11 ms·

Boston policemen complain about new plan to watch their movements

84 points by shawndumas 13y ago

buckbova 13y ago
"What’s the logic to putting in such a tracking system? It lets dispatchers know where officers are in real time rather than having them wait for a response via radio. Unsurprisingly, some cops don’t like the new change." I'm baffled that this doesn't exist already. This article feels like it's 20 years old.
- eksith 13y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Kinda shocked this isn't standard practice since GPS came to public use in the first place. Now, of course, we'll have to wait and see whether GPS data would also develop a habit of disappearing along with dash-cam footage.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I've been baffled by its non-existence for the ~year I've been regularly monitoring local police radio traffic on the other side of the country.
dsr_ 13y ago
Resident of a town near Boston here: I'm fully in favor of a _Halting State_-style mandatory lifecam on every on-duty police officer. It won't solve police abuses, but it will do more to help than anything else I can think of that doesn't involve the much harder problem of changing police culture.
- yoshokatana 13y ago
  I agree wholeheartedly. Pilot programs, while not definitive, have shown drastic reductions in complaints against officers, as well as use of force: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-ca...
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    Honestly, it seems like a really positive thing for the "good cops" out there too. No more "he said, she said" complaints. Of course, if these tapes get conveniently "lost" that presents another set of problems.
bruceb 13y ago
I am with others, I am surprised it took this long. This actually is safer for officers out by themselves.
wheaties 13y ago
I hate to say this but: "first they came for the communists, I didn't ck.plain because I wasn't a communist..." I don't want them to come for me. Cameras are one thing, it cuts both ways. This is different. (quote: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...)
tokenadult 13y ago
This makes me really wary of ever gaining the attention of a police officer in Boston. Police car GPS tracking technology is surely coming to my state (after all, the city buses already have it), and it will be welcome here. Minnesota peace officer vehicle dashboard camera videos are often used in investigations, including investigations of officer misconduct, and everyone expects the video to be available any time a police vehicle is involved in an interaction with the public. It has been mandatory in my state since the 1980s for all custodial interrogations by police to be videotaped from beginning to end, and the videotapes can become part of the court record any time police conduct in a case is in dispute. Law enforcement is better when law enforcement officers are subject to the law. It's really that simple. If we know what police officers are doing, we know whether or not they are doing their taxpayer-funded jobs and whether accusations against them are true or false. Every law-abiding police officer should be glad to be on record about what happened while on patrol.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - scarecrowbob 13y ago
    No. Public actors acting on the public in public should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
    - Balgair 13y ago
      I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. Cops, no matter how corrupt or bad, are still people just like you and me. EDIT: I should explain myself more. Cops are people too. That we have a system that automatically prioritizes their word above all others is that problem here. Dashcams and monitoring every trip to the doughnut shop is a symptom of that. Maybe we should treat the root cause, not the symptoms. Maybe the system is in need of some TLC, not more rules and exceptions.
pmiller2 13y ago
I'm confused why the ACLU is objecting to this. It seems like having police be trackable by their own departments while on duty should present absolutely no privacy concern. And, for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. At the very least, it will give police departments more data about what their officers are actually doing, and maybe it will prevent a few abuses of power. I'd agree with the ACLU that this would be totally unconscionable if we were talking about tracking them 24/7, but that's clearly not the intent here.
- koenigdavidmj 13y ago
  The argument that I have heard so far is that up until this point, when police enter a house and make an arrest, the jury doesn't see the accused until his lawyer gets to clean him up, put him in a suit, and get him to shut up. With ubiquitous cameras, the jury will now see the accused and his residence and will have that as their first impression of him.
  - AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    I imagine that, if necessary, the accused's lawyer could argue that showing such footage would be unduly prejudicial. This would preclude the jury from ever seeing it (unless its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact).
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Such a video would be utterly irrelevant in most cases anyway. If you're in and out to arrest someone on a warrant, the actual events of that arrest have nothing to do with the reason they're being arrested, and would almost never come up in a trial to begin with.
  - pmiller2 13y ago
    Correct, but that doesn't apply to GPS in police cruisers. All that data can tell you is that the car was at X address at Y time, which is already obvious.
- 13y ago
chris_mahan 13y ago
Perhaps all Boston residents should carry GPS? For public safety of course. Of course, to disallow people from removing such device and defeating the public safety effectiveness of this measure, the device would be implanted surgically. And to allow for the identification of bodies, there should be several, just in case a limb gets lost, or a bullet destroy one... The procedure should be painless (relatively) and should be covered by the Affordable Care Act (we think, we haven't really read the law), so residents that resist such measures could be deemed troublemakers and put into a government database such as the no-fly list, and other such lists, for possible rounding up at the first sign of trouble. All in the name of public safety, of course. Of course.
- bruceb 13y ago
  I as an individual don't have the power to stop, detain, and imprison someone. I don't have a "license to kill". Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice.
  - function_seven 13y ago
    > Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice. I'd go further and say that it's quite the opposite of a nanny state (or really, a surveillance state). I don't understand where chris_mahan is coming from, as this policy seems to allow the citizenry oversight over the government, instead of the other way around.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      My argument is that first the police, then firefighters. Then teachers, then schoolchildren, then all government vehicles, then all government administrators, then all government workers, then a few major corporations, then all major corporations, then small businesses, then all businesses, then students in college, then library patrons, buss-pass holders, then ex-convicts, then children, then people collecting unemployment, then people who are receiving disability payments, then retirees, then... Did I miss anyone? The slippery slope is called slippery _because_ it is slippery...
rrhyne 13y ago
Watch the watchers.
frank_boyd 13y ago
Why, do they have something to hide? Also, if they're doing things they don't want other people to know, maybe they shouldn't be doing those things in the first place. Or something.
tnuc 13y ago
Why do they only want to track the policemen and not the policewomen?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- walrus 13y ago
  The article doesn't mention gender.
  - tnuc 13y ago
    Try reading the title of the article.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Policemen has meant "a member of a police force", regardless if that person is a man or woman, for ages immemorial. Policeperson, OTOH, is a BS politically correct neologism. (And who says it stops there? One can conceive of cops --men, women, LGBT etc--, not appreciating being identified as "persons" thus protesting the "policeperson" name too). The whole discussion is completely infantile, pedantic and not worthy of HN time.
      - tnuc 13y ago
        In the UK the correct term is "police officer". Using the term policeman is gender specific.
        coldtea 13y ago
        The internet is not located in the UK.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Yes please describe how the English language is conspiring against women.
jacalata 13y ago
“If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say, 'Why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes?' What's this guy mean? Does he currently spend time meeting witnesses that his department doesn't know about and wouldn't approve of if they did, or that he somehow needs to keep secret from the rest of the department?
- munin 13y ago
  what if there are corrupt cops in your department and they review your cars GPS logs?
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Then when you anonymously speak to a newspaper you might as well say that, right? Unless he assumes everyone already knows that police officers can't trust each other.
- vacri 13y ago
  I thought the same: say "I was meeting a reluctant witness". His argument sounded more like evasion than reality. I don't see how it's much different to "Why didn't you check in for 45 minutes today?". If you think that corruption is a problem amongst your senior staff and dispatchers, then that's something that needs to be addressed, not hacked around.
DigitalSea 13y ago
I am absolutely shocked. Postal vans, delivery trucks and armoured vehicles that deliver money to banks and stores all have GPS trackers fitted to them, heck even most taxi companies have fitted GPS trackers to their vehicles. What is the big deal? It means that a dispatcher can accurately see how far away a police officer is from a call for help. This could save lives and all the while keep some police honest. Imagine you call 911, the dispatcher immediately sees your location based on your phone number and then based on what service you need, dispatches the nearest police car to you if there is one nearby as opposed to putting out a call over outdated radio technology. Sounds like a case of police being misguided as to what the motivation is behind such a move. If delivery companies and mail services use the same technology for efficiency and estimates on arrivals, why shouldn't the police?
mullingitover 13y ago
This is a good first step, but people authorized by the government to kill citizens at their discretion should be monitored intensively every second that they're on duty. Something as light-handed as GPS tracking on their vehicles, and they're complaining about it? That's something that would worry me if I was deeply corrupt, so it's telling that the Boston PD is complaining.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  Police officers are NOT authorized to kill people. They have a right to self defence just like you or I. The state does give them special powers, but they are only justified to kill someone when it is in defence of themselves or others, however their job often puts them in such situations.
  - yardie 13y ago
    Authorization comes from approval and in most cases the state rarely disapproves of police killings. If the penalty for wantonly taking a life is paid vacation and a poor excuse for an investigation then you can interpret that as approval.
    - SolarNet 13y ago
      Authorization != { Acceptance, Implicit Approval } Authorization would mean they have a piece of paper, a verbal order allowing the killing of people, or something to that effect. The others are simply society's acceptance and approval that their killings are justified because of their job. It's the difference between ethics (codified laws) and morals (societies implicit laws).
  - mullingitover 13y ago
    This[1] was considered to be a valid use of deadly force. Calling it self defense is a huge stretch, it was basically execution for failing to follow police orders. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california-police-kill-boy-rifle http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california-poli...
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
>Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior. Honest question - what bona fide police activity could be chilled by GPS tracking their cruisers?
- logn 13y ago
  How about your boss tells you to patrol a stop sign all day and count the number of rolling stops vs. full stops. Since you know your cruiser is GPS tracked, you're concerned being seen not moving for 8 hours.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    First of all, no one would be assigned on such a contrived detail. Even if they were, they would not likely be there for 8 hours as there are mandatory breaks. And even if they were there for 8 hours, dispatch would know they would be out on a detail at that intersection all day, and would be periodically status checked to make sure they were still alive. And finally, what in the hell would be the problem with being tracked as being exactly where they are supposed to be?!
rdtsc 13y ago
Anecdote from back in the day (well late 90's). A friend I had at school invited me to hang out with one of his "hacker" friends. This guy was into carding and other crap. Anyway, he lived in a small town. So somehow he managed to build small transmitters and attached them to bottom of a few local police cruisers. When those would get closer he got a blinking light on his receiver. Don't know how true it was, I was pretty young, but thought it an interesting idea. Courts in many instances agreed that one doesn't need an warrant since the movement of one's car is public. Can the same logic be applied to police cars then? Some countries don't let you advertise the location of speed traps. So radio stations there would for example warn drivers of cars with flashing lights and people in uniform blasting beams of microwave energy at oncoming cars.
xacaxulu 13y ago
SWEET IRONY! OH IT TASTES SO SWEEEEEEET!!!!!!
hnriot 13y ago
The very fact that the policemen complain should make it mandatory. Anything they oppose, they oppose for a reason, and there's really only one conclusion - that the cops would rather hide their movements from those paying them. Google glass will likely make this moot since the other side of public contact will be recorded. People that carry guns and with alarming regularity kill people for the worst reasons should be subject to way more scrutiny than other employes and practically everyone is on camera all day these days. Cops should wear Google Glass and the video streamed to a vault inaccessible to the cops, to be pulled when needed for court (by a third party)
Zigurd 13y ago
This should not be controversial. Delivery and freight trucks and numerous other kinds of commercial vehicles get GPS monitored. Police in cruisers are equipped with rifles, shotguns, one or more pistols, ammunition for all these firearms, plus a Taser, mace, etc. and it's NOT tracked?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

84 points by shawndumas 13y ago

"What’s the logic to putting in such a tracking system? It lets dispatchers know where officers are in real time rather than having them wait for a response via radio. Unsurprisingly, some cops don’t like the new change." I'm baffled that this doesn't exist already. This article feels like it's 20 years old.

eksith 13y ago
I was thinking the same thing. Kinda shocked this isn't standard practice since GPS came to public use in the first place. Now, of course, we'll have to wait and see whether GPS data would also develop a habit of disappearing along with dash-cam footage.
nknighthb 13y ago
I've been baffled by its non-existence for the ~year I've been regularly monitoring local police radio traffic on the other side of the country.

dsr_ 13y ago

Resident of a town near Boston here: I'm fully in favor of a _Halting State_-style mandatory lifecam on every on-duty police officer. It won't solve police abuses, but it will do more to help than anything else I can think of that doesn't involve the much harder problem of changing police culture.

yoshokatana 13y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Pilot programs, while not definitive, have shown drastic reductions in complaints against officers, as well as use of force: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-ca...
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  Honestly, it seems like a really positive thing for the "good cops" out there too. No more "he said, she said" complaints. Of course, if these tapes get conveniently "lost" that presents another set of problems.

bruceb 13y ago

I am with others, I am surprised it took this long. This actually is safer for officers out by themselves.

wheaties 13y ago

I hate to say this but: "first they came for the communists, I didn't ck.plain because I wasn't a communist..." I don't want them to come for me. Cameras are one thing, it cuts both ways. This is different. (quote: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...)

tokenadult 13y ago

This makes me really wary of ever gaining the attention of a police officer in Boston. Police car GPS tracking technology is surely coming to my state (after all, the city buses already have it), and it will be welcome here. Minnesota peace officer vehicle dashboard camera videos are often used in investigations, including investigations of officer misconduct, and everyone expects the video to be available any time a police vehicle is involved in an interaction with the public. It has been mandatory in my state since the 1980s for all custodial interrogations by police to be videotaped from beginning to end, and the videotapes can become part of the court record any time police conduct in a case is in dispute. Law enforcement is better when law enforcement officers are subject to the law. It's really that simple. If we know what police officers are doing, we know whether or not they are doing their taxpayer-funded jobs and whether accusations against them are true or false. Every law-abiding police officer should be glad to be on record about what happened while on patrol.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- scarecrowbob 13y ago
  No. Public actors acting on the public in public should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  - Balgair 13y ago
    I mean, I agree with you, but just because you are 'on duty' doesn't mean that you become an automaton of the state. You are still a person with privileges, rights, and responsibilities. If anything, since your responsibilities increase, your privileges should as well. Cops, no matter how corrupt or bad, are still people just like you and me. EDIT: I should explain myself more. Cops are people too. That we have a system that automatically prioritizes their word above all others is that problem here. Dashcams and monitoring every trip to the doughnut shop is a symptom of that. Maybe we should treat the root cause, not the symptoms. Maybe the system is in need of some TLC, not more rules and exceptions.

pmiller2 13y ago

I'm confused why the ACLU is objecting to this. It seems like having police be trackable by their own departments while on duty should present absolutely no privacy concern. And, for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. At the very least, it will give police departments more data about what their officers are actually doing, and maybe it will prevent a few abuses of power. I'd agree with the ACLU that this would be totally unconscionable if we were talking about tracking them 24/7, but that's clearly not the intent here.

koenigdavidmj 13y ago
The argument that I have heard so far is that up until this point, when police enter a house and make an arrest, the jury doesn't see the accused until his lawyer gets to clean him up, put him in a suit, and get him to shut up. With ubiquitous cameras, the jury will now see the accused and his residence and will have that as their first impression of him.
- AnIrishDuck 13y ago
  I imagine that, if necessary, the accused's lawyer could argue that showing such footage would be unduly prejudicial. This would preclude the jury from ever seeing it (unless its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact).
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Such a video would be utterly irrelevant in most cases anyway. If you're in and out to arrest someone on a warrant, the actual events of that arrest have nothing to do with the reason they're being arrested, and would almost never come up in a trial to begin with.
- pmiller2 13y ago
  Correct, but that doesn't apply to GPS in police cruisers. All that data can tell you is that the car was at X address at Y time, which is already obvious.
13y ago

chris_mahan 13y ago

Perhaps all Boston residents should carry GPS? For public safety of course. Of course, to disallow people from removing such device and defeating the public safety effectiveness of this measure, the device would be implanted surgically. And to allow for the identification of bodies, there should be several, just in case a limb gets lost, or a bullet destroy one... The procedure should be painless (relatively) and should be covered by the Affordable Care Act (we think, we haven't really read the law), so residents that resist such measures could be deemed troublemakers and put into a government database such as the no-fly list, and other such lists, for possible rounding up at the first sign of trouble. All in the name of public safety, of course. Of course.

bruceb 13y ago
I as an individual don't have the power to stop, detain, and imprison someone. I don't have a "license to kill". Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice.
- function_seven 13y ago
  > Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice. I'd go further and say that it's quite the opposite of a nanny state (or really, a surveillance state). I don't understand where chris_mahan is coming from, as this policy seems to allow the citizenry oversight over the government, instead of the other way around.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    My argument is that first the police, then firefighters. Then teachers, then schoolchildren, then all government vehicles, then all government administrators, then all government workers, then a few major corporations, then all major corporations, then small businesses, then all businesses, then students in college, then library patrons, buss-pass holders, then ex-convicts, then children, then people collecting unemployment, then people who are receiving disability payments, then retirees, then... Did I miss anyone? The slippery slope is called slippery _because_ it is slippery...

rrhyne 13y ago

Watch the watchers.

frank_boyd 13y ago

Why, do they have something to hide? Also, if they're doing things they don't want other people to know, maybe they shouldn't be doing those things in the first place. Or something.

tnuc 13y ago

Why do they only want to track the policemen and not the policewomen?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
walrus 13y ago
The article doesn't mention gender.
- tnuc 13y ago
  Try reading the title of the article.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Policemen has meant "a member of a police force", regardless if that person is a man or woman, for ages immemorial. Policeperson, OTOH, is a BS politically correct neologism. (And who says it stops there? One can conceive of cops --men, women, LGBT etc--, not appreciating being identified as "persons" thus protesting the "policeperson" name too). The whole discussion is completely infantile, pedantic and not worthy of HN time.
    - tnuc 13y ago
      In the UK the correct term is "police officer". Using the term policeman is gender specific.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        The internet is not located in the UK.
reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Yes please describe how the English language is conspiring against women.

jacalata 13y ago

“If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say, 'Why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes?' What's this guy mean? Does he currently spend time meeting witnesses that his department doesn't know about and wouldn't approve of if they did, or that he somehow needs to keep secret from the rest of the department?

munin 13y ago
what if there are corrupt cops in your department and they review your cars GPS logs?
- jacalata 13y ago
  Then when you anonymously speak to a newspaper you might as well say that, right? Unless he assumes everyone already knows that police officers can't trust each other.
vacri 13y ago
I thought the same: say "I was meeting a reluctant witness". His argument sounded more like evasion than reality. I don't see how it's much different to "Why didn't you check in for 45 minutes today?". If you think that corruption is a problem amongst your senior staff and dispatchers, then that's something that needs to be addressed, not hacked around.

DigitalSea 13y ago

I am absolutely shocked. Postal vans, delivery trucks and armoured vehicles that deliver money to banks and stores all have GPS trackers fitted to them, heck even most taxi companies have fitted GPS trackers to their vehicles. What is the big deal? It means that a dispatcher can accurately see how far away a police officer is from a call for help. This could save lives and all the while keep some police honest. Imagine you call 911, the dispatcher immediately sees your location based on your phone number and then based on what service you need, dispatches the nearest police car to you if there is one nearby as opposed to putting out a call over outdated radio technology. Sounds like a case of police being misguided as to what the motivation is behind such a move. If delivery companies and mail services use the same technology for efficiency and estimates on arrivals, why shouldn't the police?

mullingitover 13y ago

This is a good first step, but people authorized by the government to kill citizens at their discretion should be monitored intensively every second that they're on duty. Something as light-handed as GPS tracking on their vehicles, and they're complaining about it? That's something that would worry me if I was deeply corrupt, so it's telling that the Boston PD is complaining.

SolarNet 13y ago
Police officers are NOT authorized to kill people. They have a right to self defence just like you or I. The state does give them special powers, but they are only justified to kill someone when it is in defence of themselves or others, however their job often puts them in such situations.
- yardie 13y ago
  Authorization comes from approval and in most cases the state rarely disapproves of police killings. If the penalty for wantonly taking a life is paid vacation and a poor excuse for an investigation then you can interpret that as approval.
  - SolarNet 13y ago
    Authorization != { Acceptance, Implicit Approval } Authorization would mean they have a piece of paper, a verbal order allowing the killing of people, or something to that effect. The others are simply society's acceptance and approval that their killings are justified because of their job. It's the difference between ethics (codified laws) and morals (societies implicit laws).
- mullingitover 13y ago
  This[1] was considered to be a valid use of deadly force. Calling it self defense is a huge stretch, it was basically execution for failing to follow police orders. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california-police-kill-boy-rifle http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california-poli...

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

>Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior. Honest question - what bona fide police activity could be chilled by GPS tracking their cruisers?

logn 13y ago
How about your boss tells you to patrol a stop sign all day and count the number of rolling stops vs. full stops. Since you know your cruiser is GPS tracked, you're concerned being seen not moving for 8 hours.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  First of all, no one would be assigned on such a contrived detail. Even if they were, they would not likely be there for 8 hours as there are mandatory breaks. And even if they were there for 8 hours, dispatch would know they would be out on a detail at that intersection all day, and would be periodically status checked to make sure they were still alive. And finally, what in the hell would be the problem with being tracked as being exactly where they are supposed to be?!

rdtsc 13y ago

Anecdote from back in the day (well late 90's). A friend I had at school invited me to hang out with one of his "hacker" friends. This guy was into carding and other crap. Anyway, he lived in a small town. So somehow he managed to build small transmitters and attached them to bottom of a few local police cruisers. When those would get closer he got a blinking light on his receiver. Don't know how true it was, I was pretty young, but thought it an interesting idea. Courts in many instances agreed that one doesn't need an warrant since the movement of one's car is public. Can the same logic be applied to police cars then? Some countries don't let you advertise the location of speed traps. So radio stations there would for example warn drivers of cars with flashing lights and people in uniform blasting beams of microwave energy at oncoming cars.

xacaxulu 13y ago

SWEET IRONY! OH IT TASTES SO SWEEEEEEET!!!!!!

hnriot 13y ago

The very fact that the policemen complain should make it mandatory. Anything they oppose, they oppose for a reason, and there's really only one conclusion - that the cops would rather hide their movements from those paying them. Google glass will likely make this moot since the other side of public contact will be recorded. People that carry guns and with alarming regularity kill people for the worst reasons should be subject to way more scrutiny than other employes and practically everyone is on camera all day these days. Cops should wear Google Glass and the video streamed to a vault inaccessible to the cops, to be pulled when needed for court (by a third party)

Zigurd 13y ago

This should not be controversial. Delivery and freight trucks and numerous other kinds of commercial vehicles get GPS monitored. Police in cruisers are equipped with rifles, shotguns, one or more pistols, ammunition for all these firearms, plus a Taser, mace, etc. and it's NOT tracked?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]