2 ms·

So, on the one hand, I think that it should be obvious that all officers on duty should have cameras running all the time--there should be no reason to ever nee

So, on the one hand, I think that it should be obvious that all officers on duty should have cameras running all the time--there should be no reason to ever need manual on/off of cameras. That said, there's a lot of trouble there. Consider the recording of normal daily banter, of normal procedures, or of just really heinous shit at an accident site. Maybe we don't actually want all of this available. The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely, considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault, public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to pick on citizens. In turn, why would anyone want to interact with cops, ever? They're recording everything, and it's trivial to go after these minor issues. I suspect that the deal going to be presented is "Okay, you want us on camera all the time? Fine. You get what you want--and we're going to handle 'evidence' collected in that way differently than normal." Recalling, of course, how expensive it is to defend yourself against the state in such matters, I expect this to be yet another massive push in favor of police power unless managed very, very carefully. Also, consider that the desire to film the cops may go away if it is common knowledge that they're already filming--nevermind that, perhaps, the cameras or videos are mysteriously corrupted when it comes time to review them. It's really a great way of defusing suspicion without having to risk actually changing procedures. And, to tinfoil further: how long until all these video feeds are being run, in real-time, through some sort of computer-vision system (much as license plates are today in some places)? Are we really wanting that?

smtddr 12y ago
>>The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely, considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault, public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to pick on citizens. I think this highlights a bigger issue with the justice system in general. Those minor things shouldn't be illegal to begin with. Or at least, not wreck your life with an insane fine or criminal record. Those issues should just be some kind of $50 - $100 fine, maybe an evening in a single person cell, and that's it. e.g., BART(www.bart.gov) does not want people eating/drinking on their trains or within paid-areas of the stations or you risk a $250 fine. I break that rule from time to time because... whatever. A bunch of people break that rule in fact. No law should be absolute in its application or punishment. They should be evaluated in case by case basis and context of the situation. If it's July 4th, people are partying and one of drunk party-goers happens to run into a cop after stumbling too far from the beach... he/she doesn't deserve their life to be ruined. Major sporting event, 2 people from opposite teams get into heated argument. Both people continued to escalate the situation until eventually a fight breaks out, I don't think their lives need to be ruined with assault charges. Our legal definition of "paraphernalia" is messed up, so I won't get into that. I'll just say that a person who isn't a major drug-lord or drug-pusher on the corner shouldn't be wrecked by the legal system. Some young person just experimenting with a small amount of a controlled substance probably just needs a night in a cell and mandatory drug education class for a week or something.
- XorNot 12y ago
  $50-$100 fines are life wreckers. Doesn't take too many of those to wipe out someone's weekly paycheck. But this isn't a problem: because the police can (and do) do this to people now, but it's also why we have procedure as a valid defense. Cameras wouldn't make that worse, they'd make it better. It would mean the procedure is plain to see. The only policy needed to ensure this is to ban fishing-expeditions with the footage (which would protect police and citizen alike). If the police don't write a ticket then and there, then it's illegal to go through the footage after the fact if it's not relevant to an ongoing investigation (and make it illegal to file charges for say, non-felonies found peripheral to that). Most of this sort of stuff has been put through case law in various guises at different times already - it's likely it would extend to police cameras by simple precedent in the courts, if not by explicit policy in advance.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
tzs 12y ago
> The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely, considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault, public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to pick on citizens Worse, if these routine recordings leak, or if they are available to the public under freedom of information requests or something similar, then every time a cop lets someone off who they could have arrested someone will find a reason to criticize that. If they let a white person off, they will be complaints that they would have arrested the guy if he was black. If they let a black guy off, there will be complaints that they only care about stopping crime in white neighborhoods. Let a woman off with a warning on a traffic stop, and there will be complaints that a man would have received a ticket. It will not take officers long to figure out that they are a lot better off if they arrest every one of these paraphernalia possessors, publicly intoxicated people, and so on that they see and let the courts sort them out. No one will be happy with this.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Each officer (I guess, it's true in England) has some discretion. Allowing officers to make it up as they go along does seem like a really bad idea. Evidence-based guidelines about when to arrest and when to have a discussion should be welcomed and would be one consequence of the situation you're describing. Rather than just arresting everyone because the camera shows evidence the officer can point to their guidelines when they don't arrest.
tzs 12y ago
> So, on the one hand, I think that it should be obvious that all officers on duty should have cameras running all the time--there should be no reason to ever need manual on/off of cameras How about when talking to a witness who could get into trouble for talking to the police? It's already very hard to get people who witness things like gang-related killings to say anything to investigators. They will be even more reluctant to do so if it is being recorded.

smtddr 12y ago

>>The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely, considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault, public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to pick on citizens. I think this highlights a bigger issue with the justice system in general. Those minor things shouldn't be illegal to begin with. Or at least, not wreck your life with an insane fine or criminal record. Those issues should just be some kind of $50 - $100 fine, maybe an evening in a single person cell, and that's it. e.g., BART(www.bart.gov) does not want people eating/drinking on their trains or within paid-areas of the stations or you risk a $250 fine. I break that rule from time to time because... whatever. A bunch of people break that rule in fact. No law should be absolute in its application or punishment. They should be evaluated in case by case basis and context of the situation. If it's July 4th, people are partying and one of drunk party-goers happens to run into a cop after stumbling too far from the beach... he/she doesn't deserve their life to be ruined. Major sporting event, 2 people from opposite teams get into heated argument. Both people continued to escalate the situation until eventually a fight breaks out, I don't think their lives need to be ruined with assault charges. Our legal definition of "paraphernalia" is messed up, so I won't get into that. I'll just say that a person who isn't a major drug-lord or drug-pusher on the corner shouldn't be wrecked by the legal system. Some young person just experimenting with a small amount of a controlled substance probably just needs a night in a cell and mandatory drug education class for a week or something.

XorNot 12y ago
$50-$100 fines are life wreckers. Doesn't take too many of those to wipe out someone's weekly paycheck. But this isn't a problem: because the police can (and do) do this to people now, but it's also why we have procedure as a valid defense. Cameras wouldn't make that worse, they'd make it better. It would mean the procedure is plain to see. The only policy needed to ensure this is to ban fishing-expeditions with the footage (which would protect police and citizen alike). If the police don't write a ticket then and there, then it's illegal to go through the footage after the fact if it's not relevant to an ongoing investigation (and make it illegal to file charges for say, non-felonies found peripheral to that). Most of this sort of stuff has been put through case law in various guises at different times already - it's likely it would extend to police cameras by simple precedent in the courts, if not by explicit policy in advance.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

tzs 12y ago

> The big problem is: what happens when a cop comes out on a call and there is clear photographic evidence of a crime being committed (very likely, considering the sheer number of things that are technically illegal)? When there is clear video evidence of, say, possession of paraphernalia, assault, public intoxication, or whatever else, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to pick on citizens Worse, if these routine recordings leak, or if they are available to the public under freedom of information requests or something similar, then every time a cop lets someone off who they could have arrested someone will find a reason to criticize that. If they let a white person off, they will be complaints that they would have arrested the guy if he was black. If they let a black guy off, there will be complaints that they only care about stopping crime in white neighborhoods. Let a woman off with a warning on a traffic stop, and there will be complaints that a man would have received a ticket. It will not take officers long to figure out that they are a lot better off if they arrest every one of these paraphernalia possessors, publicly intoxicated people, and so on that they see and let the courts sort them out. No one will be happy with this.

DanBC 12y ago
Each officer (I guess, it's true in England) has some discretion. Allowing officers to make it up as they go along does seem like a really bad idea. Evidence-based guidelines about when to arrest and when to have a discussion should be welcomed and would be one consequence of the situation you're describing. Rather than just arresting everyone because the camera shows evidence the officer can point to their guidelines when they don't arrest.

tzs 12y ago

> So, on the one hand, I think that it should be obvious that all officers on duty should have cameras running all the time--there should be no reason to ever need manual on/off of cameras How about when talking to a witness who could get into trouble for talking to the police? It's already very hard to get people who witness things like gang-related killings to say anything to investigators. They will be even more reluctant to do so if it is being recorded.