10 ms·

California police use of body cameras cuts violence and complaints (2013)

261 points by mercenario 13y ago

jrlocke 13y ago
I'm 23. People younger than me (generally) do not have faith in the police. My parents believe cops do no wrong. Neither belief leads to useful change. This kind of program would moderate these thoughts into actionable ones while bringing accountability into these asymmetric encounters. This seems like a place where more surveilance is actually a good thing.
- iwwr 13y ago
  >This seems like a place where more surveilance is actually a good thing. The problem here is the disparity of power. It should be legal for people to record the police, but not necessarily for the police to do the same.
  - btian 13y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with police recording the streets though. At least in the US, anyone has the right to record in public places. Why shouldn't the police be able to do the same?
    - ams6110 13y ago
      The police can throw you in jail. Ordinary members of the public cannot.
      - btian 13y ago
        What? Police (ordinarily) cannot throw you in jail without probable cause. If you're taped committing a crime, members of the public can just forward the tape to the police, and you'll end up in jail anyway.
        iwwr 13y ago
        That's true, but it's not just about doing wrong things. There ought to be probable cause for recording by an authority of the state. It also has to be targeted and not done in a dragnet fashion. The police have significant discretionary powers on their side and the body of law is wide enough to "find something" against just about anyone. If you are in favor of mass surveillance, you should at least argue for a drastic simplification and excision of laws from the books.
        sergiotapia 13y ago
        >Police (ordinarily) cannot throw you in jail without probable cause LOL. Have you missed the hundreds of stories posted in forums, newspapers and websites?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      What do they do with all that video? Dump it out of a buffer? Or store it, and process it with number plate and face recognition software? Living in UK (bafflingly high number of CCTV) cameras makes me gently wary of this kind of surveillance. Having said that I'm in favour of anything that helps prevent abuse by police officers. I used to trust police but recent scandals in UK prove that corruption and blatantly illegal practices are common.
      - gerbal 13y ago
        Ideally, store it for a set amount of time and then delete it. Or keep it in perpetuity and only allow it to be used with a court order.
        LunaSea 13y ago
        But now you have a situation where the control of the data is out of you hands in a black box. You never know if the law is applied or not.
    - angersock 13y ago
      Simply put, because you recording your interactions likely only has real utility to you. The police regarding all interactions is something a lot trickier, because they have much broader influence. It's a matter of scale.
    - njharman 13y ago
      > At least in the US, anyone has the right to record in public places. This is untrue in many, many places. Some states require consent (to record another). There are many restrictions around infrastructure and specific events. Police go into private places.
  - iamwithnail 13y ago
    There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that always on recording of police does far more to address asymmetry of power than to reinforce it; it's why sousveillance is popular amongst activists. Police brutality flourishes in dark, non visible places. Surveillance generally is bad; this isn't really surveillance in the same way.
- flycaliguy 13y ago
  Perhaps the difference of opinion between your peers and your parents is mostly due to general opinions of authority and the status quo that comes with aging.
  - jrlocke 13y ago
    Perhaps, but what is important is that neither of those positions reflect reality.
- prawn 13y ago
  Is this in the US or do people in many other Western countries share that suspicion? I'm in Australia and whenever I've dealt with police, they've always been very professional and reasonable. Firm when necessary, but accommodating and flexible when someone was trying to explain their actions, for example. Got pulled over and warned for (barely) speeding in Texas once. Based on US cop horror stories I'd read, I was so nervous I was almost shaking but the guy was perfectly polite and friendly.
  - kiiski 13y ago
    I think it's mostly USA and UK where people are afraid of the police by default. I certainly haven't have any problems with them here in Finland.
    - talmand 13y ago
      It's not necessarily fear, it's more that in many areas the relationship between police and the public have become rather strained for various reasons. There are many places in the US where you will have no issues whatsoever from police while in other areas an encounter may not turn out so well. I'm sure there are similar issues throughout the world if one bothers to look for it. I would say one difference in the US that's popped up lately is that the increased use of technology in our daily lives exposes the fact that there are many bad apples in the barrel, which makes the whole barrel suspect. Plus, for many people, the fact that the police tend to style themselves after the military these days tends to worry and bother people.
  - girvo 13y ago
    Cops in Aus can be pretty alright. They can also be absolutely horrendous. I've experienced both, and i would prefer them to have cameras to fix the latter and allow the public to see the former more often. Win win, IMO.
wpietri 13y ago
If this seems familiar to you as well, it may be because you read this article when it came out 4 months ago.
- talmand 13y ago
  Funny, it does seem familiar but I don't recall reading this article four months ago. But since you seem to know that I did, I guess I won't bother now. Thanks for the time saver.
jdreaver 13y ago
I see absolutely no reason why police shouldn't wear cameras. It keeps all parties honest. I just hope they don't "lose the recording" when it conveniences the police the most.
- btian 13y ago
  First, I think wearing cameras protect law enforcement persons from wrongful complaints that can damage their careers. It's still better to have them wear cameras. They can definitely "lose the recording", but what do you think the jury will do?
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Hopefully some day the absence of these videos of police encounters will be evidence in favor of the defendant. Police will be assumed to be lying about any encounter without a recording.
  - j2kun 13y ago
    Presuming someone to be lying is a huge presumption. Innocent until proven guilty should be a rule used in all cases (in the case of a 'lying' police officer, the charge is perjury). If they can prove neglect of the evidence or deliberate tampering, of course, that would be another story.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Eh it's not about perjury, it's about due process and assymetry of power. The police have the means to record everything at little cost and with no reasonable excuse to not do it. The absence of recordings is a reasonable indicator that the cops are hiding things. We expect the state to follow processes strictly. The penalty for failure to do so isn't personal incarceration for the prosecutors or police, but rather failure of their case. This seems like a tradeoff that works in practice.
      - harywilke 13y ago
Andys 13y ago
It also gives police no leeway when it comes to enforcing unfair laws. Instead, even the most empathetic and genuinely helpful cop will have to enforce it to the letter.
- codezero 13y ago
  Depends on the culture of the tech. If they only review videos after complaints or issues, they will still be able to enforce their own interpretation. If they are regularly reviewed for strict compliance then you are right. I find the latter to be unlikely. Mainly because it would be prohibitively costly and would go against current police culture which affords officers leeway.
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    They should be reviewed for strict compliance to equal protection. "Why did you arrest this (black) person when you did not arrest this (white) person?" should be a question that police officers hear much more often.
- arjie 13y ago
  In practice, what this means is that everyone will be treated the same. With leeway, policemen will treat groups of people they like better than they treat others. This is not because they're particularly evil but because policemen are human and rely on instinct (which is easily corrupted). Then you get preferential treatment. Now, an unfair law is exposed as unfair because all will suffer.
  - marklubi 13y ago
    Serious question, how well has the policy of treating everyone exactly the same to the letter of the law/rule worked for zero tolerance policies? Seems to me that with zero tolerance policies where there is no individual interpretation of the intent of the rule, too many people are unjustly punished for honest mistakes (e.g., forgetting about having a knife in their vehicle at school) or attempts to do well by someone else (e.g., taking a knife away from someone that was trying to hurt themselves).
kenjackson 13y ago
I'm a big fan of public surveillance, especially if accessible to the public with cause. I know privacy advocates hate this, but it seems like a net win to me. In your private residence you have privacy but in public E should have video record.
- ef4 13y ago
  As long as the resulting record is truly public, I agree. If only some people have meaningful access, they get tremendous power over everyone else. Which is the real problem with surveillance as it has usually been done.
- objclxt 13y ago
  > I know privacy advocates hate this, but it seems like a net win to me As far as I know, many privacy advocacy groups are in favor of police body cameras (I know the ACLU is, if they're accompanied with a suitable framework and process).
ggreer 13y ago
I'm very much in favor of these cameras, but there's one extrapolation that few have proposed: Why not encourage private citizens to record their public lives? Most of the arguments for recording police apply to everyone: Allegations are quickly discovered to be true or false. Everyone involved is less likely to be violent. People are more cordial. Determining guilt or innocence is much easier. Was a shooting self-defense or manslaughter? Did the eyewitness really recognize the defendant on the night of the crime? Etc. There are other perks to life-logging. Conversations could be transcribed and searched, eliminating many disputes as to who said what. We already do this with IRC and some types of video chat. You could even save footage that becomes important only much later. For example, you could prove you sold pencils to Vincent van Gogh before he was famous. Or you could record the first time you met your now-spouse. Finally, there's the entertainment value of life-logging. Think Russian dash cams on steroids. This technology has the potential to drastically reduce crime and improve quality of life. Yet I think most people would have an aversion to constantly recording their own lives, let alone being constantly recorded by others. I'm curious how people resolve this inconsistency.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Most people haven't had the need to life-log. They don't get into the kind of situation where that evidence is useful very often. So they don't have the knowledge to setup a life logging device until after they've needed it. (A bit like backup software!) Storage and battery size and etc have all been a bit clunky until recently too. I guess a rolling buffer of a hour is fine; click a button to dump the peevious hour to long term storage? The few times where I would have benefited from using such devices I know the other people would have really really hated me using it. I'm interested in cheap / free (as in cost and rights) methods for life logging. I don't care about breaking surveillance laws.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >The few times where I would have benefited from using such devices I know the other people would have really really hated me using it. // This is a potential problem. In the OP the officer waits until after the situation to upload. If it's not live streaming then you risk being attacked so that the video footage is prevented from being uploaded. This issue came up here in the past in relation to apps for recording audio using a smartphone. >I don't care about breaking surveillance laws. // This is especially interesting to me as you're effectively gathering evidence that could show you broke the law. I'd assume in the UK such evidence, if found, could be used against you. Would you need to wear a sign saying "video recording in operation"?
walru 13y ago
Not only should the data be recorded, but it should also be 'live streamed' to the public. I placed live streamed in quotes as I could see the need for some sort of delay simply due to the sensitivity of the information - plus some level of post-processing would need to be done to ensure innocent parties faces are not being displayed. Police behavior is such a broad ranging topic, simply having their actions recorded does nothing to solve the root of the problem. One of the topics I'd like to see addressed is their 12 hour work day. For what appears to be an enormously stressful job, it seems like some form of torture to ask law enforcement to always be on duty for such long stretches at a time. I really think that to get back to the 'To Serve and Protect' mantra we need to start treating policemen like humans first.
- saym 13y ago
  While I see where you're coming from, I think that'd be a logistical nightmare.
- talmand 13y ago
  No, I would disagree. You can keep the data open to the public with some constraint. Such as, you can request a copy of video from a certain timeline if you are on the video or have the permission from someone on the video. If you can prove such information, then they have to hand it over. I'm more interested in how to handle the news media on this type of thing. It would seem maybe the media cannot access the video unless they have similar permissions or if the video has been submitted as evidence in some way.
fsk 13y ago
The biggest problem with police cameras is they "malfunction" or "forgot to turn it on" whenever the camera shows evidence that the policeman did something wrong.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  That isn't necessarily a problem, it creates the opportunity to ask the police officer why he generates so many complaints about his behavior. After all, he can make sure to turn the camera on and protect himself from a lot of accusations.
  - Einstalbert 13y ago
    Unfortunately, there isn't a person asking those questions. More often than not, officers watch out for each other (read: The Blue Code of Silence) and internal investigations are notoriously a joke. I'd love to see someone not affiliated with police officers ask one of them why they generate so many complaints, without also becoming a complaint.
dasmithii 13y ago
If the ideal police officer is a mechanistic follower of written law, these cameras are perfect. No right minded officer would stray from instruction while their actions are recorded in plain sight. But I'm not entirely convinced of their worth. While onboard cameras provide concrete evidence in court, and undoubtedly solve problems in our society, we might as well replace our officers with robots (this might not be a bad idea).
- iLoch 13y ago
  I disagree with your robot sentiment - well, at least I don't think that's the solution yet. If a robot is going to be lethal you've got a whole host of problems that you didn't have before (ie. Someone steals it and hacks it to terrorize) Also there are so many social queues in our day to day lives that are hard or potentially impossible for a robot to understand (at least with today's tech) - like someone jokingly saying "I'm gonna kill you!" to their friend. Once we get those problems figured out then sure, that's yet another job that we can automate.
mikebo 13y ago
I'm an engineer at Evidence.com (a subsidiary of Taser) which makes the cameras (and accompanying software) used in this study. If you have interest in working on technology that makes both the public and officers safer, get in touch (see my profile)! We're based in Seattle and hiring in lots of areas: mobile engineers, web engineers, UX designers, etc.
kimonos 13y ago
Great idea!
puppetmaster3 13y ago
I think police act different when they have them on.
emcfarlane 13y ago
Why have any difference between police and civilians? There seems to be so much abuse of power as people stand by powerless. Why the difference?
EGreg 13y ago
I have one humble proposal, to make a FEDERAL law about this. Requiring law enforcement officers to record and store video of their activities on duty would improve the experience for both cops and the people they are dealing with. One study showed a staggering decrease of 88% in complaints against officers. We need federal laws to enable timely and straightforward access to this video in court cases all around the country where people are facing assault charges and years in prison. There is currently a White House Petition to that effect. Please sign it: http://wh.gov/lEb2V http://wh.gov/lEb2V
_nedR 13y ago
I like this idea, but I propose a slight modification: Do a rolling record system, so that when the officer hits record, the camera not only saves footage from that point but also the 15 minutes prior to that. Lets see how much their opinions of cameras change then..
davidlumley 13y ago
More recently, the Albuquerque police were involved in a shooting that was recorded through the use of body cameras: http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-questions/ http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-quest... While the outcome of the incident was negative (the man died of his wounds), the fact that the footage exists and makes those officers accountable for their actions is a good thing. I've noticed some police officers in Brisbane, Australia wearing what appears to be similar cameras. I don't feel much safer, but it's good to know in the event of an incident occurring that there's a much higher chance that an objective, irrefutable chain of events will exist.
- girvo 13y ago
  Just a shame about our government being determined to turn QLD back into a Bjelke-Peterson police state.
RankingMember 13y ago
I think having cameras all over every public safety servant/location (e.g. police station) would usher in a golden age of relations between the public and public servants. Doing so would steamroll the potential for abuse (lack of oversight, realization that you're unlikely to get caught, old boys club protecting you) inherent in any position of power without oversight by neutral/opposing (depending on your perspective on police) parties.
madaxe_again 13y ago
I foresee an entire industry dedicated to "retouching" police videos so they're "better" evidence.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
What about the safety rate? Its hard to do a job right, with somebody (everybody!) looking over your shoulder.

261 points by mercenario 13y ago

I'm 23. People younger than me (generally) do not have faith in the police. My parents believe cops do no wrong. Neither belief leads to useful change. This kind of program would moderate these thoughts into actionable ones while bringing accountability into these asymmetric encounters. This seems like a place where more surveilance is actually a good thing.

iwwr 13y ago
>This seems like a place where more surveilance is actually a good thing. The problem here is the disparity of power. It should be legal for people to record the police, but not necessarily for the police to do the same.
- btian 13y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with police recording the streets though. At least in the US, anyone has the right to record in public places. Why shouldn't the police be able to do the same?
  - ams6110 13y ago
    The police can throw you in jail. Ordinary members of the public cannot.
    - btian 13y ago
      What? Police (ordinarily) cannot throw you in jail without probable cause. If you're taped committing a crime, members of the public can just forward the tape to the police, and you'll end up in jail anyway.
      - iwwr 13y ago
        That's true, but it's not just about doing wrong things. There ought to be probable cause for recording by an authority of the state. It also has to be targeted and not done in a dragnet fashion. The police have significant discretionary powers on their side and the body of law is wide enough to "find something" against just about anyone. If you are in favor of mass surveillance, you should at least argue for a drastic simplification and excision of laws from the books.
      - sergiotapia 13y ago
        >Police (ordinarily) cannot throw you in jail without probable cause LOL. Have you missed the hundreds of stories posted in forums, newspapers and websites?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    What do they do with all that video? Dump it out of a buffer? Or store it, and process it with number plate and face recognition software? Living in UK (bafflingly high number of CCTV) cameras makes me gently wary of this kind of surveillance. Having said that I'm in favour of anything that helps prevent abuse by police officers. I used to trust police but recent scandals in UK prove that corruption and blatantly illegal practices are common.
    - gerbal 13y ago
      Ideally, store it for a set amount of time and then delete it. Or keep it in perpetuity and only allow it to be used with a court order.
      - LunaSea 13y ago
        But now you have a situation where the control of the data is out of you hands in a black box. You never know if the law is applied or not.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Simply put, because you recording your interactions likely only has real utility to you. The police regarding all interactions is something a lot trickier, because they have much broader influence. It's a matter of scale.
  - njharman 13y ago
    > At least in the US, anyone has the right to record in public places. This is untrue in many, many places. Some states require consent (to record another). There are many restrictions around infrastructure and specific events. Police go into private places.
- iamwithnail 13y ago
  There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that always on recording of police does far more to address asymmetry of power than to reinforce it; it's why sousveillance is popular amongst activists. Police brutality flourishes in dark, non visible places. Surveillance generally is bad; this isn't really surveillance in the same way.
flycaliguy 13y ago
Perhaps the difference of opinion between your peers and your parents is mostly due to general opinions of authority and the status quo that comes with aging.
- jrlocke 13y ago
  Perhaps, but what is important is that neither of those positions reflect reality.
prawn 13y ago
Is this in the US or do people in many other Western countries share that suspicion? I'm in Australia and whenever I've dealt with police, they've always been very professional and reasonable. Firm when necessary, but accommodating and flexible when someone was trying to explain their actions, for example. Got pulled over and warned for (barely) speeding in Texas once. Based on US cop horror stories I'd read, I was so nervous I was almost shaking but the guy was perfectly polite and friendly.
- kiiski 13y ago
  I think it's mostly USA and UK where people are afraid of the police by default. I certainly haven't have any problems with them here in Finland.
  - talmand 13y ago
    It's not necessarily fear, it's more that in many areas the relationship between police and the public have become rather strained for various reasons. There are many places in the US where you will have no issues whatsoever from police while in other areas an encounter may not turn out so well. I'm sure there are similar issues throughout the world if one bothers to look for it. I would say one difference in the US that's popped up lately is that the increased use of technology in our daily lives exposes the fact that there are many bad apples in the barrel, which makes the whole barrel suspect. Plus, for many people, the fact that the police tend to style themselves after the military these days tends to worry and bother people.
- girvo 13y ago
  Cops in Aus can be pretty alright. They can also be absolutely horrendous. I've experienced both, and i would prefer them to have cameras to fix the latter and allow the public to see the former more often. Win win, IMO.

wpietri 13y ago

If this seems familiar to you as well, it may be because you read this article when it came out 4 months ago.

talmand 13y ago
Funny, it does seem familiar but I don't recall reading this article four months ago. But since you seem to know that I did, I guess I won't bother now. Thanks for the time saver.

jdreaver 13y ago

I see absolutely no reason why police shouldn't wear cameras. It keeps all parties honest. I just hope they don't "lose the recording" when it conveniences the police the most.

btian 13y ago
First, I think wearing cameras protect law enforcement persons from wrongful complaints that can damage their careers. It's still better to have them wear cameras. They can definitely "lose the recording", but what do you think the jury will do?
thrownaway2424 13y ago
Hopefully some day the absence of these videos of police encounters will be evidence in favor of the defendant. Police will be assumed to be lying about any encounter without a recording.
- j2kun 13y ago
  Presuming someone to be lying is a huge presumption. Innocent until proven guilty should be a rule used in all cases (in the case of a 'lying' police officer, the charge is perjury). If they can prove neglect of the evidence or deliberate tampering, of course, that would be another story.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Eh it's not about perjury, it's about due process and assymetry of power. The police have the means to record everything at little cost and with no reasonable excuse to not do it. The absence of recordings is a reasonable indicator that the cops are hiding things. We expect the state to follow processes strictly. The penalty for failure to do so isn't personal incarceration for the prosecutors or police, but rather failure of their case. This seems like a tradeoff that works in practice.
    - harywilke 13y ago

Andys 13y ago

It also gives police no leeway when it comes to enforcing unfair laws. Instead, even the most empathetic and genuinely helpful cop will have to enforce it to the letter.

codezero 13y ago
Depends on the culture of the tech. If they only review videos after complaints or issues, they will still be able to enforce their own interpretation. If they are regularly reviewed for strict compliance then you are right. I find the latter to be unlikely. Mainly because it would be prohibitively costly and would go against current police culture which affords officers leeway.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  They should be reviewed for strict compliance to equal protection. "Why did you arrest this (black) person when you did not arrest this (white) person?" should be a question that police officers hear much more often.
arjie 13y ago
In practice, what this means is that everyone will be treated the same. With leeway, policemen will treat groups of people they like better than they treat others. This is not because they're particularly evil but because policemen are human and rely on instinct (which is easily corrupted). Then you get preferential treatment. Now, an unfair law is exposed as unfair because all will suffer.
- marklubi 13y ago
  Serious question, how well has the policy of treating everyone exactly the same to the letter of the law/rule worked for zero tolerance policies? Seems to me that with zero tolerance policies where there is no individual interpretation of the intent of the rule, too many people are unjustly punished for honest mistakes (e.g., forgetting about having a knife in their vehicle at school) or attempts to do well by someone else (e.g., taking a knife away from someone that was trying to hurt themselves).

kenjackson 13y ago

I'm a big fan of public surveillance, especially if accessible to the public with cause. I know privacy advocates hate this, but it seems like a net win to me. In your private residence you have privacy but in public E should have video record.

ef4 13y ago
As long as the resulting record is truly public, I agree. If only some people have meaningful access, they get tremendous power over everyone else. Which is the real problem with surveillance as it has usually been done.
objclxt 13y ago
> I know privacy advocates hate this, but it seems like a net win to me As far as I know, many privacy advocacy groups are in favor of police body cameras (I know the ACLU is, if they're accompanied with a suitable framework and process).

ggreer 13y ago

I'm very much in favor of these cameras, but there's one extrapolation that few have proposed: Why not encourage private citizens to record their public lives? Most of the arguments for recording police apply to everyone: Allegations are quickly discovered to be true or false. Everyone involved is less likely to be violent. People are more cordial. Determining guilt or innocence is much easier. Was a shooting self-defense or manslaughter? Did the eyewitness really recognize the defendant on the night of the crime? Etc. There are other perks to life-logging. Conversations could be transcribed and searched, eliminating many disputes as to who said what. We already do this with IRC and some types of video chat. You could even save footage that becomes important only much later. For example, you could prove you sold pencils to Vincent van Gogh before he was famous. Or you could record the first time you met your now-spouse. Finally, there's the entertainment value of life-logging. Think Russian dash cams on steroids. This technology has the potential to drastically reduce crime and improve quality of life. Yet I think most people would have an aversion to constantly recording their own lives, let alone being constantly recorded by others. I'm curious how people resolve this inconsistency.

DanBC 13y ago
Most people haven't had the need to life-log. They don't get into the kind of situation where that evidence is useful very often. So they don't have the knowledge to setup a life logging device until after they've needed it. (A bit like backup software!) Storage and battery size and etc have all been a bit clunky until recently too. I guess a rolling buffer of a hour is fine; click a button to dump the peevious hour to long term storage? The few times where I would have benefited from using such devices I know the other people would have really really hated me using it. I'm interested in cheap / free (as in cost and rights) methods for life logging. I don't care about breaking surveillance laws.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >The few times where I would have benefited from using such devices I know the other people would have really really hated me using it. // This is a potential problem. In the OP the officer waits until after the situation to upload. If it's not live streaming then you risk being attacked so that the video footage is prevented from being uploaded. This issue came up here in the past in relation to apps for recording audio using a smartphone. >I don't care about breaking surveillance laws. // This is especially interesting to me as you're effectively gathering evidence that could show you broke the law. I'd assume in the UK such evidence, if found, could be used against you. Would you need to wear a sign saying "video recording in operation"?

walru 13y ago

Not only should the data be recorded, but it should also be 'live streamed' to the public. I placed live streamed in quotes as I could see the need for some sort of delay simply due to the sensitivity of the information - plus some level of post-processing would need to be done to ensure innocent parties faces are not being displayed. Police behavior is such a broad ranging topic, simply having their actions recorded does nothing to solve the root of the problem. One of the topics I'd like to see addressed is their 12 hour work day. For what appears to be an enormously stressful job, it seems like some form of torture to ask law enforcement to always be on duty for such long stretches at a time. I really think that to get back to the 'To Serve and Protect' mantra we need to start treating policemen like humans first.

saym 13y ago
While I see where you're coming from, I think that'd be a logistical nightmare.
talmand 13y ago
No, I would disagree. You can keep the data open to the public with some constraint. Such as, you can request a copy of video from a certain timeline if you are on the video or have the permission from someone on the video. If you can prove such information, then they have to hand it over. I'm more interested in how to handle the news media on this type of thing. It would seem maybe the media cannot access the video unless they have similar permissions or if the video has been submitted as evidence in some way.

fsk 13y ago

The biggest problem with police cameras is they "malfunction" or "forgot to turn it on" whenever the camera shows evidence that the policeman did something wrong.

maxerickson 13y ago
That isn't necessarily a problem, it creates the opportunity to ask the police officer why he generates so many complaints about his behavior. After all, he can make sure to turn the camera on and protect himself from a lot of accusations.
- Einstalbert 13y ago
  Unfortunately, there isn't a person asking those questions. More often than not, officers watch out for each other (read: The Blue Code of Silence) and internal investigations are notoriously a joke. I'd love to see someone not affiliated with police officers ask one of them why they generate so many complaints, without also becoming a complaint.

dasmithii 13y ago

If the ideal police officer is a mechanistic follower of written law, these cameras are perfect. No right minded officer would stray from instruction while their actions are recorded in plain sight. But I'm not entirely convinced of their worth. While onboard cameras provide concrete evidence in court, and undoubtedly solve problems in our society, we might as well replace our officers with robots (this might not be a bad idea).

iLoch 13y ago
I disagree with your robot sentiment - well, at least I don't think that's the solution yet. If a robot is going to be lethal you've got a whole host of problems that you didn't have before (ie. Someone steals it and hacks it to terrorize) Also there are so many social queues in our day to day lives that are hard or potentially impossible for a robot to understand (at least with today's tech) - like someone jokingly saying "I'm gonna kill you!" to their friend. Once we get those problems figured out then sure, that's yet another job that we can automate.

mikebo 13y ago

I'm an engineer at Evidence.com (a subsidiary of Taser) which makes the cameras (and accompanying software) used in this study. If you have interest in working on technology that makes both the public and officers safer, get in touch (see my profile)! We're based in Seattle and hiring in lots of areas: mobile engineers, web engineers, UX designers, etc.

kimonos 13y ago

Great idea!

puppetmaster3 13y ago

I think police act different when they have them on.

emcfarlane 13y ago

Why have any difference between police and civilians? There seems to be so much abuse of power as people stand by powerless. Why the difference?

EGreg 13y ago

I have one humble proposal, to make a FEDERAL law about this. Requiring law enforcement officers to record and store video of their activities on duty would improve the experience for both cops and the people they are dealing with. One study showed a staggering decrease of 88% in complaints against officers. We need federal laws to enable timely and straightforward access to this video in court cases all around the country where people are facing assault charges and years in prison. There is currently a White House Petition to that effect. Please sign it: http://wh.gov/lEb2V http://wh.gov/lEb2V

_nedR 13y ago

I like this idea, but I propose a slight modification: Do a rolling record system, so that when the officer hits record, the camera not only saves footage from that point but also the 15 minutes prior to that. Lets see how much their opinions of cameras change then..

davidlumley 13y ago

More recently, the Albuquerque police were involved in a shooting that was recorded through the use of body cameras: http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-questions/ http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-quest... While the outcome of the incident was negative (the man died of his wounds), the fact that the footage exists and makes those officers accountable for their actions is a good thing. I've noticed some police officers in Brisbane, Australia wearing what appears to be similar cameras. I don't feel much safer, but it's good to know in the event of an incident occurring that there's a much higher chance that an objective, irrefutable chain of events will exist.

girvo 13y ago
Just a shame about our government being determined to turn QLD back into a Bjelke-Peterson police state.

RankingMember 13y ago

I think having cameras all over every public safety servant/location (e.g. police station) would usher in a golden age of relations between the public and public servants. Doing so would steamroll the potential for abuse (lack of oversight, realization that you're unlikely to get caught, old boys club protecting you) inherent in any position of power without oversight by neutral/opposing (depending on your perspective on police) parties.

madaxe_again 13y ago

I foresee an entire industry dedicated to "retouching" police videos so they're "better" evidence.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

What about the safety rate? Its hard to do a job right, with somebody (everybody!) looking over your shoulder.