Beta
×

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!

Should Cops Wear Google Glass?

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the the-eyes-have-it dept.

Privacy 223

Nerval's Lobster writes "Over at The Kernel, staff writer Greg Stevens wonders whether police departments around the world should outfit their officers with Google Glass. There's some logic behind the idea. A cop with wearable electronics constantly streaming audio and video back to a supervisor (or even a Website) would be less likely, at least in theory, to take liberties with civilians' civil liberties. But not everybody thinks it's such a good idea. Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote in a recent blog posting that society needs to make choices 'about the extent to which we want to allow the government to store up that data so that it has the power to hit 'rewind' on everybody's lives.' In the view of that organization, 'that's just too much power.' That being said, law enforcement wearing electronics that streams constant video and audio data would still be subject to the law. 'If the officer is recording a communication he has in public with someone, there's probably no wiretap problem since there's at least the consent of one party and no expectation of privacy,' Hanni M. Fakhoury, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in an email to Slashdot. 'But if he's recording peripheral communications between two separate individuals, than there's potential wiretap liability depending on the circumstances.' What do you think? Are cops wearing Google Glass (or similar wearable electronic) a good idea?"

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

g spot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601947)

vagina boob

2911

Borg... (1)

darkob (634931) | about a year ago | (#44601951)

So, cops will look like Borg. What else is new...

Who watches the watchers (5, Insightful)

VernonNemitz (581327) | about a year ago | (#44602335)

The answer to that ancient question, because we can actually do it with today's tech, is "everyone". So all public buildings and public/government vehicles should be wired with webcams that anyone can access at any time to see what Public Servants are actually doing (instead of what they claim to be doing). Remember Heinlein's "Notebooks of Lazarus Long", and the particular quotation "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." Cops that can do things without being watched are in a position to abuse power just like any other tyrant.

Re:Who watches the watchers (4, Insightful)

currently_awake (1248758) | about a year ago | (#44602531)

Allowing the general public to see the video without a warrant means people can spy on you (using the government cameras) and therefore invade your privacy. If a police officer questions you about something, it would end up on the internet even if the accusation was provably false. Also it means criminals can map out where the cops go (or don't go) in order to find gaps for criminal activity.

Re:Who watches the watchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602581)

The answer to that ancient question, because we can actually do it with today's tech, is "everyone". So all public buildings and public/government vehicles should be wired with webcams that anyone can access at any time to see what Public Servants are actually doing (instead of what they claim to be doing). Remember Heinlein's "Notebooks of Lazarus Long", and the particular quotation "Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." Cops that can do things without being watched are in a position to abuse power just like any other tyrant.

How stupid is that. No cop should be wearing a broadcasting device that anyone can see.

Do you think criminals wont be smart enough to pay attention to them? They would know where the police are, know what they are doing, who they are talking to and so on. All that would do is benefit criminals a great deal and make it easier for them to rob, kill, sell drugs or whatever.

You act like every cop in the world needs to be monitored so they don't do bad things. How often do you actually hear about a police officer in America doing something wrong on national tv? Very rarely, even locally I barely ever hear about that. So yeah, there a couple bad cops, but what about the other 934,976 cops that never get in trouble or do bad stuff?

Yeah Ive heard that quote, hate to tell you but secrecy has been around since the dawn of man and it will continue despite google glass. My mother was a cop, and my uncle a us marshall your ideas of cops sneaking around and all of them doing illegal things like legalized crooks is hilariously stupid and what someone with a tin foil hate would say. 99% of the cops in the US are just normal every day people that go to work, do their job and head home to watch Netflix and watch football. They aren't running around doing illegal shit constantly.

Re:Who watches the watchers (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602641)

So yeah, there a couple bad cops

Yes. When your sample size is only 2 or 3. Power corrupts and police are no more immune from that corruption than the rest of us. It would be very surprising if it were otherwise.

Re:Who watches the watchers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602775)

How often do you actually hear about a police officer in America doing something wrong on national tv? Very rarely, even locally I barely ever hear about that

That is because the mainstream media is in bed with the government and cover up a lot of shit. It's the same reason you rarely hear about all of the unsolved crimes and the criminals who do get away. They are trying to save face and retain power.

Re:Who watches the watchers (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44602877)

How often do you actually hear about a police officer in America doing something wrong on national tv?

And from that you take away that police seldom do anything wrong?

By your logic, "Honey, I've told you I've never cheated on you, so that's proof I'm not cheating on you!"

My mother was a cop, and my uncle a us marshall your ideas of cops sneaking around and all of them doing illegal things like legalized crooks is hilariously stupid

Nobody says that "all of them" are doing illegal things. But they're supposed to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us, because they're the ones who have power.

Here in Chicago, we went through decades where a Division Commander was running a torture regime which put scores of people in jail and on death row by torturing confessions out of them. For the decades that was happening, nobody heard about it, so by your standard, it wasn't happening.

It doesn't take a big percentage of crooked cops to put the entire system at risk. Just ask the people over at the Innocence Project, who have, as of now, gotten over 300 people off death row by using DNA evidence, about the damage police misconduct and prosecutorial overreach does. Ask one of those guys who were waiting for a lethal injection until a group of volunteers peeked under the skirts of police departments and found something very foul.

Most cops I know are a lot less sanguine than you are about police misconduct, which splashed mud on them and makes their job a lot harder. Every one of them can tell you stories of bad cops and the damage they do.

Re:Who watches the watchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44603105)

the thin blue line is the tip of the iceberg

Just for video recording? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44601955)

I don't understand why so much of the focus on google glass is on the video camera. Lots of devices can record video, that's nothing new.

If police should be wearing google glass, it would be because it can provide heads up information, as opposed to the rather bulky laptop-based systems now in their cruisers.

Re:Just for video recording? (2)

AtariEric (571910) | about a year ago | (#44602153)

My thoughts exactly. With face recognition (likely at the station), the officer can be informed whether the person he's looking at has a warrant or not. Ditto with licence plates. Of course, that can be a double-edged sword...

Re:Just for video recording? (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#44602183)

but thats against the law without a warrant. i think they should just have standard head mounted cameras, like utah is doing for their cops

Re:Just for video recording? (2)

DaTrueDave (992134) | about a year ago | (#44602591)

Facial recognition isn't efficient or accurate enough to work well for general law enforcement, but it wouldn't require a warrant.

License plate recognition is the hot new law enforcement tool that is very efficient and accurate, and also does not require a warrant. Nearly every new patrol car is being outfitted with license plate recognition technology in the US. Some are manually activated, but most of them constantly record the location of every license plate that it "sees", and logs that data in a national database. It's very effective.

Re:Just for video recording? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44602617)

...but thats against the law without a warrant.

What is? Automatic scanning of license plates for crimes associated with them? Takes place already all over the United States - no warrant required. Running people's faces through facial recognition to ferret out those who are wanted for crimes? Happens already - no warrant required.

What gives you the idea that these sorts of actions require a warrant? They don't in the United States, and I'll bet the Brits where doing it LONG before us here (in the USA) - for example the surveillance situation in London...

Re:Just for video recording? (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44602161)

I don't understand why so much of the focus on google glass is on the video camera. Lots of devices can record video, that's nothing new.

Because it enables constant video recording in a way which is much easier than using a separate video camera or a smartphone.

Re:Just for video recording? (1, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44602555)

Because it enables constant video recording in a way which is much easier than using a separate video camera or a smartphone.

The point is that glasses with video cameras have been available for quite some time. As well, there are devices specifically targeted at Law Enforcement that you can clip to your pocket that also can "stream" video to a recorder or Internet connection.

The thing that Glass has is the "HUD".

Re:Just for video recording? (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#44602269)

Currently, every police car is equipped with facilities to allow the tracking of license plates (cars) of citizens throughout the city.

Strapping cameras to their heads turns every cop into a non-stop surveillance machine in ways that would otherwise be difficult to implement in most cities (ie, throwing cameras up all over the place, UK-style).

Re:Just for video recording? (3, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#44602295)

Yeah, they can immediately see what they can arrest you for,
  as we all are guilty of breaking some law.
All they have to do is link everything you did to the laws and they will find something. At least enough to find a reason to trow away your rights.

The great power of cross referencing.

Re:Just for video recording? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602317)

Q: How will heads up information help catch criminals that wear badges?
A) It won't. It will make them better at being criminals wearing badges.

Google bad; other video good. (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | about a year ago | (#44602793)

Many agencies already have every officer wearing wearable video ( such as those from this company: http://www.vievu.com/ [vievu.com] ).

Google would be a bad solution, though - they have a history of lying to the public and abusing data (PRISM) in a way that puts most local agencies to shame. Would people really want to give Google that much more power?

Better - require law enforcement to wear cameras without specifying a vendor - and instead create a legal framework that would cover under what conditions and to whom (ACLU? Defense Attorneys? NSA? Prosecutors? Community Neighborhood Watch Groups? Victims?) that information could be shared.

Okay with me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601959)

As long as it doesn't stream pr0n.
But then again, that's up to the circumstances the cop finds himself in.

A good idea with one condition (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#44601963)

If the recording is "missing" for any reason, or if the cop stops recording or removes the recording device for any reason other than someone else breaking it (and visibly doing so), everything the cop says about the unrecorded events should be assumed to be a lie.

Re:A good idea with one condition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602013)

Yeah, because malfunctions never happen. It's always just a case of the cop being corrupt, and wanting to beat the shit out of somebody for no good reason.

How many "ZOMG POLICE ARE TEH DEVIL" videos do you see?

Out of how many thousands of routine, peaceable, legitimate police stops (recorded by dash cams, etc.) every day?

That should tell you something about the "problem" of police corruption you're karma-whoring about.

Re:A good idea with one condition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602075)

That should tell you something about the "problem" of police corruption you're karma-whoring about.

Well, those videos mostly don't get saved, do they?

Re:A good idea with one condition (4, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602341)

No. You are right. Malfunctions happen on a regular basis. The fact that they only happen when it benefits the cop, and never when it would incriminate them is pure coincidence.

Since you clearly have little experience dealing with the police, or worse yet, are one yourself, how about letting the people who actually have experience with the many, many criminals wearing badges do the analysis. Thanks.

Re: A good idea with one condition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602525)

Or perhaps they only "malfunction when it benefits the cop" because 90% of the people they deal with everyday are lying anti-police anarchist scum like yourself, and the recordings would otherwise almost always benefit the cops.

Re: A good idea with one condition (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602681)

Great one officer! +5 ROTFLMAO!!!

Re: A good idea with one condition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602683)

It's scary that you don't understand the power of the the "code of blue". They may be a small percentage of head strong corrupt policeman but that small percentage is very scary when unchecked. I've never been arrested in my life and have only had a few tickets when I was a teenager and I can tell you that at least 50% of the time the policemen involved flat out LIED in court. Even now in my 40's living in a rural area, I have an old grumpy neighbor (about 300 ft away from my property). I've had the police come to my property to complain about noise from my sons ATV and I've listened to them talk to him, claiming they could arrest him for reckless driving and to shut the engine off NOW or they would impound his bike, quoting some made up laws even through he never once left our property. Oddly he never came close to being loud or breaking any sound ordinance. They are just being assholes. Oddly sometimes one will come, talk to us politely and say there is nothing he can do and we are free to keep riding but they had to swing by because the neighbor called. I am not anti police, my opinions are based on my experience. I'm sure my experiences are the same as most peoples.

Re: A good idea with one condition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602873)

Or perhaps they only "malfunction when it benefits the cop" because 90% of the people they deal with everyday are lying anti-police anarchist scum like yourself, and the recordings would otherwise almost always benefit the cops.

Die, pig, die!

Re:A good idea with one condition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602553)

Up to now, no cops are using google glasses. So when you say that malfunction only happen when it benefits the cop, it's purely imaginary. Also, with the number of criminals who escape justice because of technicality, I'd say the ones who benefit the most are criminals (which is probably why we live in a so shitty society).

BTW, I'm 44 years old and I never had to "deal" with the police. Not even when I was a teen. If you have so much experience with the police, the most probable cause is your own behaviour. Or worse yet, you're one of those lawyers who's making money trying to help criminals escape justice.

Re:A good idea with one condition (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602697)

Right. Because before there was Google glass, there was absolutely no way to record video, cops never did it, and so there was nothing to malfunction. Either that or you are an idiot.

Re:A good idea with one condition (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602439)

Yes, malfunctions happen, so what? They're not that frequent and should be easy enough to make it obvious to the officer when there's a problem so they can go get it fixed immediately, just like when there's a problem with the car, gun, radio, etc.

The point is that police corruption and abuse is a well-documented problem, and no cop would willingly record evidence against himself, so justifiable suspicion should fall on any cop who just happens to have a malfunction right before the person he's talking to repeatedly walks into a door, or he "finds" a handgun and kilo of cocaine on that guy he just shot. It's not evidence, but it should tilt the balance of suspicion. Especially against those particular officers who have a long stream of "malfunctions" during which questionable activities occurred. And for the honest cops it will provide ready video evidence against trumped up complaints.

Cops are human. Give them power and some of them will abuse it a lot, and a lot of them will abuse it a little. We give them some serious power, so why shouldn't we also put a leash on them to discourage abuse?

Re: A good idea with one condition (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#44602211)

Yes. It should be punishable too, like as if they lost their weapon.

Re:A good idea with one condition (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602259)

Indeed. If anyone should actually subject to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" it is that subset of individuals whom society has appointed to exercise extraordinary powers on it's behalf.

Re:A good idea with one condition (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#44602465)

When things like this [youtube.com] go on, what you want is wishful thinking.
"Our officer used appropriate force in a dangerous situation." and the guy they shot was sleeping (and the wrong guy)

Re:A good idea with one condition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44603131)

If the recording is "missing" for any reason, or if the cop stops recording or removes the recording device for any reason other than someone else breaking it (and visibly doing so), everything the cop says about the unrecorded events should be assumed to be a lie.

Yep.

And, every time a cop commits a crime against a person, instead of the municipality (taxpayers) having to pay out the damages, the damages should come from the police officer's pension fund.

Between these two measures, I predict there will be a sudden change the way cops treat others-- cops will stop beating people, murdering people, and may even be generally less dickish..

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44601971)

As long as they're labeled by being uniformed, and as long as other warrant-free mechanisms for public surveillance by the police are illegal.

ANY time a uniformed officer is in public is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602227)

valid warrant-free.

How do you think they spot street crimes as they happen.

They are ALWAYS on duty, even when eating.

The streams have to be restricted (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#44601981)

The streams from these "cop cameras" have to be restricted so that they can only be accessed by the officer's supervisors and with a subpoena. I strongly object to the proposals some have made that the footage be made public. I do not want my every interaction with the police made public, even if it's getting a jaywalking ticket.

"Innocent until proven guilty" can't be achieved when facing the court of public opinion.

Re:The streams have to be restricted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602043)

> so that they can only be accessed by the officer's supervisors and Google

FTFY

Re:The streams have to be restricted (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44602105)

Not only that but it would also not be good for the cop either (lets assume that not all cops are bad for a moment)

If the streams were just made public so that anyone could watch them, you know damn well the criminals would be watching them as well. So using some search tools and a simple map program the criminals would be able to pinpoint the cops exact locations at all time. worst case they use this info to sell drugs or rob trucks, worst case they go cop killing or killing at random.

Cop cars have dash cams, some cops are already mic'd at all times. Putting them in google glass, or something similar only makes sense. as long as the streams are NOT public, and are only called upon when needed, meaning the streams are not being sent to a group of TV screens somewhere just simply sent to a server farm to be pulled up with the proper need.

Re:The streams have to be restricted (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602367)

But if the streams aren't made public then how will the footage be used against the police themselves? And don't say a supervisor will release it. If the police maintain control of the footage, all police brutality/murder footage will vanish almost as soon as it is recorded.

In my state the police used dashcams for a while until they discovered that the additional video evidence caused them to lose cases a lot more often than it helped them win them. So they ended the program. Police will always protect their own. That is their first rule. So how do you keep the footage from the public and keep it out of the hands of the police themselves? There would have to be some kind of neutral third party that stored the footage and released copies of the footage to both prosecutors and defendents in various criminal and civil trials.

Re:The streams have to be restricted (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602473)

A delay, say twenty-four hours, would solve those problem nicely. If your patterns are obvious enough to be derived from the historical feed then you can be pretty sure the local thugs already know them.

Unfortunately for you, it IS public information. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602243)

The advantage is that it can provide a photographic record of the activity.

And in court, the full video should be available to both sides.

Re:The streams have to be restricted (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602537)

The streams from these "cop cameras" have to be restricted so that they can only be accessed by the officer's supervisors

If the cops have access to the footage they will just delete it whenever it contains evidence against one of them.

Re:The streams have to be restricted (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602559)

Indeed, there's no reason to intentionally accelerate the loss of privacy in our society. There should be a way for anyone to get access in a timely manner though - if I claim officer #666 did something wrong then I or my lawyer should be able to get a copy of the footage for the time period in question, though maybe not until an independent assessor reviews the footage to confirm that something questionable may have occurred. I'm sure the county courthouse could hire "professional witnesses" to do such a job, it's not like it would be skilled labor.

I don't think wiretapping is the issue here. (1)

zerotorr (729953) | about a year ago | (#44601989)

What's the difference between this and vehicle mounted cams, as far as privacy goes? If the officer is present, then obviously either one parties consented to him being present or it's being conducted in public place. Unless the officer is hiding in your bedroom closet... And if that's the case... you don't need google glass to record things....

Here's another reason this is a bad idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602099)

If the officer is present, then obviously either one parties consented to him being present or it's being conducted in public place.

See here: You Commit Three Felonies a Day [wsj.com] .

So, we're going to have the POLICE record citizens going about their business. We all know, this shit WILL be saved indefinitely - "time limits" are hoseshit; just look at what states do with names of all of us criminals who buy cold medicine with pseudoephedrine in them. Those lists have become perpetual because of the meth "crisis" - more "war on drugs" bullshit.

With the recordings of our behavior, you just know some asshole prosecutor with political ambitions - OK, all prosecutors - will abuse this because we are all pretty much criminals thanks to assholes in our legislatures.

This will just increase our surveillance society.

Re:Here's another reason this is a bad idea: (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602645)

This is the biggest problem I see, especially coupled with increasingly sophisticated automated sound+video analysis. Of course if such abuse gets common enough people will demand their legislators legalize a lot of outdated or trivial crimes and clarify existing laws, but that doesn't help against targeted harassment of individuals.

no chance of abuse, none at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602007)

Just one example: exonerating evidence will accidentally be accidentally lost, edited, or otherwise made unavailable in the interests of 'national security'.

"thatâ(TM)s just too much power" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602017)

What does the scouter say about that?

No. Nobody should wear them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602023)

Fuck off.

Score:5, Insightful

camera on the cop's head is a great idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602027)

...but the world's biggest private datamining corporation selling them those cameras? Nope.

Use It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602031)

If a cop can see or hear something there is no privacy issue involved at all including the cop's. Any activity or words uttered in a public space are fair game to be recorded and used as one sees fit.

Re:Use It! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602365)

Perhaps you were unaware that the police sometimes stray from public areas?

San Francisco Fire is banning helmet cams (5, Interesting)

tranquilidad (1994300) | about a year ago | (#44602063)

The San Francisco Fire Chief just banned [sfgate.com] fire helmet mounted cameras after helmet-cam footage from the Asiana crash became public. Some say it was done to protect the privacy of victims, others to protect the city from liability as in this case where one of the victims was still alive when run over by a responding fire truck.

Re:San Francisco Fire is banning helmet cams (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602109)

The San Francisco Fire Chief just banned [sfgate.com] fire helmet mounted cameras after helmet-cam footage from the Asiana crash became public. Some say it was done to protect the privacy of victims, others to protect the city from liability as in this case where one of the victims was still alive when run over by a responding fire truck.

Just goes to show, if something can be abused it will be abused by some stupid tosser.

Re:San Francisco Fire is banning helmet cams (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year ago | (#44602135)

I find it curious that law enforcement wants to monitar all things, except themselves.

Re:San Francisco Fire is banning helmet cams (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#44602187)

it isnt law enforcement that monitors everything... it is our government. law enforcement just abuses information and doesnt really follow the law

Privacy Issue (1)

cphilo (768807) | about a year ago | (#44602097)

I see privacy issues both ways. If the cops is required to wear Google glasses all the time, we have an issue where the cops cannot use the restroom or eat in privacy. And if he takes them off, then some lawyer will be upset about the missing time. I also see a problem with overriding the individual judgement of the cop. What if he feels he HAS to write a ticket instead of just give a warning, because his every move is being monitored by someone. I think we should just stick with dashcams

Re:Privacy Issue (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#44602391)

The camera should be part of the badge/gun combo, privacy be damned.

Re:Privacy Issue (0)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602511)

Dashcams do little or nothing to prevent police brutality or the false charges that follow. Cops know enough to not beat or kill anyone within the view of the camera. I don't think it's necessary to force cops to leave the camera on when going to the bathroom. They can switch it off just before they go in. But if he wants to arrest someone during his bathroom break his testimony about whatever he claims occured while in there should be ignored. All charges he makes against someone during his bathroom break should be automatically dismissed.

If he 'forgets' to turn it back on and ends up miles from a bathroom when the camera is finally turned back on again any charges he makes against anyone during that time should automatically be dismissed and his testimony from that missing period should be inadmissable in any trial. Hopefully a jury will also consider the fact that the cop turned off his camera right before the police brutality was alleged to have taken place in any lawsuit against the department.

"Consent Of One Party" Has To Change (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44602129)

There are only a few states left that have "Consent of All Parties" laws. That is, EVERYBODY has to consent, in order for something to be recorded.

Over time, state after state has passed laws to allow "one party consent". That is, only the party doing the recording has to "consent" to be recorded. And that's bullshit. The laws were passed to make it easier for law enforcement (and corporations) to gather surveillance on other people.

This needs to change. "All party consent" makes very good sense and is the only scheme that preserves privacy at the proper level.

Re:"Consent Of One Party" Has To Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602173)

If they were considered about law enforcement, there's no reason that law would need to apply to law enforcement. It'd be incredibly easy to exempt law enforcement, or other licensed individuals, from the law.

Re:"Consent Of One Party" Has To Change (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#44602225)

Careful what you wish for. Two party consent would also punish you from recording your interactions with law enforcement, or recording abusive calls that you receive.

Re:"Consent Of One Party" Has To Change (2)

dwillden (521345) | about a year ago | (#44602343)

You have it backwards, one party consent laws are designed to protect the public from inadvertent violation of wiretapping laws. Want to record the professor's lecture to help with your notes and study, make sure you get written approval from not only the prof but also from everybody who enters or exits the room while your recorder is running.

Oh and Government is not allowed to be one of the consenting parties. If they want to record someone they need a warrant. One party is actually better if you understand how it really works.

Re:"Consent Of One Party" Has To Change (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44602735)

You raise a fair point, but the flip side is also true: one of the greatest tools we have in bringing abuse of authority to light is the ability of a passerby with a cell phone to capture evidence of the crime, and I think that's something we probably want to keep legal.

Thin out the force (1)

nickmh (2496180) | about a year ago | (#44602145)

Only if you want to thin out the force through prosecutions of abuse of power

Re:Thin out the force (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602383)

Yes. That is exactly what we want. Why wouldn't we? As it stands now very few people get into law enforcement for the right reasons, and the few who do leave soon or get corrupted themselves in short order. If people knew that they would have to be law abiding cops, and that they would also be working with law abiding cops, then guess what! ... we'd have mostly law abiding cops rather than mostly badge wearing criminals. Oh the HORROR!

As long as (1)

Monoman (8745) | about a year ago | (#44602151)

As long as we can too.

Depends (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44602155)

Can the cop OR their supervisor OR the police department turn the glasses off on demand?

Re:Depends (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602393)

Yes. They simply throw them off "in the heat of the moment" because it is "endangering them" to have them on.

Great idea... (1)

WinstonWoof (2918209) | about a year ago | (#44602179)

I think this could be a great idea if it would always be used when police officer has to testify in court, currently most lawyers advice you never speak to a police officer under any circumstance : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6wXkI4t7nuc&t=239 [youtube.com] If every police officer were required to have an always on camera, then their interactions with the public and their testimony in court would no longer be based on their opinion of the situation, or what they though they heard you say, but hard video evidence. Also it could generally make the police a lot more aware of how they interact with the public, which in my experience in the US, has generally been very negative. I am no lawyer, but my current belief is to never speak to a police officer.

Re:Great idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602403)

Also it could generally make the police a lot more aware of how they interact with the public,

You sure? Them being an unconstitutional ass seems to help the ratings of shows like "Cops" etc where "real life" police officers are followed around by the show's cameras. The way they are trained "to take control of the situation", even when no real situation exists, bears a stronger resemblance to that of playground bullies, muggers, mob enforcers/collectors, etc then it does anything else. Minors should not be an excuse for them turning them off either, have been around places where the cops were known to take teenage girls to a country road and park for a while and where they had a trailer belonging to one of them and kept for the sole purpose of taking minors to bed as well as other sex to avoid arrest/tickets purposes.

For such to really work then there needs to be more then 1 citizen committee scanning every minute of video and full accounting for all off time and it better be a valid reason. Pity that they have done so much that indicates the need for such a thing, it would be better if they just went back to only investigating crimes ex post facto and in a reasonable, honest, constitutional fashion. Their own history darkens their image.

If it's mandated for law enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602189)

Then it's required for every citizen to have google glass, on at all times. So much for being a land of freedom.

Re:If it's mandated for law enforcement (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#44602407)

Non Sequitur much?

It's not going to help people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602239)

I doubt any good could possibly come of it.
Any "law enforcement" or government issue google glass is going to be passing through their teammates and supervisors, so it's not as if this is going to auto-youtube all the beatings. Those videos won't make it online unless someone else also took a shot with his own, which is no different from currently.

All it means is they'll have quicker access to the shots that make them look good or their victims look bad, extra spying methods to use on the populace, and not an iota of added accountability in practice for the peoplebeaters.

If anything, more people will get struck for wearing the things, because they were "obviously trying to film personal policeman information" or the other crap they spout when caught pulling truncheons on some non-resisting "armed and dangerous, violently resisting" black kid.

Re:It's not going to help people (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602615)

Any "law enforcement" or government issue google glass is going to be passing through their teammates and supervisors, so it's not as if this is going to auto-youtube all the beatings. Those videos won't make it online unless someone else also took a shot with his own, which is no different from currently.

Well for this system to work or even to be taken seriously the footage would have to be automatically uploaded somewhere that is not accessible by any police officer. Otherwise it's pretty obvious that any negative footage will be deleted. Since there are already several systems that do this for the rest of us, I certainly don't think implementing such a system for the police would be impossible.

Who watches the watchers? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year ago | (#44602253)

There's so much potential for abuse.

First, to be on the cop's side -- these aren't just security cameras watching specific areas from a distance, this is directly monitoring someone's work. I'm not foolish enough to trust any of them, but I venture to guess that the majority of cops are well-meaning and ethical, and do not throw the power trips you see an abundance of on Youtube. I'd quit any job if my employer tried to look over my shoulder in this way. But then again, my job as a software dev does not give me a power that can so easily have direct, permanent ramifications on the lives of others if abused. I'm conflicted on this point.

At the same time, as a joe citizen I don't want to have cops walking the streets with facial recognition devices potentially giving false positives with some criminal who happens to have a vaguely similar facial structure [youtube.com] . And because the tech is there, what's to stop them from recording and cataloging what faces they capture, or even just fully archiving the entire video feed? Once someone has the video, what's to stop them from looking at it and leaking it? I really would rather not see a video of a crime scene involving my loved ones pop up because of some douchebag cop wanting to make a buck selling it to a sleazy website.

Here's what cops should really wear: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602255)

My foot up their ass

Pretty sad. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#44602263)

It's a pretty sad statement on law-enforcement that they are either so commonly incompetent or corrupt that they and their encounters with the public need to be documented on video.

Yes it's a good idea (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#44602281)

As a victim of police brutality and the inevitable frame-up cover charges that followed and the violent criminal record to show for it, I definitely endorse this idea.

What's more I think any of the typical contempt of cop [wikipedia.org] charges or even more ambitious/serious cover charges [sussexcountyjustice.com] like assault and battery with a deadly weapon or drug/firearm possession should be automatically thrown out if the officer does not have 100% video coverage of the event. Cops, especially American ones, have proven again and again that they cannot be trusted and that they are no more immune from the corruption of arbitrary power than the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] . If anything the kind of people who become police officers in the US, who grew up idealizing violent, out of control TV cops like Dirty Harry or the character in The Wire are less likely to resist the temptation to take out their anger [boston.com] on all non-cops they come into contact with [youtube.com] .

While this may not stop them from tazing 14 year old girls in the head [youtube.com] it would at least discourage or eliminate some of the inevitable false charges that often follow, literally adding insult to injury. No, this won't directly stop all police brutality because they will usually remove or turn off or even break whatever recording device they are issued before beating anyone, but it may prevent their excuses, the false charges which led them to having to violently 'defend themselves' from whatever unarmed 10 year old girl/ninja that was attacking him. Without the comfort of the always reliable cover charges, lawsuits start to become more of a concern and certain cops may think twice about beating or killing people when they cannot just make up a story about having to defend themselves from a violent and out of control attacker.

Yes (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#44602283)

people in power abuse their power. Mainly if they aren't subject to any sort of scrutiny on how they do their job. History has shown this time and time again. And if you have trouble remembering history, the NSA is currently a prime example of power being abused because of lack of scrutiny.

Cops work for the people, they need to be completely accountable while on duty, and in this day and age, that include video surveillance.

To put it in terms the average americans could understand. It protects the children from Terrorist Pedophile Policemen.

 

not google glass, but recorders (3, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#44602313)

It is a good idea to have cops wear personal video recorders at all times.

By the same token, it might be a good idea for a lot of other people to do the same thing.

The wiretap laws need to be adjusted to make recording anything you might otherwise see with your eyes permissible unless its copyrighted information. Obviously you can't have people walking into movie theaters with cameras active. But a lot of situations legally would be a lot more simplistic if we had video evidence in all altercations.

Corruption and bribery would be less of an issue. Various types of non-fatal assault... accidents. All of it would be easier to process if we had video evidence.

It's incredibly effective and cops wear them now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602351)

When cops started to wear these visor units, the use of force to restrain citizens was reduced by 75%. That means that now that some offices carry head mounted cameras, less cops are willing to abuse people and write them tickets they shouldn't have gotten / abuse, and citizens aren't as likely to report false claims. Every cop should wear these cameras for the protection of the citizens and the police. Now, besides that. Google glass, kindly die in a fire.

UK has something similar (1)

Justpin (2974855) | about a year ago | (#44602359)

Just not as integrated. They often have a PDA to look things up and cameras on police are slowly being rolled out. The old catching bad cops doesn't work though. As a number of times when something 'bad' happens, the tapes vanish. Case in point the Brazilian on the London Tube. Also Tomlinson London has the most CCTV per sqkm, yet they had the gall to say the tapes went missing or the cameras were broken. Even when there is footage oversight is not there, guy called Delbo King, cuffed and was kicked around on camera, no charges.

what you will see (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#44602371)

8 pm - 8.20 : shakey head cam shot of the sargeant at the station getting a low down on what to expect and assignments.
8.20 - 8.45: shakey head cam shot of donuts and coffee
8.45 - 10 : shakey head cam shot of the taillights of the car in front of the cruiser
10 - 10.05 : shakey head cam shot of the officer peeing all the coffee out
10.05 - 10.07 : shakey head cam shot of the officer's path out of the donut shop with coffee and another donut
10.07 - 10.15 : shakey head cam shot of officer writing a parking ticket for some douchebag's BMW parked in the handicap zone
10.15 - 12.30 - shakey head cam shot of tail lights of the car in front of the officer's cruiser
12.30 - 12.37 - shakey head cam shot of officer driving like a maniac to a call - lights and sirens rolling
12.37 - 12.45 - shakey head cam shot of some psychotic dumbass with a bullwhip on a street car screaming that he's Jesus and that the cops are all a bunch of fags and wimps cuz wimps are nothing but a bunch of WEAK IMPOTENT MOTHERLESS PUSSIES!!!! SO FUCK YOU COPS!!! FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!!!
12.45 - 12.45 shakey head cam shot of the officer getting increasingly pissed off at being bated by the psycho, and then the officer tells him to drop the whip. He refuses, so the officer perforates him with high speed lead projectiles. As the psycho pukes blood and goes into convulsion, the officer barks "OK NOW WHO'S THE FAGGOT, BOY???" To which another officer says "Yeah. Damn straight."
12.46 - 2 AM - shakey head cam shot of officer driving downtown and filling out paper work.
2. AM - 2.15 - shakey head cam shot of officer eating donuts and drinking coffee.

Re:what you will see (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#44602491)

3 - steady head cam shot of officer's shoes and dropped pants; fell asleep taking a crap.

Absolutely (1)

fred911 (83970) | about a year ago | (#44602399)

It should be a requirement. They are public servants operating in a public environment. When issuing a summons, the recorded event should be a requirement demonstrating probable cause. Judges should require presentation of the recorded event during the arraignment. Sounds like transparency to me. Nothing wrong with that. Following arraignment let the jurist decide applicability and culpability.

Obviously (2)

paiute (550198) | about a year ago | (#44602417)

A cop with wearable electronics constantly streaming audio and video back to a supervisor (or even a Website) would be less likely, at least in theory, to take liberties with civilians' civil liberties.

Yes, which is why it won't happen.

Re:Obviously (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#44603065)

but it does happen. In the UK some police have taken to wearing very obvious cameras [cameras4sports.co.uk] , partly to protect the policeman and partly to add evidence where necessary - can cut down on expensive trials and paperwork [bbc.co.uk] if you can play back the footage to the suspect once he's been caught. It also acts as a deterrent, apparently, though I figure a policeman in the area does that, they don't need a camera if they're there.

These have been used openly since 2006 [metro.co.uk] in some areas.

your glass (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#44602461)

is as good as mine.

yes (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#44602471)

I can't tell you how many times I've seen cops in cop cars miss stuff happening right in front of them because the cop has been fully focused on the laptop screen mounted in his car.

Basically anything that increases the chances of me not getting caught speeding is fine by me.

Good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602519)

If he's close enough to record two third parties talking then he's close enough to hear what they're saying. Therefore anything the device records is something the cop records in his memories. At least the device captures it reliably and we won't have to rely on the vagaries of the memory of the cop testifying in court, we'll just be able to play the recording. Surely better quality evidence is a Good Thing.

Rialto PD did a real world study. (4, Informative)

Above (100351) | about a year ago | (#44602659)

The Rialto PD did a real world study, with a write up in the New York Times [nytimes.com] plus a formal report by a Cambridge University Professor [policefoundation.org] .

The results were overwhelming positive. Use of unnecessary force on citizens dropped. Bogus complaints against officers dropped. Time spent dealing with he-said she-said situations dropped.

Big cities should be jumping on this technology. In 2012 New York City spent 735 Million Dollars [businessweek.com] on settlements. I suspect cameras would dramatically reduce that number, both from officers being forced to be more careful but also from bogus citizen complaints being quickly dismissed with video proof.

Is Google Glass the right answer, no. It does way more than just video, and has cost and durability concerns. However personal video cameras are the answer, every cop (and probably firefighter and paramedic) should wear one.

Automated face recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44602675)

...is the obvious use for Cop Glass.

Patrol cars are routinely fitted with Automated number plate recognition, to flag cars which are uninsured, have owners with outstanding warrants and so on. Presumably Cop Glass would do face recognition on everyone the cop looks at, and pops up an overlay containing his criminal record etc.

David Brin called it (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year ago | (#44602795)

Regardless of what should happen, the eventual end-game is that everyone will be recording everything around them, all the time [wikipedia.org] .

On the plus side, that will make the courts' job easier in most cases -- instead of unreliable and/or dishonest witness testimony, you'll have multiple streams of audio and video to look at.

On the minus side, no privacy for anyone outside their shuttered home... and anything you say or do in public will be recorded forever, so no living down any regrettable mistakes, either.

Cops get them (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#44602811)

And they will be able to wear them other places everyone else is restricted from.

It will be one more thing the police are allowed to use(against you), that you can't use.

Every possible measure (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about a year ago | (#44602835)

Should be used to make police accountable for there actions, far to many police abuse there power, i know here in canada more people are terrified of the cops than in some 3rd world countries at least the corruption in 3rd world countries is somewhat standardized and a few bucks can get you out of 'trouble' here its all about power and control.

in the immortal words of the N.W.A
Fuck the police

Power level 9,000!! (1)

rjejr (921275) | about a year ago | (#44602865)

It was either that, or "what are we going to do with all the videos of doughnuts and hookers?"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?