Why aren't the police equipped with recording devices that are active whenever they are interacting with the public? It seems that anyone with that sort of power should have an audit trail for their actions.
In Oakland all police officers are equipped with lapel cameras. But having been involved in Occupy Oakland's legal and anti-repression work what we have found is that since police have discretion as to when they can turn the devices on and off and when to upload, the video always seems to be mysteriously missing whenever defense lawyers request it. The officer will say that they forgot to turn it on or that it malfunctioned. If there is an instance of a protestor throwing a bottle that video is always available and is splashed all over the press.
The cameras should be required to be on in order for the officer to do anything "in the line of duty". Furthermore, they should broadcast a wifi feed of what they're seeing in real time so that anyone can have a "listener" running nearby to capture it. You could have a listener in your car, at your apartment, or running on your iPhone. There should be a listener in the police car that instantly uploads the feed to a server managed by an agency that is totally independent from the police department.
Camera always on. Everyone gets an immediate copy.
As well as a way to find out things that should be private into something public.
As far as I'm concerned, these records should only be unsealed, and made available for court proceedings. Accountability is important, but so is privacy.
Ha, good point. Okay, well amend my brainstorming to just being a live feed that goes to an independent agency that can make the video available at a later date.
There are a couple of legitimate reasons why police officers might not want to be recorded 8-12 hours a day.
First is purely psychological. Would you want to have someone looking over your shoulder all the time? Would you want your employer to record everything you do on your computer through some spyware? Have a camera mounted above your head?
Second is procedural. There are so many rules and regulations that it's almost impossible not to break some of them (just like with laws in western countries) so police officers (just like citizens) rely on low detection rate for minor violations and difficulty of proving anything.
There is also something to be said about how trustworthy police officers would be everyone they come in contact while on duty. People (and that includes criminals) find it much easier to trust a person they see standing in front ot them than some unknown tape reviewer.
And finally, basic privacy. If you work for many hours with little to do (patrolling the streets isn't exactly a consuming task), you probably have a lot of personal conversations with your partners.
Those problems will also be made worse by the officers themselves struggling with yet another piece of equipment (have you ever seen a cop running?).
All or almost all of the above could probably be resolved with selective recording, clear indicators of when the camera is running, light and easy to use devices and other technical solutions. Though we all know that, as with any other technological project, first users will get a lot of leakage and other bugs. And with the feedback loops what they are in the government, many may not be fixed for a really long time.
Don't forget airline pilots. And call center employees. And....
Well, I think it's clear enough that people can manage to do their jobs while being constantly watched. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but if it's a good idea for anybody, then people who are legally empowered to use force to enforce the law ought to be at the top of the list.
Airline pilots have strict protections on how the cockpit voice recorder information can be used; it's only a 30-minute loop, etc. Hardly the same as having every working day recorded permanently...
Do you have any experience with people using Looxcies? They are basically like tiny Bluetooth ear pieces but with an HD video camera. It seems like they'd be perfect for recording the cops, but I have no idea if they're actually any good or not in that sort of environment.
I think it's just technology adoption lag. Cruisers have had these cameras on their dashboards (dash cams) for a while now. At first with resistance but now it's saved more cops than burnt.
Yes and no. If the camera is on and then shuts off for a few moments it does make the officer look like they are trying to hide something. Also, just having this step in the right direction will hopefully set up a time in the future when all dealings with the police have to be recorded by law.
A similar thing happened in my home town. A state law said that all police cars must have cameras for DUI stops. One of the counties in the state that wrote the most DUIs kept saying they couldn't afford to put cameras in all of the cruisers. Finally, a judge started throwing out all DUIs where the camera wasn't installed. Cameras were all installed and working in short order.
Technology has made it so easy to record all interactions that if the police are not doing it then the default reason is they are trying to hide something.
It's becoming more common. The local cops in my area wear microphones that activate whenever they're away from their vehicle (everything that happens near the vehicle is captured by the dash cam).
Every cop I've talked to about it is very positive. It often make their life much easier in court...
They should be, but all those video streams should be either made public or at least sent to a completely different Government agency, so the police has no power over the data.
