15 ms·

New York Police Officers to Begin Wearing Body Cameras in Pilot Program

299 points by siculars 12y ago

siculars 12y ago
Who gets the contract? GoPro?
- dankohn1 12y ago
  Taser is one of the leading vendors. http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-body-on-officer-video http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-body-on-... This is interesting because Taser has sold to almost every police department in the US, and so is well positioned to make these cameras standard equipment.
kelukelugames 12y ago
I hope this takes off and everyone wins because 1) Less false complaints are filed against cops 2) Cities don't get sued because cops behave better 3) No one gets unlawfully harassed by a cop ever again. On the other hand, I've seen criminals interacting with cops in person. They do not have an easy job.
- nahiluhmot 12y ago
  > On the other hand, I've seen criminals interacting with cops in person. They do not have an easy job. Wouldn't that be a positive for the police as well? If a suspect is belligerent, the presence of a camera would help to prove that.
  - kelukelugames 12y ago
    I think criminals have a different mindset than we do. Look at world star and live leaks for example. Being filmed probably encourages them to act worse.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Good. If you are dumb enough to fight a cop you will have no respect for an average citizen and you should be removed from decent society.
    - jaredmcateer 12y ago
      When Rialto, California PD ran it's pilot program it found that both parties tended to behave better knowing there was a camera. 88% drop in complaints against the officer and 60% drop in police officers use of force.[1] While you'll still have criminals that don't care, there are plenty that do, especially when they know that it's no longer just their word vs the police officer. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-poli...
    - thathonkey 12y ago
      You know what makes a criminal different from you? Nothing besides the fact that they broke a law and then got caught. Have you ever broken a law? You do at least realize you're a racist, right?
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        > racist What?
        thathonkey 12y ago
        "world star" and "encourages them" is a racist dogwhistle that I'd be happy to translate for you. He meant those "uppity, animalistic black males" That paired with the attitude that criminals are essentially no different than most people that post here is how I drew that conclusion. Barring extremes like members of organized crime, violent gangs, cartels, etc. of course. Even still, broad strokes don't apply to those organizations but you could definitely make the case that the affiliated develop a more uniquely "criminal" mindset. Keyword being DEVELOP. Criminality is not inherent, sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.
    - 12y ago
- emehrkay 12y ago
  NY police are murdering people on video already. Will this change things?
  - krapp 12y ago
    It should provide actual evidence, or evidence to the contrary, that the police in NY are murdering people on a regular basis as a matter of policy. All of the footage of police not murdering people is of value as well, after all.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      You moved the goalposts on someone else's assertion. No where was "on a regular basis" stated except by you. The recent chokehold death - a banned technique that resulted in a death - is a good example of what the parent was probably talking about.
      - krapp 12y ago
        Fair enough - I didn't mean to imply it on the part of the parent but on arguments about police brutality in general, particularly on the internet.
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        "are murdering" implies that it continues to happen on an ongoing basis. "on a regular basis" is moving goalposts, but not moving them very far.
        emehrkay 12y ago
        "The ny police is murdering..." doesn't make much sense in English. And it has happened more than once. The other time I can think of is when they killed the guy in times square.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        The difference between "murdered" and "is/are murdering" is that the "murdering" implies that either it is happening at this very moment (which is clearly not the case here) or it happens on an ongoing basis.
xrange 12y ago
I suppose it'll be interesting to see the "failure" rate for these cameras, how often someone "forgets" to put it on, and how easy it is for the camera to get "damaged/stepped on" in a scuffle.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  That's why those events should be logged, and it should be easy for the camera to know whether it crashed or the officer turned it off (by saying having the offer to turn on switch and then press a button. Such two actions would be hard to replicate "by accident"). Also, the officers should be punished and/or lose credibility in a trial if it's known that the camera was turned off by them during the time they were supposed to use it - like say when confronting a suspect or whatever. Obviously, going to the restroom or other such events should not be punishable. "Forgetting" to turn on the camera before engaging a citizen/suspect should be punishable. Turning on the camera and keeping it on during the interaction should be as necessary as police officers ID-ing themselves.
  - deathhand 12y ago
    What about your caring IT support person that just so happens to be able to edit the logs to make it looks like the camera crashed? Or if the data somehow becomes corrupted during the file transfer process? While cameras are great people will still find loopholes and exploit them. That is the nature of man.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Conspicuous destruction of evidence is a risky endeavor. Body cameras won't make it impossible for police to get away with crimes, but they will make it much more difficult.
  - anonymoushn 12y ago
    > Turning on the camera and keeping it on during the interaction should be as necessary as police officers ID-ing themselves. Do they ID themselves generally? I've mostly seen them not do this when it was requested.
dankohn1 12y ago
This will turn out to be the most important technology news of the year. I live in a lower Manhattan, and as a well-dressed white person, my interactions with police are invariably polite and deferential (including when I got a ticket for running a red light on a Citibike last month). But I know from friends that those same police officers become totally different people when in a different environment (particularly uptown and in poorer Brooklyn neighborhoods) and especially when dealing with people of color. There is bullying, there is haughtiness, and there is often a complete lack of respect. Video cameras can change that. The knowledge that any citizen can file a complaint about an unnecessarily hostile interaction means that police officers will begin to act the way they are supposed to, as the only members of our community to whom we grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I also believe that video cameras will have a positive impact on police, increasing the respect they receive from the community and their self-respect, and enabling them to prove that they are often in the right around contested confrontations.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > This will turn out to be the most important technology news of the year. I live in Manhattan as well, and I used to think this would help. But then Eric Garner[0] happened. The video evidence there was about as clear as you can get, and still it was amazing how apologetic the responses I saw from both NYPD and other LEOs in other jurisdictions (e.g. /r/ProtectAndServe)[1][2]. And look at Ferguson. We have no shortage of evidence of the atrocities that have been committed there. The problem isn't just pictorial evidence. The problem is actually turning that evidence into action. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner [1] https://pay.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2b4on3/i_dont_see_what_they_could_have_done_differently/ https://pay.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2b4on3/i_d... [2] Note that this particular thread was later linked from /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut so the current state is not representative of what it was when it was initially posted - previously, the comments defending the NYPD had far more support (votes-wise), and many of the comments defending Garner are from readers of the latter subreddit.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
meepmorp 12y ago
If you've got nothing to hide, why is the camera a problem? But more seriously, does anyone know anything about these systems? I'd be concerned about them getting shut off (accidentally or not), and about ensuring that the recordings made are retained for a reasonable period of time (however long that is). Are there off the shelf solutions for this?
- dankohn1 12y ago
  Take a look at http://www.evidence.com/ http://www.evidence.com/ It's all stored securely in the cloud, so what could go wrong (asks Jennifer Lawrence)?
  - jonlucc 12y ago
    Surely there is an option for larger departments to run their own servers. Isn't there already digital evidence to be stored?
- vacri 12y ago
  You may have nothing to hide, but if what you do have is shown in a misleading context, it can be quite damaging.
- kansface 12y ago
  I would guess jurors won't look favorably upon cameras miraculously turning themselves off during an arrest.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I think you would be surprised, both at the tiny number of cases that would actually make it to a jury, and the number of jurors who would proudly support the police even in blatant atrocities.
higherpurpose 12y ago
This is a great and necessary step. But what happens to the videos after they're taken? Do people need to go through long process of FOIA request? Do they have to sue the department to see them? Or will all videos be posted on a Youtube-like site that's accessible almost/anyone, soon after it was taken, and not controlled by the police department taking the videos? I don't want 30 percent of these videos to "get lost" after they're taken.
pkaye 12y ago
I don't see any negatives to having these body cameras for police officers. Not even in terms of costs since reduced lawsuit litigation and settlements so counteract that.
- MadManE 12y ago
  You don't see any negatives to giving ubiquitous surveillance equipment to every government body?
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Is having your eyes poked out a part of police training now? Every cop comes with two cameras, the output of which cannot be reviewed but is highly trusted in a court of law.
    - jtheory 12y ago
      This is a good point -- between a camera in every public place and a camera on every cop, the latter is far the better option, and can be empowering to the public interacting with the police. Just about everything it records is in the context of "member of the public knowingly interacting with a police officer", not "member of the public going about their everyday life" (which is much more ripe for abuse, and rather less likely to benefit the public in any way).
  - serf 12y ago
    those receiving the devices are already charged with the task of acting as a form of surveillance towards the good of the state. The technology will just prevent them from cherry picking what they wish to survey. (probably a good thing with regards to crony-ism and corruption.)
mbrameld 12y ago
This is a good first step. There needs to be strict punishment for officers who turn off or fail to turn on their cameras when interacting with the public, though. Also, if footage of an incident where an officer was wearing a camera doesn't exist it should be presumed to be exculpatory for the accused.
- knodi123 12y ago
  "I'm sorry about squirting my water bottle at your chest, officer, but I really can't afford a felony conviction right now."
  - mbrameld 12y ago
    I'm guessing they'll be able to withstand a little water.
simplemath 12y ago
Taser are pairing their LEO bodycam offering with an associated cloud storage product at EVIDENCE.com
afafsd 12y ago
This gives me another idea: how about we fit criminals with body cameras?
- EA 12y ago
  Most carry an array of networked sensors on their person already. - NSA
- nilved 12y ago
  I hope you'll be glad to hear this effort is already underway: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-to-begin-wearing-body-cameras-in-pilot-program.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-o...
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Bazinga
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
MadManE 12y ago
I like that we are moving towards a state of affairs where police have to act appropriately in their position of power. However, I seem to be the only one who sees the irony in complaining about the NSA recording everything we do, and simultaneously giving large amounts of recording equipment to other parts of various levels of government. How do we ensure that these cameras aren't turned against us, also? Who watches the watchers?
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > However, I seem to be the only one who sees the irony in complaining about the NSA recording everything we do, and simultaneously giving large amounts of recording equipment to other parts of various levels of government. The NSA can surveil everyone in mediums the average person considers to be a private venue. Whatever I'm doing on a police chest cam is something they were able to see with their eyes already.
  - serf 12y ago
    assuming that the video storage and the stream itself are secure, sure.
- mkhalil 12y ago
  "Who watches the watchers?" I hope you realize that does that one thing you question. Also, police encounters are generally in the public, where you shouldn't expect privacy in the first place. You can't ask for the right to film officers, then complain if they film you. Besides, most likely you're on camera anyway. So smile :)
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    > You can't ask for the right to film officers, then complain if they film you. Sure you can. For example, it's commonly argued that there's a public interest in how police officers carry out their public duties. It's also commonly argued that the legal power differential (see: monopoly on use of force) between police and civilians justifies different restrictions on the police than on civilians. I actually agree that there's no problem with the police filming in public, but your argument is crazy.
tuxidomasx 12y ago
It looks like only a small number of officers will have them for the pilot program. But even if widely adopted, I feel like this wont help stop police abuse due to the Blue Code of Silence. Besides, cameras on squad cars don't prevent racial profiling on the road. I've never been told "you were driving while black, so lets see if you have something illegal in your car." Instead, I hear: "it didnt look like you were wearing your seatbelt..." or "you were following the car ahead of you too closely..." or "I need to check your window tint" (and i dont even have tinted windows!) I feel like body cams are just another obstacle for abusive police to maneuver around.
mkhalil 12y ago
I applaud the effort and it may help in significant violations of human rights. As far as general harassment goes, not sure this is gonna help much. What do you expect to happen when someone gets harassed? Who is he going to call? The police station? Civilian: "Hello, Mr.Officer, one of your colleagues were being mean to me and didn't let me get on the bus today without questioning everything about me." Officer: "I apologize for any inconvenience he may of caused you sir, we'll look into it." Officer to colleague: "So....Did we decide on Mexican for lunch? Or Sushi?"
nilved 12y ago
People need to realize that if body cameras don't have public live streams they are entirely negative for the general population. They'll be used against you in court and "strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your favor. It's very dangerous to give the police complete control over video evidence, which is why I feel body cameras are a misguided attempt at sousveillance. Instead, we should be setting up public live streams in public areas, and controlling the recordings ourselves.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Indeed, what could be better than having both Big Brother and Little Brother taping your every move!
- TallGuyShort 12y ago
  While I think you make a good point, public live streams have downsides as well. I think there's a higher risk of vigilante justice when snippets can become widespread so easily (perhaps without context). There's also the likelihood of police officers viewing things that should be private outside of official business, like identification documents, etc. I listen to local police frequencies often and even with that I hear all sorts of stuff that shouldn't be public knowledge.
  - kghose 12y ago
    Right. Happened in the Boston Marathon Murders.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  >"strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your favor. There is precedent for courts to dismiss cases due to technicalities in police conduct or how evidence was gathered. It seems reasonable for courts (or lawmakers) to establish that lack of video invalidates an arrest.
  - ewoodrich 12y ago
    True, but the bigger problem arises when you need that footage to prosecute a LEO.
discardorama 12y ago
While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession, there are some who let their power go to their heads. Devices like cameras can help when complaints are received (as long as the cameras can't be tampered with post facto..) Case in point: girlfriend was in a taqueria in the Upper Haight neighborhood of SF, and witnessed the following. A cop was sitting at a table. A guy walked in, stood in line to pick up a takeout order. He started staring at the cop. Now, the Haight has more than its fair share of weirdos, so a person staring at a cop is nothing new. But the cop decided to take offense at that. Started verbally harassing the guy. Took him outside, threatened to arrest him. All this time, the guy is saying: but I didn't do nothing, man! At one stage, the guy put his hands in his pocket, trying to pull out some ID; and the cop's hand immediately went to his gun, threatening "you don't want to be doing that!". Luckily, the guy took his hand out quickly. After harassing the guy, the cop shoved him and walked away. GF witnessed the whole thing, and went out to talk to the cop as he was walking away. He just laughed at her, saying "get out of my way" and kept walking. There were other witnesses too; but it still is basically their word against the cop's, and the SFPD refuses to do anything about it. Had there been a camera[#] on the cop, they would be singing a different tune. [#] I told her: next time, _video_ the damn thing!
- oh_sigh 12y ago
  You can't stare down a ref in the NBA. Why can you stare down a cop in a restaurant?
- click170 12y ago
  For what its worth she should have filed a report anyway (assuming she didn't because of the perceived futility). One witness against a cop doesn't count for much, but 2? How about 3? How many individual eye witness complaints do you think it would take to get them to take the incident seriously? How many witnesses were there that day? Not everyone there will complain but if you don't either then you're part of the problem instead of the solution.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession, The problem is the following -- those "good" cops doing their job protect the bad cops. The whole "blue code of silence" thing. Those are not good cops doing their job. The are bad cops. If anyone has not spoken out when a colleague has been abusing their power, they have become a bad cop. One can argue this is just human behaviour -- us vs them. That maybe true but when police have so much more power vs regular citizens, that kind of behaviour is amplified and exaggerated many times over. To put it another way. A corrupt shoe salesman can only be that dangerous. A corrupt cop can do a lot of damage to a lot of people. So that is the reason I have essentially stopped saying "oh just a few bad ones, the rest are good and law abiding". I think I moved to the default that all are corrupt and either engage in abuse or cover up of abuse unless I am presented with evidence otherwise.
marincounty 12y ago
In my neck of the woods(San Rafael, CA 94901) San Rafael police have a pilot program that will equip a few officers with a CAM. The problem is the camera can be turned off by the officer. It's a small program and will go nowhere. These Cops are harassing Anyone they feel might be Homeless. They are ticketing for jaywalking, sitting on side walks, sleeping. (They are trying to make there life so miserable they will be forced to move on to another town--basically). It's hard to watch them(SRPD) swarm around a suspected Homeless person --take their picture, frisk them, make them empty out all pockets, put their hands on their Crotch, etc.) It looks like something out of Germany in the 30's. That said: I can't protect them, but I have the resources to protect myself--kind of. I bought two Dash Cams off Amazon for less than $16.00 each. I bought two because they are cheap and I wanted a spare. I have this Cam on whenever I go out. I don't get pulled over because I drive an older car, or happen to be out after 10 p.m. anymore? I only wish I had this cheap form of protection when I was younger! Basically, you need to protect yourself. The price of Dash Cams is so low, there's no excuse not to have one on your vechicle? Look at the purchase just as vechicle maintence. There's no need to buy anything fancy.
- jMyles 12y ago
  > The problem is the camera can be turned off by the officer. I never understood even the mindet of this. What can possibly be the point?
ck2 12y ago
Note they can be turned off at will and have a delete button too. So mostly useless, they are there to show what the cop wants to show.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I would note that if I had some indication that it were true.
  - ck2 12y ago
    It is 100% true, they can be turned off and can self delete. There are only two major models of cameras in use, both have these features.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      I am skeptical of the delete button. According to a random article I found (first result when I googled "police body camera delete button") the officers do not have that ability: Taser doesn't incorporate a delete button — "Once it's recorded, it's recorded," http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-body-camera-work/378940/ http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-body-c...
- rmc 12y ago
  Which is not going to help the officer. If the officer deniesmmisconduct it looks pretty bad if they have deleted the evidence.
tiffanyh 12y ago
Google Glass just found a solution to a problem.
dba7dba 12y ago
In recent years when there was some kind of alleged police misconduct, the police would invariably deny, deny, deny. What the citizens were complaining about never happened. And then a video footage would surface that proves police misconduct. Of course there are liars that try to get police into trouble or just hate them. Hopefully this body camera idea will be a good thing.
Istof 12y ago
Hopefully they will be held accountable for "broken" cameras...
joeblau 12y ago
The fact that American citizens need protection from the police in America is sad.
- deciplex 12y ago
  Not as sad as you think. Americans, for all their bleating about liberty and personal freedom, absolutely adore power. They are infatuated with it. And they infer heroic qualities in people who wield it, regardless of merit. If you only pay attention to the right media, you might get the impression that police are suffering some popularity problem in the US. Even after Ferguson, I assure you this is not the case. Darren Wilson has a great many supporters, not just people who think the shooting was tragic but the officer is not at fault, but believe he was right to shoot the guy. They had a fucking rally, even, in St. Louis! Naturally, the crowd was lily-white. On a personal level, and especially for people who aren't closet statists, sure it's tragic. But, on a national level, there are few places on Earth that deserve it more.
sergiotapia 12y ago
GOOD. There is literally no downside to this, it's a win-win! Here's to more polite police officers and less violence.
rdtsc 12y ago
Shouldn't citizens also be encouraged to use cameras as much as possible when interaction with police. Just like with many police car cameras, all of the sudden they "malfunction" when something shady has happened.
skyhatchash 12y ago
They've done body-worn cameras in Sydney, Australia for a while now. It seems to have helped curb corruption and unnecessary brute force - most of the time. Where there's a will, there's a way.
facepalm 12y ago
Wasn't there a law recently that it's illegal to film policemen? Seems like a not so positive imbalance in power.
- rtkwe 12y ago
  Some states tried that but iirc any that made it to a court challenge were struck down. Quite a few places have started issuing memos reminding officers that the public does have the right to record and they can only stop them if they're actually interfering with the arrest.
tomohawk 12y ago
Teachers are often accused of mistreating children. Healthcare workers are often accused of mistreating patients, too. For example, I know someone who works with many elderly patients who often get confused and make accusations of mistreatment. Many of her coworkers have been benched until cleared by investigation. Like police officers, they can be viewed as being authority figures. Perhaps they will begin wearing these soon, too?
- tibiapejagala 12y ago
  Soon, after they start carrying guns.
theDustRoom 12y ago
I think that police firearms should also have cameras attached so that evidence is recorded.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
I'm glad for this. Now people can better see all the crap police have to take off the type of people they deal with every minute of every day, five and more days a week, eight and more hours a day and realize that 99.999% of all the "corrupt police" charges are just what it is: over the top BS.
massappeal 12y ago
This would be great if all of the footage was automatically archived to a publicly available website, but somehow I feel like this footage will be very hard to get a hold of, similar to FOIA Requests
blueking 12y ago
This is a nightmare and we need to fight it tooth and nail. Those aren't just cameras, they are networked to a facial recognition database (thanks facebook), which is cross referenced with criminal records and commercial profiles built from your every online purchase, gmail and facebook post. This is what you can expect after the police get this as socially accepted 1. Facial recognition and additional suspicion of anyone walking down the street with a criminal record. 2. During an encounter with a officer micro facial expressions, speech patterns, eye movement and heart rate will be analyzed at high speed by AI to assess reasonable suspicion, to detect deception and emotional state and to direct the line of questioning in real time. The kind of technology the Gestapo could only dream of. 3. Body language of everyone in view will be analyzed for suspicion as they pass by. 4. These AIs will analyze anything you say in real time for factual accuracy against a huge database of personal information (half of which comes from your phone) and for context based on your commercial profile. The implications here are that these databases represent a power shift and will redline demographics and make living in society with a record far more unpleasant than it is now. You can get a felony for forgetting your bus ticket. This effects everyone. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-emotion-detection-with-google-glass-an-awesome-creepy-taste-of-the-future-of-wearable-computers http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-emotion-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-facebook-and-instagram-to-fight-crime http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-fac...
- mariodiana 12y ago
  Bravo. I have never thought of this, and I commend you on your insight. I just want to add one more thing. Right now, police dogs are our "Fourth Amendment experts." Cops routinely allege that the dog "hit" on a person or vehicle, and courts uphold the notion that this is alone is sufficient cause for detainment and a search. Just wait until police are equipped with "scientific biometric sensors." If your eye so much as twitches or your voice cracks or your heart beat is not "steady," that will be sufficient. Science, don't you know! In other words, there will be absolutely no more Fourth Amendment.
RIMR 12y ago
$899 for a 720p video camera? I expected night-vision or 12fps with that kind of price tag!

299 points by siculars 12y ago

siculars 12y ago

Who gets the contract? GoPro?

dankohn1 12y ago
Taser is one of the leading vendors. http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-body-on-officer-video http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-body-on-... This is interesting because Taser has sold to almost every police department in the US, and so is well positioned to make these cameras standard equipment.

kelukelugames 12y ago

I hope this takes off and everyone wins because 1) Less false complaints are filed against cops 2) Cities don't get sued because cops behave better 3) No one gets unlawfully harassed by a cop ever again. On the other hand, I've seen criminals interacting with cops in person. They do not have an easy job.

nahiluhmot 12y ago
> On the other hand, I've seen criminals interacting with cops in person. They do not have an easy job. Wouldn't that be a positive for the police as well? If a suspect is belligerent, the presence of a camera would help to prove that.
- kelukelugames 12y ago
  I think criminals have a different mindset than we do. Look at world star and live leaks for example. Being filmed probably encourages them to act worse.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Good. If you are dumb enough to fight a cop you will have no respect for an average citizen and you should be removed from decent society.
  - jaredmcateer 12y ago
    When Rialto, California PD ran it's pilot program it found that both parties tended to behave better knowing there was a camera. 88% drop in complaints against the officer and 60% drop in police officers use of force.[1] While you'll still have criminals that don't care, there are plenty that do, especially when they know that it's no longer just their word vs the police officer. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-police-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/california-poli...
  - thathonkey 12y ago
    You know what makes a criminal different from you? Nothing besides the fact that they broke a law and then got caught. Have you ever broken a law? You do at least realize you're a racist, right?
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      > racist What?
      - thathonkey 12y ago
        "world star" and "encourages them" is a racist dogwhistle that I'd be happy to translate for you. He meant those "uppity, animalistic black males" That paired with the attitude that criminals are essentially no different than most people that post here is how I drew that conclusion. Barring extremes like members of organized crime, violent gangs, cartels, etc. of course. Even still, broad strokes don't apply to those organizations but you could definitely make the case that the affiliated develop a more uniquely "criminal" mindset. Keyword being DEVELOP. Criminality is not inherent, sorry if this makes you uncomfortable.
  - 12y ago
emehrkay 12y ago
NY police are murdering people on video already. Will this change things?
- krapp 12y ago
  It should provide actual evidence, or evidence to the contrary, that the police in NY are murdering people on a regular basis as a matter of policy. All of the footage of police not murdering people is of value as well, after all.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    You moved the goalposts on someone else's assertion. No where was "on a regular basis" stated except by you. The recent chokehold death - a banned technique that resulted in a death - is a good example of what the parent was probably talking about.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Fair enough - I didn't mean to imply it on the part of the parent but on arguments about police brutality in general, particularly on the internet.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      "are murdering" implies that it continues to happen on an ongoing basis. "on a regular basis" is moving goalposts, but not moving them very far.
      - emehrkay 12y ago
        "The ny police is murdering..." doesn't make much sense in English. And it has happened more than once. The other time I can think of is when they killed the guy in times square.
        seanflyon 12y ago
        The difference between "murdered" and "is/are murdering" is that the "murdering" implies that either it is happening at this very moment (which is clearly not the case here) or it happens on an ongoing basis.

xrange 12y ago

I suppose it'll be interesting to see the "failure" rate for these cameras, how often someone "forgets" to put it on, and how easy it is for the camera to get "damaged/stepped on" in a scuffle.

higherpurpose 12y ago
That's why those events should be logged, and it should be easy for the camera to know whether it crashed or the officer turned it off (by saying having the offer to turn on switch and then press a button. Such two actions would be hard to replicate "by accident"). Also, the officers should be punished and/or lose credibility in a trial if it's known that the camera was turned off by them during the time they were supposed to use it - like say when confronting a suspect or whatever. Obviously, going to the restroom or other such events should not be punishable. "Forgetting" to turn on the camera before engaging a citizen/suspect should be punishable. Turning on the camera and keeping it on during the interaction should be as necessary as police officers ID-ing themselves.
- deathhand 12y ago
  What about your caring IT support person that just so happens to be able to edit the logs to make it looks like the camera crashed? Or if the data somehow becomes corrupted during the file transfer process? While cameras are great people will still find loopholes and exploit them. That is the nature of man.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Conspicuous destruction of evidence is a risky endeavor. Body cameras won't make it impossible for police to get away with crimes, but they will make it much more difficult.
- anonymoushn 12y ago
  > Turning on the camera and keeping it on during the interaction should be as necessary as police officers ID-ing themselves. Do they ID themselves generally? I've mostly seen them not do this when it was requested.

dankohn1 12y ago

This will turn out to be the most important technology news of the year. I live in a lower Manhattan, and as a well-dressed white person, my interactions with police are invariably polite and deferential (including when I got a ticket for running a red light on a Citibike last month). But I know from friends that those same police officers become totally different people when in a different environment (particularly uptown and in poorer Brooklyn neighborhoods) and especially when dealing with people of color. There is bullying, there is haughtiness, and there is often a complete lack of respect. Video cameras can change that. The knowledge that any citizen can file a complaint about an unnecessarily hostile interaction means that police officers will begin to act the way they are supposed to, as the only members of our community to whom we grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I also believe that video cameras will have a positive impact on police, increasing the respect they receive from the community and their self-respect, and enabling them to prove that they are often in the right around contested confrontations.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> This will turn out to be the most important technology news of the year. I live in Manhattan as well, and I used to think this would help. But then Eric Garner[0] happened. The video evidence there was about as clear as you can get, and still it was amazing how apologetic the responses I saw from both NYPD and other LEOs in other jurisdictions (e.g. /r/ProtectAndServe)[1][2]. And look at Ferguson. We have no shortage of evidence of the atrocities that have been committed there. The problem isn't just pictorial evidence. The problem is actually turning that evidence into action. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner [1] https://pay.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2b4on3/i_dont_see_what_they_could_have_done_differently/ https://pay.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2b4on3/i_d... [2] Note that this particular thread was later linked from /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut so the current state is not representative of what it was when it was initially posted - previously, the comments defending the NYPD had far more support (votes-wise), and many of the comments defending Garner are from readers of the latter subreddit.
- Daishiman 12y ago

meepmorp 12y ago

If you've got nothing to hide, why is the camera a problem? But more seriously, does anyone know anything about these systems? I'd be concerned about them getting shut off (accidentally or not), and about ensuring that the recordings made are retained for a reasonable period of time (however long that is). Are there off the shelf solutions for this?

dankohn1 12y ago
Take a look at http://www.evidence.com/ http://www.evidence.com/ It's all stored securely in the cloud, so what could go wrong (asks Jennifer Lawrence)?
- jonlucc 12y ago
  Surely there is an option for larger departments to run their own servers. Isn't there already digital evidence to be stored?
vacri 12y ago
You may have nothing to hide, but if what you do have is shown in a misleading context, it can be quite damaging.
kansface 12y ago
I would guess jurors won't look favorably upon cameras miraculously turning themselves off during an arrest.
- baddox 12y ago
  I think you would be surprised, both at the tiny number of cases that would actually make it to a jury, and the number of jurors who would proudly support the police even in blatant atrocities.

higherpurpose 12y ago

This is a great and necessary step. But what happens to the videos after they're taken? Do people need to go through long process of FOIA request? Do they have to sue the department to see them? Or will all videos be posted on a Youtube-like site that's accessible almost/anyone, soon after it was taken, and not controlled by the police department taking the videos? I don't want 30 percent of these videos to "get lost" after they're taken.

pkaye 12y ago

I don't see any negatives to having these body cameras for police officers. Not even in terms of costs since reduced lawsuit litigation and settlements so counteract that.

MadManE 12y ago
You don't see any negatives to giving ubiquitous surveillance equipment to every government body?
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Is having your eyes poked out a part of police training now? Every cop comes with two cameras, the output of which cannot be reviewed but is highly trusted in a court of law.
  - jtheory 12y ago
    This is a good point -- between a camera in every public place and a camera on every cop, the latter is far the better option, and can be empowering to the public interacting with the police. Just about everything it records is in the context of "member of the public knowingly interacting with a police officer", not "member of the public going about their everyday life" (which is much more ripe for abuse, and rather less likely to benefit the public in any way).
- serf 12y ago
  those receiving the devices are already charged with the task of acting as a form of surveillance towards the good of the state. The technology will just prevent them from cherry picking what they wish to survey. (probably a good thing with regards to crony-ism and corruption.)

mbrameld 12y ago

This is a good first step. There needs to be strict punishment for officers who turn off or fail to turn on their cameras when interacting with the public, though. Also, if footage of an incident where an officer was wearing a camera doesn't exist it should be presumed to be exculpatory for the accused.

knodi123 12y ago
"I'm sorry about squirting my water bottle at your chest, officer, but I really can't afford a felony conviction right now."
- mbrameld 12y ago
  I'm guessing they'll be able to withstand a little water.

simplemath 12y ago

Taser are pairing their LEO bodycam offering with an associated cloud storage product at EVIDENCE.com

afafsd 12y ago

This gives me another idea: how about we fit criminals with body cameras?

EA 12y ago
Most carry an array of networked sensors on their person already. - NSA
nilved 12y ago
I hope you'll be glad to hear this effort is already underway: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-to-begin-wearing-body-cameras-in-pilot-program.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-o...
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Bazinga
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

MadManE 12y ago

I like that we are moving towards a state of affairs where police have to act appropriately in their position of power. However, I seem to be the only one who sees the irony in complaining about the NSA recording everything we do, and simultaneously giving large amounts of recording equipment to other parts of various levels of government. How do we ensure that these cameras aren't turned against us, also? Who watches the watchers?

ceejayoz 12y ago
> However, I seem to be the only one who sees the irony in complaining about the NSA recording everything we do, and simultaneously giving large amounts of recording equipment to other parts of various levels of government. The NSA can surveil everyone in mediums the average person considers to be a private venue. Whatever I'm doing on a police chest cam is something they were able to see with their eyes already.
- serf 12y ago
  assuming that the video storage and the stream itself are secure, sure.
mkhalil 12y ago
"Who watches the watchers?" I hope you realize that does that one thing you question. Also, police encounters are generally in the public, where you shouldn't expect privacy in the first place. You can't ask for the right to film officers, then complain if they film you. Besides, most likely you're on camera anyway. So smile :)
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > You can't ask for the right to film officers, then complain if they film you. Sure you can. For example, it's commonly argued that there's a public interest in how police officers carry out their public duties. It's also commonly argued that the legal power differential (see: monopoly on use of force) between police and civilians justifies different restrictions on the police than on civilians. I actually agree that there's no problem with the police filming in public, but your argument is crazy.

tuxidomasx 12y ago

It looks like only a small number of officers will have them for the pilot program. But even if widely adopted, I feel like this wont help stop police abuse due to the Blue Code of Silence. Besides, cameras on squad cars don't prevent racial profiling on the road. I've never been told "you were driving while black, so lets see if you have something illegal in your car." Instead, I hear: "it didnt look like you were wearing your seatbelt..." or "you were following the car ahead of you too closely..." or "I need to check your window tint" (and i dont even have tinted windows!) I feel like body cams are just another obstacle for abusive police to maneuver around.

mkhalil 12y ago

I applaud the effort and it may help in significant violations of human rights. As far as general harassment goes, not sure this is gonna help much. What do you expect to happen when someone gets harassed? Who is he going to call? The police station? Civilian: "Hello, Mr.Officer, one of your colleagues were being mean to me and didn't let me get on the bus today without questioning everything about me." Officer: "I apologize for any inconvenience he may of caused you sir, we'll look into it." Officer to colleague: "So....Did we decide on Mexican for lunch? Or Sushi?"

nilved 12y ago

People need to realize that if body cameras don't have public live streams they are entirely negative for the general population. They'll be used against you in court and "strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your favor. It's very dangerous to give the police complete control over video evidence, which is why I feel body cameras are a misguided attempt at sousveillance. Instead, we should be setting up public live streams in public areas, and controlling the recordings ourselves.

sliverstorm 12y ago
Indeed, what could be better than having both Big Brother and Little Brother taping your every move!
TallGuyShort 12y ago
While I think you make a good point, public live streams have downsides as well. I think there's a higher risk of vigilante justice when snippets can become widespread so easily (perhaps without context). There's also the likelihood of police officers viewing things that should be private outside of official business, like identification documents, etc. I listen to local police frequencies often and even with that I hear all sorts of stuff that shouldn't be public knowledge.
- kghose 12y ago
  Right. Happened in the Boston Marathon Murders.
gizmo686 12y ago
>"strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your favor. There is precedent for courts to dismiss cases due to technicalities in police conduct or how evidence was gathered. It seems reasonable for courts (or lawmakers) to establish that lack of video invalidates an arrest.
- ewoodrich 12y ago
  True, but the bigger problem arises when you need that footage to prosecute a LEO.

discardorama 12y ago

While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession, there are some who let their power go to their heads. Devices like cameras can help when complaints are received (as long as the cameras can't be tampered with post facto..) Case in point: girlfriend was in a taqueria in the Upper Haight neighborhood of SF, and witnessed the following. A cop was sitting at a table. A guy walked in, stood in line to pick up a takeout order. He started staring at the cop. Now, the Haight has more than its fair share of weirdos, so a person staring at a cop is nothing new. But the cop decided to take offense at that. Started verbally harassing the guy. Took him outside, threatened to arrest him. All this time, the guy is saying: but I didn't do nothing, man! At one stage, the guy put his hands in his pocket, trying to pull out some ID; and the cop's hand immediately went to his gun, threatening "you don't want to be doing that!". Luckily, the guy took his hand out quickly. After harassing the guy, the cop shoved him and walked away. GF witnessed the whole thing, and went out to talk to the cop as he was walking away. He just laughed at her, saying "get out of my way" and kept walking. There were other witnesses too; but it still is basically their word against the cop's, and the SFPD refuses to do anything about it. Had there been a camera[#] on the cop, they would be singing a different tune. [#] I told her: next time, _video_ the damn thing!

oh_sigh 12y ago
You can't stare down a ref in the NBA. Why can you stare down a cop in a restaurant?
click170 12y ago
For what its worth she should have filed a report anyway (assuming she didn't because of the perceived futility). One witness against a cop doesn't count for much, but 2? How about 3? How many individual eye witness complaints do you think it would take to get them to take the incident seriously? How many witnesses were there that day? Not everyone there will complain but if you don't either then you're part of the problem instead of the solution.
rdtsc 12y ago
> While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession, The problem is the following -- those "good" cops doing their job protect the bad cops. The whole "blue code of silence" thing. Those are not good cops doing their job. The are bad cops. If anyone has not spoken out when a colleague has been abusing their power, they have become a bad cop. One can argue this is just human behaviour -- us vs them. That maybe true but when police have so much more power vs regular citizens, that kind of behaviour is amplified and exaggerated many times over. To put it another way. A corrupt shoe salesman can only be that dangerous. A corrupt cop can do a lot of damage to a lot of people. So that is the reason I have essentially stopped saying "oh just a few bad ones, the rest are good and law abiding". I think I moved to the default that all are corrupt and either engage in abuse or cover up of abuse unless I am presented with evidence otherwise.

marincounty 12y ago

In my neck of the woods(San Rafael, CA 94901) San Rafael police have a pilot program that will equip a few officers with a CAM. The problem is the camera can be turned off by the officer. It's a small program and will go nowhere. These Cops are harassing Anyone they feel might be Homeless. They are ticketing for jaywalking, sitting on side walks, sleeping. (They are trying to make there life so miserable they will be forced to move on to another town--basically). It's hard to watch them(SRPD) swarm around a suspected Homeless person --take their picture, frisk them, make them empty out all pockets, put their hands on their Crotch, etc.) It looks like something out of Germany in the 30's. That said: I can't protect them, but I have the resources to protect myself--kind of. I bought two Dash Cams off Amazon for less than $16.00 each. I bought two because they are cheap and I wanted a spare. I have this Cam on whenever I go out. I don't get pulled over because I drive an older car, or happen to be out after 10 p.m. anymore? I only wish I had this cheap form of protection when I was younger! Basically, you need to protect yourself. The price of Dash Cams is so low, there's no excuse not to have one on your vechicle? Look at the purchase just as vechicle maintence. There's no need to buy anything fancy.

jMyles 12y ago
> The problem is the camera can be turned off by the officer. I never understood even the mindet of this. What can possibly be the point?

ck2 12y ago

Note they can be turned off at will and have a delete button too. So mostly useless, they are there to show what the cop wants to show.

seanflyon 12y ago
I would note that if I had some indication that it were true.
- ck2 12y ago
  It is 100% true, they can be turned off and can self delete. There are only two major models of cameras in use, both have these features.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I am skeptical of the delete button. According to a random article I found (first result when I googled "police body camera delete button") the officers do not have that ability: Taser doesn't incorporate a delete button — "Once it's recorded, it's recorded," http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-body-camera-work/378940/ http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-body-c...
rmc 12y ago
Which is not going to help the officer. If the officer deniesmmisconduct it looks pretty bad if they have deleted the evidence.

tiffanyh 12y ago

Google Glass just found a solution to a problem.

dba7dba 12y ago

In recent years when there was some kind of alleged police misconduct, the police would invariably deny, deny, deny. What the citizens were complaining about never happened. And then a video footage would surface that proves police misconduct. Of course there are liars that try to get police into trouble or just hate them. Hopefully this body camera idea will be a good thing.

Istof 12y ago

Hopefully they will be held accountable for "broken" cameras...

joeblau 12y ago

The fact that American citizens need protection from the police in America is sad.

deciplex 12y ago
Not as sad as you think. Americans, for all their bleating about liberty and personal freedom, absolutely adore power. They are infatuated with it. And they infer heroic qualities in people who wield it, regardless of merit. If you only pay attention to the right media, you might get the impression that police are suffering some popularity problem in the US. Even after Ferguson, I assure you this is not the case. Darren Wilson has a great many supporters, not just people who think the shooting was tragic but the officer is not at fault, but believe he was right to shoot the guy. They had a fucking rally, even, in St. Louis! Naturally, the crowd was lily-white. On a personal level, and especially for people who aren't closet statists, sure it's tragic. But, on a national level, there are few places on Earth that deserve it more.

sergiotapia 12y ago

GOOD. There is literally no downside to this, it's a win-win! Here's to more polite police officers and less violence.

rdtsc 12y ago

Shouldn't citizens also be encouraged to use cameras as much as possible when interaction with police. Just like with many police car cameras, all of the sudden they "malfunction" when something shady has happened.

skyhatchash 12y ago

They've done body-worn cameras in Sydney, Australia for a while now. It seems to have helped curb corruption and unnecessary brute force - most of the time. Where there's a will, there's a way.

facepalm 12y ago

Wasn't there a law recently that it's illegal to film policemen? Seems like a not so positive imbalance in power.

rtkwe 12y ago
Some states tried that but iirc any that made it to a court challenge were struck down. Quite a few places have started issuing memos reminding officers that the public does have the right to record and they can only stop them if they're actually interfering with the arrest.

tomohawk 12y ago

Teachers are often accused of mistreating children. Healthcare workers are often accused of mistreating patients, too. For example, I know someone who works with many elderly patients who often get confused and make accusations of mistreatment. Many of her coworkers have been benched until cleared by investigation. Like police officers, they can be viewed as being authority figures. Perhaps they will begin wearing these soon, too?

tibiapejagala 12y ago
Soon, after they start carrying guns.

theDustRoom 12y ago

I think that police firearms should also have cameras attached so that evidence is recorded.

icantthinkofone 12y ago

I'm glad for this. Now people can better see all the crap police have to take off the type of people they deal with every minute of every day, five and more days a week, eight and more hours a day and realize that 99.999% of all the "corrupt police" charges are just what it is: over the top BS.

massappeal 12y ago

This would be great if all of the footage was automatically archived to a publicly available website, but somehow I feel like this footage will be very hard to get a hold of, similar to FOIA Requests

blueking 12y ago

This is a nightmare and we need to fight it tooth and nail. Those aren't just cameras, they are networked to a facial recognition database (thanks facebook), which is cross referenced with criminal records and commercial profiles built from your every online purchase, gmail and facebook post. This is what you can expect after the police get this as socially accepted 1. Facial recognition and additional suspicion of anyone walking down the street with a criminal record. 2. During an encounter with a officer micro facial expressions, speech patterns, eye movement and heart rate will be analyzed at high speed by AI to assess reasonable suspicion, to detect deception and emotional state and to direct the line of questioning in real time. The kind of technology the Gestapo could only dream of. 3. Body language of everyone in view will be analyzed for suspicion as they pass by. 4. These AIs will analyze anything you say in real time for factual accuracy against a huge database of personal information (half of which comes from your phone) and for context based on your commercial profile. The implications here are that these databases represent a power shift and will redline demographics and make living in society with a record far more unpleasant than it is now. You can get a felony for forgetting your bus ticket. This effects everyone. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-emotion-detection-with-google-glass-an-awesome-creepy-taste-of-the-future-of-wearable-computers http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-emotion-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-facebook-and-instagram-to-fight-crime http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-fac...

mariodiana 12y ago
Bravo. I have never thought of this, and I commend you on your insight. I just want to add one more thing. Right now, police dogs are our "Fourth Amendment experts." Cops routinely allege that the dog "hit" on a person or vehicle, and courts uphold the notion that this is alone is sufficient cause for detainment and a search. Just wait until police are equipped with "scientific biometric sensors." If your eye so much as twitches or your voice cracks or your heart beat is not "steady," that will be sufficient. Science, don't you know! In other words, there will be absolutely no more Fourth Amendment.

RIMR 12y ago

$899 for a 720p video camera? I expected night-vision or 12fps with that kind of price tag!