Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a
camera intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a camera
intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

I've read a few articles that state that where the cameras are used, the
number of complaints about police brutality have dropped sharply.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On 11/26/2014 8:03 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:48:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a
camera intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

The only con I have heard is the privacy issue. The pictures are in
the public domain and a lot of people who were not actually arrested
can still have their image popping up on youtube.



My gut feeling is that the benefits (to both the police officer and the
person detained) far outweigh any negatives.

Many squad cars have them now but the coverage is restricted to the
car's position.

On 11/26/2014 8:03 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:48:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a
camera intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

The only con I have heard is the privacy issue. The pictures are in
the public domain and a lot of people who were not actually arrested
can still have their image popping up on youtube.


Well, if you are in the public domain and somebody films you, from what
I know, that is not an invasion of your civil rights. Now I am not sure
how this works on private property, but I suspect those rules may be
different during police activity??

On 11/26/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:29:41 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/26/2014 8:03 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:48:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a
camera intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

The only con I have heard is the privacy issue. The pictures are in
the public domain and a lot of people who were not actually arrested
can still have their image popping up on youtube.


Well, if you are in the public domain and somebody films you, from what
I know, that is not an invasion of your civil rights. Now I am not sure
how this works on private property, but I suspect those rules may be
different during police activity??

That is the problem. We expect the cops to be able to go lots of
places where we have the expectation of privacy but that camera is
going to see everything, not just the reason the cop was there.
The cop himself is prevented from using a lot of things he sees but
the camera still sees it.
I am mostly referring to innocent 3d parties, not the object of the
enquiry.


No, I understand completely. They may have to make a "poison pill" law
where they can not use the vid as evidence for a warrant or in court.
Maybe the film can only be used in a court case to prove or disprove the
actions of the cop, or others directly involved in the incident, maybe
only to be viewed at all by court order, and in the presense of a judge.
What I am suggesting is the "daily vid" is sealed and not even the cop
sees it until such time as a judge calls it out....

On 11/26/2014 11:52 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/26/2014 11:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:29:41 -0500, KC wrote:

On 11/26/2014 8:03 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:48:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Looks like one of the immediate reactions to the Ferguson (and other)
shooting(s) is a call for all police officers in the USA to wear a
camera intended to document what occurs in a police action.

Pros? Cons?

The only con I have heard is the privacy issue. The pictures are in
the public domain and a lot of people who were not actually arrested
can still have their image popping up on youtube.


Well, if you are in the public domain and somebody films you, from what
I know, that is not an invasion of your civil rights. Now I am not sure
how this works on private property, but I suspect those rules may be
different during police activity??

That is the problem. We expect the cops to be able to go lots of
places where we have the expectation of privacy but that camera is
going to see everything, not just the reason the cop was there.
The cop himself is prevented from using a lot of things he sees but
the camera still sees it.
I am mostly referring to innocent 3d parties, not the object of the
enquiry.


No, I understand completely. They may have to make a "poison pill" law
where they can not use the vid as evidence for a warrant or in court.
Maybe the film can only be used in a court case to prove or disprove the
actions of the cop, or others directly involved in the incident, maybe
only to be viewed at all by court order, and in the presense of a judge.
What I am suggesting is the "daily vid" is sealed and not even the cop
sees it until such time as a judge calls it out....


The videos taken from squad cars are used routinely in courts as
evidence. Most seem to be DUI arrests.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:52:02 PM UTC-5, BAR wrote:

They do work for us and we should be able to dictate the working
conditions. The police should wear cameras the entire time they are on
duty.

So should krause, but no one would want to watch any of that ****.

On 11/26/2014 11:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:51:48 -0500, BAR wrote:

The police should wear cameras the entire time they are on
duty.
You do understand the amount of data we are talking about I assume?

Maybe a half a gig an hour for a low resolution picture times 1.1
million cops. 2 petabytes of data by lunch time on the first day. How
long do we keep this data?

You do start getting the "Staci" problem. The East Germans collected
far more data than they could actually look at.

I do understand that when **** happens, it is great to have the video
but Wilson had 18 years on the force with nothing spectacular ever
happening to him. That is a lot of boring video.



I think the videos cameras used in the police cars just re-write after
30 minutes or so. They don't keep continuous video files.

Also, I don't think they are on all the time. They are turned on when
the officer makes a stop.

On 11/26/2014 11:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:51:48 -0500, BAR wrote:

The police should wear cameras the entire time they are on
duty.
You do understand the amount of data we are talking about I assume?

Maybe a half a gig an hour for a low resolution picture times 1.1
million cops. 2 petabytes of data by lunch time on the first day. How
long do we keep this data?

You do start getting the "Staci" problem. The East Germans collected
far more data than they could actually look at.

I do understand that when **** happens, it is great to have the video
but Wilson had 18 years on the force with nothing spectacular ever
happening to him. That is a lot of boring video.


Not sure how long to keep it, but my idea would be nobody gets to see it
until a judge orders it, and then only in a case where the police or
suspect action is in question, *not for* investigative or to produce a
warrant, collect intel, etc...

KC
On 11/26/2014 11:54 PM, wrote:
- show quoted text -
" Not sure how long to keep it, but my idea would be nobody gets to see it
until a judge orders it, and then only in a case where the police or
suspect action is in question, *not for* investigative or to produce a
warrant, collect intel, etc... "

,what are you so worried about?.....
Oh wait a minute....if you act in real life like you do in here, it all makes perfect sense.