
New York Police Officers to Begin Wearing Body Cameras in Pilot Program - siculars
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-officers-to-begin-wearing-body-cameras-in-pilot-program.html
======
dankohn1
This will turn out to be the most important technology news of the year. I
live in a lower Manhattan, and as a well-dressed white person, my interactions
with police are invariably polite and deferential (including when I got a
ticket for running a red light on a Citibike last month).

But I know from friends that those same police officers become totally
different people when in a different environment (particularly uptown and in
poorer Brooklyn neighborhoods) and especially when dealing with people of
color. There is bullying, there is haughtiness, and there is often a complete
lack of respect.

Video cameras can change that. The knowledge that any citizen can file a
complaint about an unnecessarily hostile interaction means that police
officers will begin to act the way they are supposed to, as the only members
of our community to whom we grant a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical
force.

I also believe that video cameras will have a positive impact on police,
increasing the respect they receive from the community and their self-respect,
and enabling them to prove that they are often in the right around contested
confrontations.

~~~
Apofis
Living in South Brooklyn, maybe 10% of my interactions with police have been
pleasant. FFS, me and my boss got pulled over by undercover police just last
month on a bullshit pretense that we didn't signal the turn, which he did
100%. He was wearing a suit and I was dressed casual.

We were pulled out of the car, his car was searched without consent and I was
searched without consent. I got into an argument with the cop because they
violated our rights and the Sergeant kept on going on and on about how an
unsignaled left turn is probable cause. Fuck that shit, we weren't doing
anything wrong and are far from looking like drug dealers or gang bangers.
What were we doing before the stop? Boss stopped by a bank, then we got in the
car, stopped a few blocks away at a cell phone store where I bought something,
I got back in the car and we got pulled over on the first turn.

I for one can't wait for police to have body cameras, because then it stops
being your word against the cops. And that changes everything, it gives leeway
for people that want to fight these kind of daily infringements on our rights.

~~~
kansface
Arguing with a police officer is a surefire way to get arrested. Assert your
rights in court, not on the street.

~~~
coldtea
It's not like it's much better in court. In court it's often your word against
theirs (and they have much more sympathy from the judges, prosecutors etc,
because, essentially, they are working all together).

Plus, this notion leads to a servant mindset. Why should "arguing with a
police officer" be a "surefire way to get arrested" (and worse, tasered,
beaten up, etc).

Arguing should be totally normal and accepted -- and it is that way in most
western countries -- cops don't just bark orders and except mindless obedience
"or else". Of course I'm talking about plain arguing (as in talking, proposing
arguments, etc, related to what they tell you). Not swearing, or fighting them
(which could justifiable get you arrested).

Heck, even the "don't try to get out of the car when you are stopped by a
traffic cop or you'll get shot" is a complete BS, that only happens in the US.

No cop in Germany, Sweden, Holland, Britain, Italy etc would even think to
shot you for getting out of your car to check why you were stopped. That's
what they do at bank robbers in hot pursuit, not traffic offenders...

~~~
rayiner
> Germany, Sweden, Holland, Britain, Italy etc would even think to shot you
> for getting out of your car to check why you were stopped.

Neither would most cops in the U.S. The cops in my town (Wilmington, DE)
might, but then again the murder rate here is 30-40 times higher than in
Munich and above that of such safe places as Kingston, Jamaica.

------
nilved
People need to realize that if body cameras don't have public live streams
they are entirely negative for the general population. They'll be used against
you in court and "strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your
favor.

It's very dangerous to give the police complete control over video evidence,
which is why I feel body cameras are a misguided attempt at sousveillance.
Instead, we should be setting up public live streams in public areas, and
controlling the recordings ourselves.

~~~
gizmo686
>"strangely malfunction" when they could be used in your favor.

There is precedent for courts to dismiss cases due to technicalities in police
conduct or how evidence was gathered. It seems reasonable for courts (or
lawmakers) to establish that lack of video invalidates an arrest.

~~~
ewoodrich
True, but the bigger problem arises when you need that footage to prosecute a
LEO.

------
discardorama
While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession, there
are some who let their power go to their heads. Devices like cameras can help
when complaints are received (as long as the cameras can't be tampered with
post facto..)

Case in point: girlfriend was in a taqueria in the Upper Haight neighborhood
of SF, and witnessed the following. A cop was sitting at a table. A guy walked
in, stood in line to pick up a takeout order. He started staring at the cop.
Now, the Haight has more than its fair share of weirdos, so a person staring
at a cop is nothing new. But the cop decided to take offense at that. Started
verbally harassing the guy. Took him outside, threatened to arrest him. All
this time, the guy is saying: but I didn't do nothing, man! At one stage, the
guy put his hands in his pocket, trying to pull out some ID; and the cop's
hand immediately went to his gun, threatening "you don't want to be doing
that!". Luckily, the guy took his hand out quickly. After harassing the guy,
the cop shoved him and walked away.

GF witnessed the whole thing, and went out to talk to the cop as he was
walking away. He just laughed at her, saying "get out of my way" and kept
walking.

There were other witnesses too; but it still is basically their word against
the cop's, and the SFPD refuses to do anything about it. Had there been a
camera[#] on the cop, they would be singing a different tune.

[#] I told her: next time, _video_ the damn thing!

~~~
rdtsc
> While most cops are simply doing their jobs like any other profession,

The problem is the following -- those "good" cops doing their job protect the
bad cops. The whole "blue code of silence" thing. Those are not good cops
doing their job. The are bad cops. If anyone has not spoken out when a
colleague has been abusing their power, they have become a bad cop.

One can argue this is just human behaviour -- us vs them. That maybe true but
when police have so much more power vs regular citizens, that kind of
behaviour is amplified and exaggerated many times over.

To put it another way. A corrupt shoe salesman can only be that dangerous. A
corrupt cop can do a lot of damage to a lot of people.

So that is the reason I have essentially stopped saying "oh just a few bad
ones, the rest are good and law abiding". I think I moved to the default that
all are corrupt and either engage in abuse or cover up of abuse unless I am
presented with evidence otherwise.

~~~
valleyer
> I think I moved to the default that all are corrupt and either engage in
> abuse or cover up of abuse unless I am presented with evidence otherwise.

I sure hope you appreciate the irony of this sentence.

------
kelukelugames
I hope this takes off and everyone wins because

1) Less false complaints are filed against cops

2) Cities don't get sued because cops behave better

3) No one gets unlawfully harassed by a cop ever again.

On the other hand, I've seen criminals interacting with cops in person. They
do not have an easy job.

~~~
emehrkay
NY police are murdering people on video already. Will this change things?

~~~
krapp
It should provide actual evidence, or evidence to the contrary, that the
police in NY are murdering people on a regular basis as a matter of policy.
All of the footage of police _not_ murdering people is of value as well, after
all.

~~~
ceejayoz
You moved the goalposts on someone else's assertion. No where was "on a
regular basis" stated except by you. The recent chokehold death - a banned
technique that resulted in a death - is a good example of what the parent was
probably talking about.

~~~
seanflyon
"are murdering" implies that it continues to happen on an ongoing basis. "on a
regular basis" is moving goalposts, but not moving them very far.

~~~
emehrkay
"The ny police is murdering..." doesn't make much sense in English. And it has
happened more than once. The other time I can think of is when they killed the
guy in times square.

~~~
seanflyon
The difference between "murdered" and "is/are murdering" is that the
"murdering" implies that either it is happening at this very moment (which is
clearly not the case here) or it happens on an ongoing basis.

------
tuxidomasx
It looks like only a small number of officers will have them for the pilot
program. But even if widely adopted, I feel like this wont help stop police
abuse due to the Blue Code of Silence.

Besides, cameras on squad cars don't prevent racial profiling on the road.
I've never been told "you were driving while black, so lets see if you have
something illegal in your car."

Instead, I hear: "it didnt look like you were wearing your seatbelt..." or
"you were following the car ahead of you too closely..." or "I need to check
your window tint" (and i dont even have tinted windows!)

I feel like body cams are just another obstacle for abusive police to maneuver
around.

------
mbrameld
This is a good first step. There needs to be strict punishment for officers
who turn off or fail to turn on their cameras when interacting with the
public, though. Also, if footage of an incident where an officer was wearing a
camera doesn't exist it should be presumed to be exculpatory for the accused.

~~~
knodi123
"I'm sorry about squirting my water bottle at your chest, officer, but I
really can't afford a felony conviction right now."

~~~
mbrameld
I'm guessing they'll be able to withstand a little water.

------
higherpurpose
This is a great and necessary step. But what happens to the videos after
they're taken? Do people need to go through long process of FOIA request? Do
they have to sue the department to see them? Or will all videos be posted on a
Youtube-like site that's accessible almost/anyone, soon after it was taken,
and not controlled by the police department taking the videos? I don't want 30
percent of these videos to "get lost" after they're taken.

------
xrange
I suppose it'll be interesting to see the "failure" rate for these cameras,
how often someone "forgets" to put it on, and how easy it is for the camera to
get "damaged/stepped on" in a scuffle.

~~~
higherpurpose
That's why those events should be logged, and it should be easy for the camera
to know whether it crashed or the officer turned it off (by saying having the
offer to turn on switch and then press a button. Such two actions would be
hard to replicate "by accident").

Also, the officers should be punished and/or lose credibility in a trial if
it's known that the camera was turned off by them during the time they were
supposed to use it - like say when confronting a suspect or whatever.
Obviously, going to the restroom or other such events should not be
punishable.

"Forgetting" to turn on the camera before engaging a citizen/suspect should be
punishable. Turning on the camera and keeping it on during the interaction
should be as necessary as police officers ID-ing themselves.

~~~
deathhand
What about your caring IT support person that just so happens to be able to
edit the logs to make it looks like the camera crashed? Or if the data somehow
becomes corrupted during the file transfer process? While cameras are great
people will still find loopholes and exploit them. That is the nature of man.

~~~
seanflyon
Conspicuous destruction of evidence is a risky endeavor. Body cameras won't
make it impossible for police to get away with crimes, but they will make it
much more difficult.

------
mkhalil
I applaud the effort and it may help in significant violations of human
rights. As far as general harassment goes, not sure this is gonna help much.

What do you expect to happen when someone gets harassed? Who is he going to
call? The police station?

Civilian: "Hello, Mr.Officer, one of your colleagues were being mean to me and
didn't let me get on the bus today without questioning everything about me."

Officer: "I apologize for any inconvenience he may of caused you sir, we'll
look into it."

Officer to colleague: "So....Did we decide on Mexican for lunch? Or Sushi?"

------
pkaye
I don't see any negatives to having these body cameras for police officers.
Not even in terms of costs since reduced lawsuit litigation and settlements so
counteract that.

~~~
MadManE
You don't see any negatives to giving ubiquitous surveillance equipment to
every government body?

~~~
ceejayoz
Is having your eyes poked out a part of police training now? Every cop comes
with two cameras, the output of which cannot be reviewed but is highly trusted
in a court of law.

~~~
jtheory
This is a good point -- between a camera in every public place and a camera on
every cop, the latter is far the better option, and can be empowering to the
public interacting with the police.

Just about everything it records is in the context of "member of the public
knowingly interacting with a police officer", not "member of the public going
about their everyday life" (which is much more ripe for abuse, and rather less
likely to benefit the public in any way).

------
blueking
This is a nightmare and we need to fight it tooth and nail.

Those aren't just cameras, they are networked to a facial recognition database
(thanks facebook), which is cross referenced with criminal records and
commercial profiles built from your every online purchase, gmail and facebook
post.

This is what you can expect after the police get this as socially accepted

1\. Facial recognition and additional suspicion of anyone walking down the
street with a criminal record.

2\. During an encounter with a officer micro facial expressions, speech
patterns, eye movement and heart rate will be analyzed at high speed by AI to
assess reasonable suspicion, to detect deception and emotional state and to
direct the line of questioning in real time. The kind of technology the
Gestapo could only dream of.

3\. Body language of everyone in view will be analyzed for suspicion as they
pass by.

4\. These AIs will analyze anything you say in real time for factual accuracy
against a huge database of personal information (half of which comes from your
phone) and for context based on your commercial profile.

The implications here are that these databases represent a power shift and
will redline demographics and make living in society with a record far more
unpleasant than it is now. You can get a felony for forgetting your bus
ticket. This effects everyone.

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-
emotion-...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/189259-real-time-emotion-
detection-with-google-glass-an-awesome-creepy-taste-of-the-future-of-wearable-
computers)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q)

[http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-
fac...](http://mic.com/articles/30975/how-the-nypd-is-using-your-facebook-and-
instagram-to-fight-crime)

~~~
mariodiana
Bravo. I have never thought of this, and I commend you on your insight. I just
want to add one more thing.

Right now, police dogs are our "Fourth Amendment experts." Cops routinely
allege that the dog "hit" on a person or vehicle, and courts uphold the notion
that this is alone is sufficient cause for detainment and a search. Just wait
until police are equipped with "scientific biometric sensors." If your eye so
much as twitches or your voice cracks or your heart beat is not "steady," that
will be sufficient. Science, don't you know!

In other words, there will be absolutely no more Fourth Amendment.

------
marincounty
In my neck of the woods(San Rafael, CA 94901) San Rafael police have a pilot
program that will equip a few officers with a CAM. The problem is the camera
can be turned off by the officer.

It's a small program and will go nowhere. These Cops are harassing Anyone they
feel might be Homeless. They are ticketing for jaywalking, sitting on side
walks, sleeping. (They are trying to make there life so miserable they will be
forced to move on to another town--basically). It's hard to watch them(SRPD)
swarm around a suspected Homeless person \--take their picture, frisk them,
make them empty out all pockets, put their hands on their Crotch, etc.) It
looks like something out of Germany in the 30's.

That said: I can't protect them, but I have the resources to protect myself--
kind of. I bought two Dash Cams off Amazon for less than $16.00 each. I bought
two because they are cheap and I wanted a spare. I have this Cam on whenever I
go out. I don't get pulled over because I drive an older car, or happen to be
out after 10 p.m. anymore? I only wish I had this cheap form of protection
when I was younger!

Basically, you need to protect yourself. The price of Dash Cams is so low,
there's no excuse not to have one on your vechicle? Look at the purchase just
as vechicle maintence. There's no need to buy anything fancy.

~~~
jMyles
> The problem is the camera can be turned off by the officer.

I never understood even the mindet of this. What can possibly be the point?

------
tomohawk
Teachers are often accused of mistreating children.

Healthcare workers are often accused of mistreating patients, too. For
example, I know someone who works with many elderly patients who often get
confused and make accusations of mistreatment. Many of her coworkers have been
benched until cleared by investigation.

Like police officers, they can be viewed as being authority figures. Perhaps
they will begin wearing these soon, too?

~~~
tibiapejagala
Soon, after they start carrying guns.

------
meepmorp
If you've got nothing to hide, why is the camera a problem?

But more seriously, does anyone know anything about these systems? I'd be
concerned about them getting shut off (accidentally or not), and about
ensuring that the recordings made are retained for a reasonable period of time
(however long that is). Are there off the shelf solutions for this?

~~~
dankohn1
Take a look at [http://www.evidence.com/](http://www.evidence.com/)

It's all stored securely in the cloud, so what could go wrong (asks Jennifer
Lawrence)?

~~~
jonlucc
Surely there is an option for larger departments to run their own servers.
Isn't there already digital evidence to be stored?

------
skyhatchash
They've done body-worn cameras in Sydney, Australia for a while now. It seems
to have helped curb corruption and unnecessary brute force - most of the time.
Where there's a will, there's a way.

------
MadManE
I like that we are moving towards a state of affairs where police have to act
appropriately in their position of power.

However, I seem to be the only one who sees the irony in complaining about the
NSA recording everything we do, and simultaneously _giving large amounts of
recording equipment_ to other parts of various levels of government.

How do we ensure that _these_ cameras aren't turned against us, also?

Who watches the watchers?

~~~
mkhalil
"Who watches the watchers?"

I hope you realize that does that one thing you question.

Also, police encounters are generally in the public, where you shouldn't
expect privacy in the first place. You can't ask for the right to film
officers, then complain if they film you.

Besides, most likely you're on camera anyway. So smile :)

~~~
MadManE
I do understand the problem in "watching the watchers". My point is that the
solution should not be to add more of the thing that caused the problem in the
first place. If we do, then it just becomes a race to who can have the most
surveillance of the most people in the most places.

Edit: Claiming "it's happening anyway, so just accept it" is the wrong way to
approach this. Why shouldn't we try to make things _better_?

~~~
seanflyon
We are trying to make things better and I think that police wearing cameras
does in fact make things better. We are trying to consider both the negative
and positive consequences of new technology.

Also the problem these cameras are trying to solve is police brutality/abuse.
Surveillance is not what caused that problem in the first place.

------
dba7dba
In recent years when there was some kind of alleged police misconduct, the
police would invariably deny, deny, deny. What the citizens were complaining
about never happened.

And then a video footage would surface that proves police misconduct.

Of course there are liars that try to get police into trouble or just hate
them.

Hopefully this body camera idea will be a good thing.

------
ck2
Note they can be turned off at will and have a delete button too.

So mostly useless, they are there to show what the cop wants to show.

~~~
seanflyon
I would note that if I had some indication that it were true.

~~~
ck2
It is 100% true, they can be turned off and can self delete.

There are only two major models of cameras in use, both have these features.

~~~
seanflyon
I am skeptical of the delete button. According to a random article I found
(first result when I googled "police body camera delete button") the officers
do not have that ability: Taser doesn't incorporate a delete button — "Once
it's recorded, it's recorded,"

[http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-
body-c...](http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/how-do-police-body-camera-
work/378940/)

------
simplemath
Taser are pairing their LEO bodycam offering with an associated cloud storage
product at EVIDENCE.com

------
rdtsc
Shouldn't citizens also be encouraged to use cameras as much as possible when
interaction with police.

Just like with many police car cameras, all of the sudden they "malfunction"
when something shady has happened.

------
massappeal
This would be great if all of the footage was automatically archived to a
publicly available website, but somehow I feel like this footage will be very
hard to get a hold of, similar to FOIA Requests

------
sergiotapia
GOOD. There is literally no downside to this, it's a win-win! Here's to more
polite police officers and less violence.

------
facepalm
Wasn't there a law recently that it's illegal to film policemen? Seems like a
not so positive imbalance in power.

~~~
rtkwe
Some states tried that but iirc any that made it to a court challenge were
struck down. Quite a few places have started issuing memos reminding officers
that the public does have the right to record and they can only stop them if
they're actually interfering with the arrest.

------
RIMR
$899 for a 720p video camera? I expected night-vision or 12fps with that kind
of price tag!

------
theDustRoom
I think that police firearms should also have cameras attached so that
evidence is recorded.

------
Istof
Hopefully they will be held accountable for "broken" cameras...

------
tiffanyh
Google Glass just found a solution to a problem.

------
siculars
Who gets the contract? GoPro?

~~~
dankohn1
Taser is one of the leading vendors. [http://www.taser.com/products/on-
officer-video/axon-body-on-...](http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-
video/axon-body-on-officer-video)

This is interesting because Taser has sold to almost every police department
in the US, and so is well positioned to make these cameras standard equipment.

------
joeblau
The fact that American citizens need protection from the police in America is
sad.

~~~
deciplex
Not as sad as you think. Americans, for all their bleating about liberty and
personal freedom, absolutely _adore_ power. They are infatuated with it. And
they infer heroic qualities in people who wield it, regardless of merit. If
you only pay attention to the right media, you might get the impression that
police are suffering some popularity problem in the US. Even after Ferguson, I
assure you this is not the case. Darren Wilson has a great many _supporters_ ,
not just people who think the shooting was tragic but the officer is not at
fault, but believe he was _right to shoot the guy_. They had a fucking rally,
even, _in St. Louis!_ Naturally, the crowd was lily-white.

On a personal level, and especially for people who _aren 't_ closet statists,
sure it's tragic. But, on a national level, there are few places on Earth that
deserve it more.

------
icantthinkofone
I'm glad for this. Now people can better see all the crap police have to take
off the type of people they deal with every minute of every day, five and more
days a week, eight and more hours a day and realize that 99.999% of all the
"corrupt police" charges are just what it is: over the top BS.

------
afafsd
This gives me another idea: how about we fit _criminals_ with body cameras?

~~~
nilved
I hope you'll be glad to hear this effort is already underway:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-
police-o...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/nyregion/new-york-police-
officers-to-begin-wearing-body-cameras-in-pilot-program.html)

~~~
seanflyon
Bazinga

