Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Salt Lake City Police To Wear Camera Glasses

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the to-protect-and-record dept.

Crime 307

Psychotic_Wrath writes "The Salt Lake Police department will be much more transparent with their law enforcement. A program is being rolled out to require officers wear glasses equipped with a camera to record what they see. Of course, there are several officers opposed to this idea, who will resist the change. One of the biggest shockers to me is that the police chief is in strong support of this measure: 'If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras will soon be on every police officer in the state.' With all the opposition of police officers being recorded by citizens that we are seeing throughout the country, it is quite a surprise that they would make a move like this. The officers would wear them when they are investigating crime scenes, serving warrants, and during patrols. Suddenly Utah isn't looking like such a bad place to be. Now we just need to hope other states and departments would follow suit. It sure will be nice when there is video evidence to show the real story."

cancel ×

307 comments

And the downside? (5, Insightful)

Lyrata (1900038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984513)

Sorry, but this doesn't make SLC seem much more appealing to me (aside from the Mormon thing). I don't think I want police recording me just by virtue of me being near a patrol.

Re:And the downside? (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984537)

Also, what's to stop a cop from taking them off to do something under the table? A million excuses come to mind.

Re:And the downside? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984753)

Also, what's to stop a cop from taking them off to do something under the table? A million excuses come to mind.

Under the table? I hope they would at least use the restroom.

Re:And the downside? (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985023)

Also, what's to stop a cop from taking them off to do something under the table?

Well, then you pretty much have to say "any police action which doesn't have the corresponding video will result in disciplinary action".

You won't be able to stop the outright corrupt cops, but if someone did an arrest and didn't have the glasses on to record what actually happened -- they might get thrown out of court.

At least, that seems a sane way. We hear far too often about cops deciding they can take/break cameras, delete images, and all sorts of other things they're not really legally allowed to do. Enforcing some level of accountability on them might actually do some good.

There's an awful lot of police officers who either don't know, or don't care, about what they're legally allowed to do.

Re:And the downside? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985087)

"Where the hell is your footage between 11am and 12:30pm? You were scheduled on shift, so where were you?"

Re:And the downside? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985153)

I was thinking the badge should be on the glasses, and the camera required for the employee to be on-duty myself.

Re:And the downside? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985151)

make it a felony to take them off, turn them off. "forget" them while on duty. tamper with them. ect ect ect.

zero tolerance.. (that stupid shit has to work for something)

Re:And the downside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984865)

You are recorded on their dash cams anyway, what does it matter if their glasses record you

Re:And the downside? (4, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984969)

It will start mattering when facial recognition gets integrated into this as a "next logical step for public safety".

Re:And the downside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984977)

It's not just for traffic stops, duh.

Recording avialability (4, Insightful)

AG the other (1169501) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984519)

When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.

Re:Recording avialability (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984647)

When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.

And in the absence of otherwise compelling evidence, the jury will see the "lost tape" as evidence that the cops are lying, and they will vote to acquit. Jurors aren't stupid. They know that cops lie all the time, and it is already quite common for cops to be disbelieved.

Re:Recording avialability (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984761)

The jury won't be told that a recording ever existed. They still won't believe the police, but the lack of a video won't be admissible.

Re:Recording avialability (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984943)

Unlikely -- since destruction of evidence through negligence is evidence, in and of itself.

Re:Recording avialability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985057)

You clearly are not a lawyer, so stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

Re:Recording avialability (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984997)

The jury won't be told that a recording ever existed. They still won't believe the police, but the lack of a video won't be admissible.

At the very least they'll know there should be a recording, and I don't see any reason the defense attorney would be barred from asking the officer on the stand "Were you wearing your department-issued officer-cam during the incident? Have you reviewed the footage from your camera? Was the footage consistent with your testimony here today?"

Re:Recording avialability (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985055)

The jury won't be told that a recording ever existed. They still won't believe the police, but the lack of a video won't be admissible.

At the very least they'll know there should be a recording, and I don't see any reason the defense attorney would be barred from asking the officer on the stand "Were you wearing your department-issued officer-cam during the incident? Have you reviewed the footage from your camera? Was the footage consistent with your testimony here today?"

If you can afford a defense attorney. The provided ones for those too poor to afford it won't even get there and go straight to plea bargain, mysteriously disappearing video or not.

Re:Recording avialability (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984799)

I don't know the answer but I would guess that more often than not, when its you or I in the courtroom against a cop, the cop will usually be believed. shiny blue uniform, all that crapola.

juries are stupid. only idiots make it thru voire dire.

sorry, but our system finds the least thinking of our citizens and hires THEM for jury duty.

I would not want to be judged by my 'peers', truth be said.

Re:Recording avialability (4, Interesting)

onkelonkel (560274) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985003)

In Canada we used to believe the word of an RCMP officer over the word of a citizen. The we had the Dziekanski case, where the video clearly showed that the cops were lying. Not only did they lie in their initial reports, but they continued to lie at the public inquiry, even though the video evidence clearly showed they were lying. I think if it came to a "he said she said" with the Mounties now, the citizen would be more likely to be believed.

Re:Recording avialability (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985063)

I don't know the answer but I would guess that more often than not, when its you or I in the courtroom against a cop, the cop will usually be believed. shiny blue uniform, all that crapola.

juries are stupid. only idiots make it thru voire dire.

sorry, but our system finds the least thinking of our citizens and hires THEM for jury duty.

I would not want to be judged by my 'peers', truth be said.

Not necessarily true. At least not from an anecdotal case. I served on a jury recently on a misdemeanor DUI case. We heard evidence for 2 days, and ended up deliberating for another day and a half. All of the discussion was deliberative, was calm. We were given specifically in instructions that because the testimony came from a cop it didn't necessarily automatically make it correct. We were also specifically given instructions as to what to consider and what we were not allowed to consider as evidence, and every member on our jury could make that distinction clearly.

After that experience I have a lot more faith in the criminal justice system, at least in San Francisco...

Re:Recording avialability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984651)

then the police lose the case instantly.

Re:Recording avialability (1)

skegg (666571) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985005)

When it comes down to a trial the recording will be lost. Bet on it.

It depends:

Sometimes the footage goes missing [smh.com.au] .

Other times it is salvaged [news.com.au] .

Weightless cameras? (5, Funny)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984523)

If Chief Burbank gets his way, these tiny, weightless cameras...

I assume that you get weightless cameras from the same store that physics professors get their "frictionless inclines" and "massless pulleys" from?

Re:Weightless cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984561)

No, you get weightless cameras in space. Unfortunately they gain weight when you bring them down to earth.

Re:Weightless cameras? (1, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984607)

Naw, they still have weight in space, it's just that our scales don't work so well out there :)

Re:Weightless cameras? (4, Insightful)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984749)

They have the same mass in space. Their weight is essentially 0.

Re:Weightless cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984779)

You're wrong. In space they don't have weight, but they do have mass. The fine distinction between the two has frustrated many a physics and engineering student over the centuries.

Re:Weightless cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984795)

No, in space it is weightless. It's just that it still has mass. If you brought it to mars it would have a different weight but still the same mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Re:Weightless cameras? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985099)

It would have the same rest mass, but its effective mass would be different thanks to the different orbital velocity between earth and mars and relativity.

Re:Weightless cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984819)

Wrongish, depends on position in space in relation to another mass. They will always have mass but weight will vary from nill/negligible to high depending on the gravity well. Don't care if you are trying to be cute/funny/ironic ;p

Re:Weightless cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984851)

they do. Its incredibly tiny.
their mass, is constant, though

Re:Weightless cameras? (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984897)

...and spherical cows.

Re:Weightless cameras? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984959)

I assume the cameras will be spheres of uniform mass.

Re:Weightless cameras? (3, Funny)

TBedsaul (95979) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985181)

Yes, but it only works for perfecly spherical policemen in a vacuum.

Round 1: FIGHT! (4, Insightful)

sgbett (739519) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984527)

"Privacy Advocates" vs "Police Transparency Enthusiasts"

Should be a good battle.

Same shit; different technology. (5, Insightful)

Raelus (859126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984543)

Much like other police footage, it will be impossible to get a hold of unless the police actually want it publically released. Nothing resembling Rodney King will ever be released to the public because of these glasses.

Re:Same shit; different technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984619)

Unless it wirelessly and realtimely streams it to the FBI or something like that.

Re:Same shit; different technology. (1)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984781)

right...because the first thing the FBI does with data it gets is put it out there for the general public to see.

Re:Same shit; different technology. (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985201)

Plus they will use it as an excuse to prevent people from doing their own recording. "You can turn that camera off now, this incident is already being recorded by our glasses cameras should the record be needed".

Never mind the rest of the story! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984547)

This is the biggest new in several decades! "weightless cameras" WEIGHTLESS!!!! Faster than light here we come!

As long (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984551)

I feel sorry for the guy that has to review the footage of the officers. It would defeat their purpose to install an "I have to pee" pause button.

Re:As long (5, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984671)

I feel sorry for the guy that has to review the footage of the officers. It would defeat their purpose to install an "I have to pee" pause button.

By the time they are five, most guys have figured out how to do this without looking down. Some of us can even do it in the dark. Just keep practicing.

Re:As long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984815)

When they know, or suspect, that a woman officer may be reviewing the recording, they'll have to look down ("ewwwwww!" she said).

Re:As long (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985077)

I don't know.

Lawyer: "What are we seeing?"

Officer: "Well, we're in a high speed chase with the plaintiff in the stolen car... right about now we perform a pit maneuver, forcing the suspect off the road, he attempts to make a run for it at which point the arresting officer tackled him and brought him to the ground, I run over to assist... and at this point I really needed to use the restroom so I did and the camera cuts out. When the video resumes twenty minutes later (I drank a LOT of coffee), the plaintiff has clearly bashed his head against the ground numerous times until he was comatose. I would have prevented him were I not urinating. For twenty minutes."

Re:As long (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985101)

"It's so weird, suspects are suddenly only attacking us and forcing us to shoot them while we're peeing."

PPVPD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984553)

Man, they could solve any budget issues by selling the streams as Pay Per View channels...

The catch? (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984559)

So whats the catch? Does it still count as "evidence" in court? Can a defendant use the footage against the police?

Re:The catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984591)

They already do with dashcam videos on patrol cars. Cops have been sent to prison because of that.

Re:The catch? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984673)

... Can a defendant use the footage against the police?

How easy are they to crush under a Jack Boot?

and who will be able to see what the cameras see? (4, Insightful)

darkeye (199616) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984567)

this doesn't change anything unless the cameras are always on, and the public can see all recordings at will.

if not so, the recordings will only be used when it is favorable for the police, but not the other way around

Re:and who will be able to see what the cameras se (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984843)

even if the video is not used, there should be gap-tests that PUNISH the officer if periods of time 'go missing' on video.

you know this won't happen; they won't be called on their BS.

but do expect a lot of gaming and BS to go on.

this is no gift to citizens. they have an angle and they are playing it. we won't benefit from this, be assured ;(

Re:and who will be able to see what the cameras se (3, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985029)

I don't think the public will or should ever be able to see all the recordings at will. Police officers are often in places and looking at things that the public does not have a valid interest in seeing -- not because of the officers, but because of the rights of the public with whom they're interacting.

I'm sure the defense would be able to subpoena the relevant segments of recordings, though, and the police will have some explaining to do if they're routinely not available.

Re:and who will be able to see what the cameras se (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985107)

this doesn't change anything unless the cameras are always on, and the public can see all recordings at will.

Terrible idea. Big Brother is bad enough, but Little Brother is far worse.

Two way street (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984573)

Have we stopped to consider that this may increase the number of things people get written up for because the officer will be less likely to 'let it slide'? How rampant is police abuse really? Sure, I've seen cops be dicks about things, but I've also had them let me off the hook. If everything they were doing was being recorded, I don't think they would have been as lenient.

Re:Two way street (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984635)

Yes.

Re:Two way street (4, Insightful)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984809)

I don't subscribe to this paranoid hivemind stereotyping that *all* cops are violent, corrupt bastards either; like you said, sure, some are asshats, and get into the "biz" for all the wrong reasons (power, authority) and I hate those pricks (I've known a few), but not all cops. There really are good guys out there too. The bad just get the most publicity.
That said, most cops are given a measure of leniency when exercising their discretion: if they want to give you that speeding ticket, they can; likewise if they're in a good mood and you're not an asshat at them, they can just let you off with a warning (I've had that happen) - even if the RADAR showed you speeding, they're allowed to let you slide if they decide to, so I tend to doubt this would interfere with that side of things, honestly -unless it was a much more serious offense, and in that case, no one should be sliding anyway, really.

Re:Two way street (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984999)

The bad just get the most publicity.

Only if they are caught. And the so-called 'good' cop isn't very likely to expose the bad ones. We all know what happens to a snitch.

Re:Two way street (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985161)

This is were cops should have the final say and judgement as to wether to write a ticket or make an arrest. If the footage of course is not of a serious crime. But cops should be allowed to judge if someone speeding was being ignorant and malicious or had a genuinly good reason to speed. I would say for any non capital offense cops should be free to "let it slide".

The devil is in the details (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984601)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.

That's where the real devil is.
The union is going to fight for the most restrictive conditions possible in order to limit reviews of the footage.
Because, god forbid, the bosses troll through the footage looking for misconduct instead of only checking it when allegations are made.

So don't think that equipping the police with cameras is a panacea.
My guess is that it won't be accessible under public records laws
and the footage will only be used in court cases or when formal complaints are made.

Re:The devil is in the details (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984831)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.

Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?

Re:The devil is in the details (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984925)

Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?

It's not supposed to be a hard question, but like many things in life, in practice it is more difficult than you would expect.

Especially since you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of my post,
where I go into detail about other situations where someone might want to review the footage.

And I didn't make those scenarios up. They are positions taken by police unions when dashcams were being fitted to cars.

Re:The devil is in the details (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985053)

And I didn't make those scenarios up. They are positions taken by police unions when dashcams were being fitted to cars.

And we can see how that worked out. Why would this be different?

Re:The devil is in the details (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985125)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone in the Salt Lake PD gets a camera.
Now the question becomes: who gets to review the footage and for what reason.

Anyone who has a subpoena from a court, either because they are charged with an offense, or because they have a civil suit against the police. This is exactly how it works with any other evidence collected by the police. Was this supposed to be a hard question?

Somewhat circular, because you can't charge them with misconduct, civil or criminal, that you don't know about. For one example, consider a police officer on the take. Whether it's on video or not, it won't get pulled unless someone decides to accuse them.

Re:The devil is in the details (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985149)

I'd guess that the unions would push for giving the officer discretion at the time for what is recorded and what is not. Perhaps they'll claim it's for the privacy of the accused as well. The accused that they have arrested, fingerprinted, strip searched, and published the mugshots for.

The police suggest that citizens in public places have no expectation of privacy from drug searches, pat downs, or whatever else, while simultaneously suggesting that officers in public places have an expectation of privacy from citizens taking their picture. It's not like astounding hypocrisy isn't the norm for some law-enforcement types.

Court should require video (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984603)

If all officers are required to wear these, any time there is a question of what the cop did or said, vs what you did or said, if they can't provide the video they should accept your word. No more wrongful charges of resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. If it's not on video it didn't happen.

Re:Court should require video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984733)

If it's not on video it didn't happen.

So are you saying we should replace all defense attorneys with B-tards?

Forge : Bind : Predictive Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984605)

wearable mobile trapwire.

Where can I get a camera for my civilian glasses? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984609)

The vast majority of encounters are fine -- its the rare ones blown up on tv that are the exception.

This should cut down on lawsuits rather than make police look bad.

If it surprises you police would want this, you've bought into the meme that police problems are rampant.

Sorry, your days enjoying bad cop disasterbation are coming to an end.

What's the surprise (4, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984627)

The police don't want people making recordings because they can't stop it being used out of context.
They already put cameras in their cars.
In my country a whole police oversight investigation was launched because the media published a photo using the "look I'm holding up the hollywood sign" perspective to make it look like an officer was point his gun at the head of a teenage who was face down on the ground. Turned out the police officer was pointing his gun at the ground 3 metres away while walking in a different direction. The investigation wasted a lot of time and resources because there was no footage from another perspective.

Re:What's the surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985195)

The police don't want people making recordings because they can't stop it being used out of context.

I suspect that the police will not care if I believe that they are using their recordings out of context in a way that I don't like. So they have no right to that privilege.

Hmm... (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984639)

I wonder if the harsh vibrations associated with giving a 'suspect' the sound wuppin' that soft-on-crime liberals don't want his perp ass to get causes these to malfunction?

The Camera lies (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984641)

It sure will be nice when there is video evidence to show the real story."

Unfortunately, there's always a sampling bias with any recording device. The "real story" could easily be right off camera, or between frames.

Of course, if there are enough of these, and multiple officers at the scene, you might be able to stitch together the whole scene. On the other hand, most police mistakes occur at night in challanging situations for small video cameras.

This is not news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984687)

Police officers are wearing officer mounted cameras more and more. This is not news. Having a record of events protects the department from fictitious claims which happen all the time. The video has a simple on and off button, most of these systems hold 2-4 hours of video. It is automatically uploaded, usually via wi-fi and only reviewed by supervisors when a need arrizes. Usually this video is stored on servers and is automatically deleted after a set period of time determined by policy. Given that they have a decent IT policy implemented..."Losing" this footage would be pretty difficult.

Step in the right direction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984689)

I'm a huge advocate of privacy, but police wearing physical recording devices while on duty is not 24/7 survalience and is not survalience on your private property unless they have a reason to go there. Which usually requires a warrent, or invitation. Hence it is not a violation of privacy.

I think police evidence being backed by recordings audio, visual or otherwise is a good step in the right direction. It would allow us to improve our police force through better training as well. Just think about it after recording grandma being stopped and searched by police randomly at the mall. Allot of good can come from this if police are trained to be polite and respect our constitutional rights. (like not being searched randomly without a warrent or probable cause) Some departments I imagine lack in this.

Its also great for those times when "lethal force" is questionable. It will help responsability and improve the publics understanding of when lethal force is needed or appropriate. I bet there are lots of times when police were in a confrontation with someon well within their rights to refuse interaction and should have returned with a warrent or arrest order. I bet lots of times this has escalated causing loss of life on both sides.

After action reports that are clearly transparent to the departments and public are the best tool to fixing those types of issues.

And lastly, police corruption is allot harder when you have to fake video or avoid recording a bribe. Yeah it could still happen off duty. But at least recording these things stops them from happening on the fly, on a persons bad day. No one is perfect.

Re:Step in the right direction. (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984895)

Just think about it after recording grandma being stopped and searched by police randomly at the mall.

Unfortunately this is the most likely outcome. The cops where I live are legendary for pulling people over for DWB so if they're accused of harassing teenage wanna be gangbangers at the mall, that means they'll HAVE TO harass at least fifty powerwalking grannies at the mall and release the footage of the grannies to "make it fair". Its probably going to be extremely annoying for civilized people who just want to be left alone.

I think facial recognition should be applied, to some extent. Just to "get the numbers up" while guaranteeing no legal issues, I suspect a lot of evidence of non-racial profiling stop and frisk will be daily records, and an observant viewer or facial recog program will identify the officers wife as a stop and frisk "volunteer" every single day, or anti-DWB evidence will be pull overs of white people who turn out to be the officers off duty partner or relative in his personal car. Even weirdo cops don't want pointless confrontation so I suspect there will be a lot of gaming the system. Just wait for the first "profiling" lawsuit where the plaintiff runs the defense's "proof" thru a facial recognition program... it'll hit the fan I bet.

Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984719)

This is a GREAT idea.

Chief Burbank's support is not a plus to this (4, Interesting)

dwillden (521345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984721)

He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.

And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.

Re:Chief Burbank's support is not a plus to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985217)

The glasses are convenient as it it not suspicious to remove your glasses if you don't need them while removing your tie while on duty is strange.

Cops and the Community need to co-exist (4, Insightful)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984747)

There is a constant us vs. them mentality with the general public and the police. Even with a motto of "protect and serve", it is often obvious that this is not what the bad cops intend. With video recordings, weeding out the bad cops will be very easy, which will lay groundwork for the good cops to continue to build a relationship with the community.

When the police are a menace to the neighborhood then the neighborhood will not work with them, they will not come forward with evidence and they will not testify. If the police can improve on these relations it is likely people will be more forthcoming with information.

This is a win for everyone involved, however as others have stated I have a feeling that the footage will not be as freely available as we would like.

I'm down with this (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984755)

Especially when we all get a pair [spygadgetsshop.co.uk] to record the cops from our POV. And the best part is they won't know they're being recorded, and won't be able to steal our previously used phones.

Re:I'm down with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985067)

You could get the same model they have:
http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-flex-on-officer-video

Re:I'm down with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985139)

I would think that the biggest complaint about this from SLC citizens is the $1000 cost per camera not counting for storage costs. That's nuts.

Additional provisions are required (1)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984771)

We already have a plethora of cameras installed for "our safety" and they was used to prosecute the general public. But when anyone in the UK has tried to obtain the footage from such cameras to use as the defense against police, the video was always not available. ALWAYS.

The measure may have a positive impact ONLY IF an additional provision is passed to require no arrests be made unless the undoctored complete footage is made available to courts. Now, there are many difficulties in defining and verifying the "undoctored" footage. Besides, what to do if the police was beating a bystander while holding his head up so that the camera does not catch the footage at that specific angle? The provision must also include the certain angle of the recorded scene be available to prevent officers from pulling the cameras up and recording the skies.

The Matrix (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984835)

Let's just skip this and go straight to the Matrix. Make all of life virtual, so we can replay it if there is a trial.

Whoops..... (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984837)

Sorry chief, my glasses/camera fell off just as the perp started hitting himself in the head with my baton several times. I tried to stop him.

If we can't record them, they shouldn't record us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984881)

That only seems fair when people get arrested for taking video evidence of cops abusing law-abiding citizens.

yuh huh (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984883)

And just like the dashboard cameras, any shenanigans will have been conveniently off-camera. Anything incriminating you will be taped and ready. Anything incriminating them will have been coincidentally lost or the camera just happened to be broken at the time of the incident. Electronics are just so fussy these days...

3D Scene Reconstruction (1)

Kylon99 (2430624) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984921)

As some have stated already on here; with enough angles we can reconstruct the scene and understand it; i.e. thinking a gun was pointed at someone in one angle only to see it was not in another angle.

Well, let's take technology one step further; with multiple angles, can we develop something to auto construct a 3D representation of a scene and play it back? If you have 3 or more cameras it should be fairly accurate...

Welcome in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41984967)

Seriously, why is anyone surprised ? It was obvious that this was going to happen. Just like it is obvious that as soon as these thing get affordable EVERYONE will have one.

What about data storage / battery life? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984987)

What about data storage / battery life? and how much and for long is that video stored for?

Audio (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41984989)

I think its odd they skipped the whole audio era. You can buy a little flash drive recorder that'll record for hours right now, for practically nothing. Its hard to find a smart phone that doesn't come with an audio recorder app. Yet I never heard of the cops doing audio recording in the past. Odd. You'd think it would be almost as useful. Imagine the jury listening to the slurred speech of a suspected drunk driver at trial, etc.

There's a reality series in there some where (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985009)

I'm not exactly sure what you can do with thousands of hours of footage of donuts but they have TV series where they film people's storage units so it wouldn't be the worst reality show out there.

Yeah right! (1)

Cute and Cuddly (2646619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985103)

But the video recordings will be confidential and you will need a freedom of information request that will be rejected on "national security" grounds

Missing a couple of pieces (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985123)

That's nice for a start - but you need at least two more things:

- GPS tracklog
- accelerometer/orientation tracklog

THEN you would not only know what the camera was looking at, but from where (GPS) and from what viewing angle/direction (orientation).

In theory it would allow you to post-process logs from multiple officers into a virtual-scene.

PLUS you need to have legislation which guarantees people the right to view the logs and imposes massive fines and other penalties for "oops, we seem to have lost that footage" probably including an immediate dismissal of any case.

Not a step forward at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41985185)

Most cops already have camera's mounted on their police vehicles. They have never had a problem with their own camera's recording the action, they use this footage to prosecute the people they arrest, and when the footage shows something the cops don't want seen the video tape is conveniently 'lost' before the trial. This happens ALL THE TIME.

Actually, they often don't have to be dishonest to do this. Many states have laws that allow prosecutors to decide whether this footage can be shown in court, or weird regulations regarding when and under what circumstances defense attorney's can review the footage, exact details vary by state but in general the police and prosecutors have a LOT of control over such evidence and can easily prevent it from being seen.

The problem has ALWAYS been citizens recording cops. Because even if you are arrested, there are laws in place that protect your property and prevent cops from confiscating the video footage. Once it's your property you have a lot of control regarding whether it can be shown in court or not.

BOTTOM LINE: Us recording cops is good. Cops recording us is bad

SciFi - Continuum, etc (1)

Tim12s (209786) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985187)

Its funny how SciFi predicts this eventuality. The obvious result of this is that the police officers have to continually uphold themselves to higher standards because they are now clearly accountable for their actions. The less obvious result of this is that they are more clearly able to enforce the law to a greater degree than before due to the next logical step of the reliance on technology.

Catching criminals (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985199)

Seems like this should help getting evidence against criminals as well.
It gives an unbiased account in instances when all we had was the officers word and the footage of fleeing criminals can be studied in detail to try and identify them.

I for one ... (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | about a year and a half ago | (#41985211)

I for one welcome our new RoboMormon overlords.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...