, there are some questions with the point of view they end up presenting: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-impartial-police https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i... .
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >But, at least with body cams, there are some questions with the point of view they end up presenting: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i.. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i.... . Still a lot less questions than officer testimony.
dbg31415 8y ago
Cops use public restrooms. There’s one reason. I think cops should always have a light on when they are recording; that provides check for people to know when they are or are not being recorded.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  They should have a filled red circle or red LED showing when recording, as per the convention, plus a filled blue circle or steady blue LED on when they're not, while low battery or another inoperability fault should show a blue half circle or blinking blue light. When recording is activated, a pure 1-second tone should sound, with an audible voice indicator "bodycam number ### recording" with a timestamp and location. When recording is deactivated, a 1-second series of short chirps , with an audible voice indicator "bodycam number ### deactivating in 30 seconds, 15 seconds, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, off". That way, if a cop is turning off the camera at an inappropriate time, someone else can start recording before it cuts off, or the cop can cancel the deactivation without interrupting the recording, and if a suspect hears or sees all cops turning off their cameras at once, they might have a possible defense for resisting arrest. Furthermore, the recording of one cop's camera would be able to show if another cop's camera was on or off. Ultrasonic tones outside the range of human hearing could encode "bodycam ### is recording" or "bodycam ### is not recording" or "bodycam ### case has been opened", so that any available audio recording without a high-frequency filter could decode it enough for a lawyer to request preservation of evidence from that specific camera and then later get the full video.
  - dbg31415 8y ago
    These are good UX suggestions.
tlrobinson 8y ago
I like the idea of mandatory body cams, but obviously they need to be able to turn it off or remove it for things like restroom breaks. Instead, there should be extremely strong disincentives (such as being fired, barred from working in law enforcement, jail time, etc) for an officer to turn off their body cam when interacting with the public. Citizens should also be able to know whether the camera is on (blinking red light etc) and be able to report instances where it was not.
- Miner49er 8y ago
  First, police that break the law actually need to see real punishment. What is the point of body camera footage if they can get away with murdering people on camera anyway?
  - tlrobinson 8y ago
    Why first? It seems like more transparency is a step towards being held accountable.
    - noident 8y ago
      More transparency isn't a guarantee of justice. Look at the cases of Eric Garner and Danny Shaver. Their murders were recorded on camera and both responsible officers walk free today.
      - tlrobinson 8y ago
        I didn't say it was a guarantee, I said it's a step.
        bellerose 8y ago
        I think the other posters are implying it's not a step. The public is currently aware to how police abuse their power and walk free. The situation is like a fox guarding the hen house. The farmer being "justice" doesn't seem to care when the fox takes a hen whenever it happens.
cwkoss 8y ago
The citizenry should make it policy to assume police are lying about any interaction where they are not recording. If you're ever on a jury, reject police testimony as a basis for determining guilt!

by 14 8y ago

This is a good step in the right direction. What I would ultimately like to see is mandatory, impossible to shut off, police wide body cameras. There is no reason in this day and age to not have it.

User23 8y ago

So you plan to ban duct tape?

14 8y ago
I don't think you add to this conversation. No I do not want to ban duct tape. But I still want a camera that is not possible for the officer to shut off without some procedure like radio in to dispatch and saying "all clear I am about to go take a pee can I get my camera turned off for a moment?". There is no need reason in this day and age for them to not be accountable. Yes an officer could still remove the camera, pick up a rock and smash it and probably take his tazer to it and just fry or many other ways I am suret but all that would have to be explained. Maybe they can explain it sometimes but it makes it harder.
dkersten 8y ago
If placed over the bodycam, sure. There should be harsh penalties for officers who purposely obstruct the camera while actively on duty (I don't count a toilet break as "actively" on duty, so its ok to obstruct it while on a break, but there should be penalties for doing "police work" with the camera obstructed).

AmericanChopper 8y ago

>There is no reason in this day and age to not have it. Sure there is, there are enormous privacy concerns with how police body cameras can be used, and barely any of the departments which have adopted them have reasonable policies for governing that. What about interviewing vulnerable victims? How do you handle FOI requests? What about the departments that want to incorporate facial recognition into their body camera program? Would you like the police to have a database of your movements, or the political events you attend? None of this even addresses the fact that these programs have also largely failed to provide the transparency and accountability they promised. I’m not arguing for one side or the other, but to claim there are no reasons against them is dismissive and ignorant.

OrgNet 8y ago
We definitely need laws regulating facial recognition (both for the government, and companies), but police body cameras make the public safer because they might think twice about shooting you if they know that they are being recorded. But of course we also need to make them accountable for their wrongdoings otherwise the cameras won't help much.

njacobs5074 8y ago

Well there is the use case of the PO exercising his or her judgement in a situation where there may technically be a violation, e.g. carrying an open bottle of beer. Today, a PO can simply require the perpetrator to discard the beer and then both parties move on. If we have cameras in that situation, the PO will have no choice but to issue a summons to the person and then potentially have to show up in court if the person requests it. Is that the best use of our police officers and the courts time? I think your intention is to provide citizens protection against police abuse of our rights but I think that the situation is more complex and getting the right mix of tech and humanity in police practices requires better training and education of both the police and the citizenry.

gortok 8y ago
If we suddenly have a rash of police under enforcing, is that really a problem? Body cameras aren’t there to ensure police enforce the law, they’re there because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
__s 8y ago
Under enforcement based on individual judgement easily introduces racist bias I agree with your point tho, bureaucracy has trouble thinking about edge cases, it's hard to create a complete spec of things like not requiring bringing someone in for an open beer if they aren't clearly drunk
- vageli 8y ago
  > I agree with your point tho, bureaucracy has trouble thinking about edge cases, it's hard to create a complete spec of things like not requiring bringing someone in for an open beer if they aren't clearly drunk. It is very much the job of the courts to interpret the law with respect to those edge cases and their judgements can provide guidance to politicians about how to more narrowly define the law. This is how things are supposed to work _in theory_.

maxlybbert 8y ago

I like body cams, video of all interactions with police (compare to the FBI refusing to record interviews because they believe handwritten notes are better), and similar ideas. But, at least with body cams, there are some questions with the point of view they end up presenting: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-impartial-police https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i... .

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>But, at least with body cams, there are some questions with the point of view they end up presenting: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i.. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/body-cams-i.... . Still a lot less questions than officer testimony.

dbg31415 8y ago

Cops use public restrooms. There’s one reason. I think cops should always have a light on when they are recording; that provides check for people to know when they are or are not being recorded.

logfromblammo 8y ago
They should have a filled red circle or red LED showing when recording, as per the convention, plus a filled blue circle or steady blue LED on when they're not, while low battery or another inoperability fault should show a blue half circle or blinking blue light. When recording is activated, a pure 1-second tone should sound, with an audible voice indicator "bodycam number ### recording" with a timestamp and location. When recording is deactivated, a 1-second series of short chirps , with an audible voice indicator "bodycam number ### deactivating in 30 seconds, 15 seconds, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, off". That way, if a cop is turning off the camera at an inappropriate time, someone else can start recording before it cuts off, or the cop can cancel the deactivation without interrupting the recording, and if a suspect hears or sees all cops turning off their cameras at once, they might have a possible defense for resisting arrest. Furthermore, the recording of one cop's camera would be able to show if another cop's camera was on or off. Ultrasonic tones outside the range of human hearing could encode "bodycam ### is recording" or "bodycam ### is not recording" or "bodycam ### case has been opened", so that any available audio recording without a high-frequency filter could decode it enough for a lawyer to request preservation of evidence from that specific camera and then later get the full video.
- dbg31415 8y ago
  These are good UX suggestions.

tlrobinson 8y ago

I like the idea of mandatory body cams, but obviously they need to be able to turn it off or remove it for things like restroom breaks. Instead, there should be extremely strong disincentives (such as being fired, barred from working in law enforcement, jail time, etc) for an officer to turn off their body cam when interacting with the public. Citizens should also be able to know whether the camera is on (blinking red light etc) and be able to report instances where it was not.

Miner49er 8y ago
First, police that break the law actually need to see real punishment. What is the point of body camera footage if they can get away with murdering people on camera anyway?
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  Why first? It seems like more transparency is a step towards being held accountable.
  - noident 8y ago
    More transparency isn't a guarantee of justice. Look at the cases of Eric Garner and Danny Shaver. Their murders were recorded on camera and both responsible officers walk free today.
    - tlrobinson 8y ago
      I didn't say it was a guarantee, I said it's a step.
      - bellerose 8y ago
        I think the other posters are implying it's not a step. The public is currently aware to how police abuse their power and walk free. The situation is like a fox guarding the hen house. The farmer being "justice" doesn't seem to care when the fox takes a hen whenever it happens.

cwkoss 8y ago

The citizenry should make it policy to assume police are lying about any interaction where they are not recording. If you're ever on a jury, reject police testimony as a basis for determining guilt!