4 ms·

Body camera systems are not sold to police departments as devices that are meant to keep cops honest, they're sold to police departments as devices that will ke

Body camera systems are not sold to police departments as devices that are meant to keep cops honest, they're sold to police departments as devices that will keep the lying public honest and thus keep cops out of court and prison. They're meant for cops to turn them on when they feel like they need evidence against whoever they're detaining, arresting or otherwise dealing with. In this case, video surveillance was working as intended.

therealdrag0 4y ago
Well they’re sold to whoever will buy them. While what is recorded depends on department policy which can vary, but clearly could be improved and of course if the policy is not enforced that’s another big problem.
jcrawfordor 4y ago
Your argument is not necessarily incorrect, but I do think it's important to understand that this attitude depends a lot on the specific implementation. In some police departments, there is a requirement that body camera (OBRD, BWC, different departments like to use different terms) footage be uploaded after every call for service or reported incident, officers are audited against this requirement, and missing footage is an infraction subject to suspension without pay. In some departments, there is no policy at all, and no interest in creating one. The biggest vendor, Axon, has a fairly well-designed system for video management where the auditing system makes it fairly easy to determine whether or not footage exists and why (e.g. cameras log all deletion of footage e.g. due to full storage and report it at the next upload, the management system reports on cameras that have not uploaded for more than two shifts, video once uploaded cannot be deleted until the end of routine retention even if not associated with any incident). This is not to portray Axon as a saint, because there are questions about the auditability of their evidence.com product specifically when it comes to preparation of video footage for court or public release, and this can be a material problem. But it also makes it even more troubling that some departments, district attorneys, etc. make no effort to use the auditability features that exist, or routinely accept sketchy excuses that are not consistent with the audit record.
- lazide 4y ago
  I think you’ll find it’s rather ‘the approved implementation follows the attitude’ - of senior leadership+the unions anyway. These aren’t technical limitations, and there are a lot of police agencies - a few who are on top of things and see it as a way of keeping their officers honest and getting to the truth, and a lot of them looking to CYA.

therealdrag0 4y ago

Well they’re sold to whoever will buy them. While what is recorded depends on department policy which can vary, but clearly could be improved and of course if the policy is not enforced that’s another big problem.

jcrawfordor 4y ago

Your argument is not necessarily incorrect, but I do think it's important to understand that this attitude depends a lot on the specific implementation. In some police departments, there is a requirement that body camera (OBRD, BWC, different departments like to use different terms) footage be uploaded after every call for service or reported incident, officers are audited against this requirement, and missing footage is an infraction subject to suspension without pay. In some departments, there is no policy at all, and no interest in creating one. The biggest vendor, Axon, has a fairly well-designed system for video management where the auditing system makes it fairly easy to determine whether or not footage exists and why (e.g. cameras log all deletion of footage e.g. due to full storage and report it at the next upload, the management system reports on cameras that have not uploaded for more than two shifts, video once uploaded cannot be deleted until the end of routine retention even if not associated with any incident). This is not to portray Axon as a saint, because there are questions about the auditability of their evidence.com product specifically when it comes to preparation of video footage for court or public release, and this can be a material problem. But it also makes it even more troubling that some departments, district attorneys, etc. make no effort to use the auditability features that exist, or routinely accept sketchy excuses that are not consistent with the audit record.

lazide 4y ago
I think you’ll find it’s rather ‘the approved implementation follows the attitude’ - of senior leadership+the unions anyway. These aren’t technical limitations, and there are a lot of police agencies - a few who are on top of things and see it as a way of keeping their officers honest and getting to the truth, and a lot of them looking to CYA.