
Do Police Body Cameras Really Work? - steve371
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/do-police-body-cameras-really-work
======
darawk
Giving someone discretion over when to monitor themselves causing an increase
in violence seems pretty obvious to me.

If I have to choose prior to an encounter "do I want this camera on?" and I
choose "no", I have just reminded myself that I can act with impunity. I have
just called to my own attention all the things I can get away with because no
one will see it. Not only that, but I have also made a small conscious choice
to defend myself from scrutiny. Which to me, seems like a small psychological
commitment towards doing something bad.

~~~
lrem
That's why some jurisdictions implement "guilty until proven innocent" against
their police force, making turning off the camera (or "not noticing it just
broke") and proceeding to beat someone up a rather bad idea.

~~~
Eridrus
Do you have a source for this? I'm curious where they managed to institute
this

~~~
lrem
My Ukrainian friend claimed it's the case with the new police force. They are
extremely careful about turning those cams on before approaching anyone, even
when they're helping an old lady through the street. I can't read the language
to get primary sources myself, googling for English texts gave me only stories
on how the judiciary system (not replaced) there is practically at war with
the police (effectively rebuilt from ground after the last revolution).

Sadly, I can't see any western country doing it yet. Damn, in my home country
there was a case of assault against police officer. A video got public showing
the officer walking up to the guy, throwing him on the ground and proceeding
to kick him. I believe the judge still took the cop's word.

~~~
kilotaras
The thing in Ukraine also has ridiculously tough responsibility for body
injuries.

I can't comment on specific laws concerning police, but can on self-defense.
Basically if someone tries to rob you and you break robbers arm you can be
hold criminally liable.

This comes as a Soviet legacy, there's some push to change the laws in
question.

------
aab0
> In places where they closely followed the instructions (use the camera
> during each encounter if you’re in a treatment group; don’t use it if you’re
> in a control group), the results were positive—a 37 percent reduction in use
> of force on average. But if you allow the treatment group discretion to
> choose when to turn it on, the result is 71 percent greater use of force.
> Thus the problem seems to arise mainly when officers are allowed to turn
> cameras on at times of their own choosing.

And suddenly, Brin's _The Transparent Society_ comes flooding back to memory.

~~~
fossuser
That quote seems to counter the 'nobody knows why' in the article subtitle.

If it backfires when Police can choose to turn them off that seems to suggest
that they act as if having a camera protects them from being questioned. Since
they'll likely record video evidence in their favor and just turn it off if
they want to use force.

In the case with no camera things would be more balanced (though still skewed
toward the police officer's testimony), but selective camera use strongly
biases favorably to the police officer.

A camera that's always on should help get closer to the truth for the officer
and the suspect.

------
nkurz
_Here’s where better technology could help. Body cameras could be
automatically activated immediately when certain cues are triggered, such as
when the officer enters a crime hot spot, leaves a police vehicle, takes out
handcuffs or a weapon, turns on the siren, or makes a call for assistance on
the radio. This way, the officer doesn’t have to think about activating the
body camera in a tense situation._

I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual
activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really
need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political
will?

~~~
sleepychu
I used to work for a body worn video manufacturer as an SE.

Your children comments are neglecting the battery cost (it's a lot cheaper to
run a camera waiting to record than recording all the time). Device size is
important to customers as is how often they'll need to refresh their hardware
and both of these things are affected by required recording time.

>I'd taken it for granted that a police body camera would not require manual
activation. I'd also assumed that they should be always on. Is there really
need for better technology here, as opposed to just a change of political
will? When the government in area mandates the technologies use in an 'always-
on' way then this is easy to sell, otherwise you tend to find that the
enforcement officers give a lot of resistance to being monitored, it's not
because they're doing anything nefarious it's just because people don't like
being watched 24/7 and they don't want video evidence of them checking their
smart phone (because maybe they shouldn't be) or taking a shit (because who
wants someone seeing that?) on the job.

~~~
746F7475
>it's just because people don't like being watched 24/7

Unless you work at very odd hours, you probably aren't out on the streets
24/7\. You are most likely on the streets for 4-6 hours a day, which really
isn't that big of a deal. As for checking smartphones, maybe, just maybe, when
police are out protecting people they shouldn't be hanging on social media or
playing games on their phones? If you don't want to "get caught" using a smart
phone, leave it at your locker. About shitting, maybe there could be a
mechanism to turn off the camera for few minutes, so you could do your
bathroom stuff in private and there really wouldn't be anyway way to abuse it
since you'd see from the context of the video what was going on, e.g. if you
are approaching a suspect, then video cuts off for a minute and next thing we
see is bloodied suspect then obviously the cop should get penalized for that.

~~~
ptaipale
Even with regular working hours, it's not without problems to record
everything that happens during the shift on video. Starting with bathroom
breaks.

~~~
mac01021
Nobody is going to view the footage unless there is an incident.

And if there is an incident then probably modesty should not take priority
over revelation of the truth surrounding that incident.

~~~
ptaipale
This is an excellent argument for having surveillance cameras not just with
policemen, but in all (e.g.) restaurant bathrooms. Nobody is going to view the
footage unless there is an incident.

But do we trust that? No. Do the police unions trust that? No. Do people who
happen to be in a bathroom at the same time with a policeman trust that? No.

~~~
746F7475
Personally I wouldn't care if every public/restaurant/whatever bathroom had a
camera, why should I? The stalls aren't going to have them, it would just
increase over all security and it wouldn't take away any of your privacy,
unless you are very weird about people knowing that you too visit the bathroom
at times.

Unless you are up to something illegal public cameras shouldn't be an issue in
the West where we still have rights to do normal stuff

------
peterkshultz
There's an interactive piece from the New York Times that discusses this same
idea:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-
body...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bodycam-
video.html)

------
rsync
Killing someone is more serious than tampering with evidence.

If it is claimed (and it is) that police officers sometimes kill people and
get away with it, it's easy to conclude that they can also get away with
tampering with evidence.

Therefore, I believe it's easy to conclude that body cameras _will do nothing
at all_ to curb the instances of police getting away with killing people.

Get ready for "malfunctioning and/or obstructed" cameras.

~~~
rtpg
If you, as a police officer, are in court because somebody died in an
altercation with you, and the camera was obstructed/destroyed, and there are
_any eyewitnesses at all_ that will testify to your bad behaviour, you are
toast.

Most juries will assume you destroyed evidence out of malice, and the
prosecution will go for that.

~~~
chillwaves
Do you have any examples of this happening? Because there are multiple
examples of the opposite. The boy shot in Ohio with the toy gun is one, off
the top of my head. I am sure there are many more.

------
alricb
It depends on whether the cameras are just for show (like most CCTV cameras)
or whether the authorities actually care. In the Rialto experiment, the police
chief was running the experiment as he was doing his master's degree with a
prestigious university.

In places with a long and proud history of police brutality, with a tradition
of covering it up at the top levels, the cameras are going to be bought just
for show. Soon after officers will realize this and go back to their old ways.

------
Qantourisc
Bodycam rules:

\- Footage where a only a small portion of the siltation is visible should be
taken with a serious grain of salt. \- They only work properly when you have 2
cops: there has to be one "recording" from a distance, at an objective angle.
\- Bodycams should not have an off function. If it was off or disabled
somehow, this should reduce the police its credibility to probably below the
defended.

~~~
nihonde
It bothers me that those cameras aren't self-centering on the horizon line. So
much of the footage is of the wearer's feet or (if they're fat) the sky.

------
Spooky23
A: We don't know, and the number of self interested parties pushing them will
make it difficult to tell.

Everyone from Microsoft to various attorneys and activists are drooling over
these things, because the one thing that is certain is that they will generate
lots of revenue and create lots of litigation.

~~~
woodman
How are the cameras going to create more litigation? It seems to me that the
officers would welcome evidence that would protect them from false
accusations... although, as it is now they already have the advantage in a he-
said-she-said situation. I can imagine that is an advantage that one would
want to keep. They also have the opportunity to demonstrate how all the
militarization is justified, or at the very least flood the media with footage
of righteous kills in order to counter the latest story of somebody getting
shot who shouldn't have been shot.

~~~
Spooky23
Most litigation isn't about people wrongfully killed or injured (which is
pretty rare) -- it's about things like employee disputes, time abuse, workers
compensation and other, less exciting things.

------
alexandercrohde
I think this article overlooks the multitude of benefits of body cameras.
Sure, according to some research they may not reduce violence. But reducing
he-said she-said situations can make a much better legal situation.

------
intrasight
Future Americans will look back on this era were police are judge, jury, and
executioner and say "what a primitive and violent society we once were".

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Future Americans will, I hope, look back and say, what primitive and violent
people the police had to deal with. Fortunately we today in the 22nd Century
provide excellent education and intervention services for children at risk, so
that they don't grow up to become criminals.

------
moomin
Even when police have body cameras in the US, there are many problematic
policies with them. Here's a short primer:
[http://www.joincampaignzero.org/film-the-
police/](http://www.joincampaignzero.org/film-the-police/)

Personal highlights: footage should not be under the control of the force, and
officers should not be permitted to review it before giving statements.

------
joshmn
I bet the failure rates on these things are incredibly high!

~~~
spideronwall
[https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160127/archer-
heights/what...](https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160127/archer-
heights/whats-behind-no-sound-syndrome-on-chicago-police-dashcams) Chicago
Police do have a hight audio failure rate

------
I_HALF_CATS
Politicians and legislators should be the ones wearing body cameras.

------
adeel4
Human ingenuity will figure out a way to have it record in a way that doesnt
incriminate the police officer.

------
clockwerx
I find the interoperation problems of software alarming - you would think open
source tools would grow in use at some point, even if just the basics (ie:
postgres/postgis, or tools dumping csv out to other tools, or one or two REST
apis).

------
hackaflocka
If they reduce even one case of potential police brutality, then they work.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
That's only valid if they also don't result in police avoiding confrontations
with bad characters.

------
blisterpeanuts
Body cams as a required accessory for police work is a terrible idea that will
have very bad unintended consequences.

The very notion that you need to be monitored constantly during your shift to
ensure you behave as you were trained to is demeaning and insulting.

We trust LEO's to carry loaded guns, mace, tasers, and other weaponry, and we
expect them to risk their lives in the line of work, yet we also don't trust
them enough to do their jobs honestly and professionally.

If we can't trust our law enforcement personnel to do their jobs without
constant video surveillance, sometimes under very difficult circumstances
amidst a hostile civilian population for example in the ghetto areas, then we
basically can't trust them at all and should find a different model for
controlling (or ignoring) criminal behavior.

The ongoing slowdown in police activity in the ghetto areas of Baltimore,
Chicago, etc., and the accompanying uptick in violent crime should be a
sobering indication of what's in store if we tell our police, "We don't trust
you and we blame you if anything goes wrong, now get out there and risk your
lives for us."

Put yourself in their shoes and think on this. "I'm honest, I have no reason
to oppose video," you may claim from your safe, suburban sofa. But get out on
the streets and deal with some of the tough customers they have to deal with,
then let's hear how nice and proper you are. These characters only respect
strength. If the police are hobbled and limited, they'll just laugh at them.

I prefer the Giuliani model of police administration. Back the police force,
give them the authority to stop and frisk, to pick people up for loitering or
breaking windows (the "Broken Window" policy), to establish total control on
the streets. Then the criminal element will be cowed and subdued, and the
police will be confident and enthusiastic, and this whole issue of police
feeling they have to overcompensate and work around the laws will go away
because they'll be working with the community, working with the government
toward the same goals.

~~~
tpallarino
Nice to see someone with an ounce of empathy on this site.

------
geggam
The police have created an environment where the people on the street know
they are going to come in with overwhelming force.

The police have created an environment where everyone fears any interaction
with the police because if the officer is scared they can and will kill you.

With no consequences for the police.

The police turn on the cameras and expect people to suddenly forget the above.
Wont happen.

Paybacks on the police will be taken by certain individuals if they are given
a chance.

Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at all
times when they are working. If a cop is carrying his weapon he isn't off duty
and should have his camera running.

~~~
Colin_M
"Frankly all public servants should be required to have a camera running at
all times when they are working."

Fine, but be prepared for the first-person video of me taking a piss in some
conveniently placed foliage because I'm on a mail route with no bathrooms.

~~~
geggam
well... im assuming you are more showered than the homeless bum i have to walk
around pissing on market street most mornings ?

