7 ms·

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 "

• 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.