Fixing this will have to be the next step. The first step was getting the body cams.
Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.
Also, you could probably file a suit to get the unredacted video, and you could make a big stink about this. That's how you get to the next step.
Then it comes down to jamming, tampering, malfunction, sabotage, and any misbehavior that otherwise prevents useful recordings, since we’re talking about wearables that can be covered, discarded and left behind, even if thy can’t be turned off. But if it does get recorded, it needs to get locked up tighter than handcuffs.
That video needs to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Another thought is the panopticon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon . You don't necessarily need to stream and record every cop's cam, just randomize it without indicating to the cops who's getting recorded or when.
As someone who has been falsely accused by an officer (fortunately a minor traffic violation that I was able to make go away by paying a small fine), I've lost any faith that officers are there to serve their constituents.
That principle is not in contradiction with the principle that power must be held accountable.
Historically, that's why public figures are called "public" in opposition to "private".
There would still be lots of details to get right, but at least it wouldn't violate the basic underlying principles of our legal system.
But then this comes down to a jury, and most Americans still seem to trust their police officers. Just saying..
When cops' word weighs more than yours in a court of law, this requires an equivalent check against that power by only making it weigh that much when there is corroborating evidence (i.e., video proof).
Everything is at some point the fault of the police. It seems like everyone wants the police to do only what they want them to and to be punished if the police do something different.
Now I don't come from the US so can't comment on the problems with the police there and I don't know how the police there are funded but I know from my country that some of the "solutions" stated to hold the police to account would bankrupt the police here, but then I suppose that's the fault of the police as well.
I'm all for bodycams though because at the end of the day when a fabricated complaint comes in (my experience is most of them are) then these can be easily dismissed and hopefully those people actually held to account.
In the long term, this leads to a fundamentally adversarial and extractive relationship between the police and the populace, and the situation right now where police are widely hated, or at least distrusted, by significant sections of the population.
The solution to all of this is to break this extractive relationship: To prevent the police from profiting from the enforcement of some laws over others, or from seizing property only to sell it for their own gain. And, yes, to accept a rate of general taxation and redistribution that can be used to fund the institutions of a modern state. So long as the US continues to pursue the current tax model, the same shortfalls and perverse incentives to find alternative sources of revenue with exist, leading to the same poor outcomes in so many areas of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
Many places in the US don't have these problems, so there is nothing to solve.
Currently the police are savagely being under funded as are all public sectors and crime is on the rise but the difference between the police and other public services is that people seem to understand why the other public services are not performing as good as they were, but it's the fault to the police they aren't performing as good.
Like I said I would love to see bodycams on all police but as with every public body ICT project it will be mismanaged and cost way more than it needs to. Currently the police where I am can't afford it.
(0) Their pension plans are underfunded, but those plans are rediculous compared to private sector plans.
Why is it hateful to the police to actually ask for their interactions? As the modern authoritarian state asks its citizens, what do you have to hide?
I'm all from transparency, not only does it keep the cops right but it also means cops are safe from fabricated complaints they are subject to. I just find some of the ideas here about how to do this ridiculous from a reality perspective. And to suggest that the police should be presumed guilty it actually worse than ridiculous.
It seems people want police to be johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to cracking down on crime immediately while simultaneously exercising extreme discretion and self-control when it comes to respecting legal rights and responsibilities.
I'm not sure who could even fulfill those kinds of expectations but it would be someone like a grizzled experienced prosecutor who has defense lawyer experience who is in good physical condition and is physically well trained.
I doubt the pool of people who meet those criteria are willing to work for police salaries.
You're trying to solve a legal problem with technology. That's dangerous, because it's hard upper limit is the technology's long-term security. Even worse, it's real upper limit is the min(technology, law)
Make sure that the people who are responsible for the decryption and delivery of the content have incitement that the result is useful.
Depends really. Moving to a different country would be my next step personally.
Nonsense. Cameras will be always used to benefit only the police as long as they control them: it's easy to cherry-pick what to record and, later on, what to release. It's easy to take off a camera altogether.
You need 3rd parties (e.g. bystanders) to be able to record what's happening and stream it it safe storage in real time.
It's sad that you're being downvoted for saying this, because it's true. As long as police are the only ones legally or practically empowered to film these encounters, they will be the ones empowered to control the narrative.
The right of citizens to film police encounters without harassment or threats is imperative.
I don't have direct experience, but I'd bet Taser doesn't let podunk police departments really "erase" video. And given the volume, you'd think it's got to be built on AWS or another big cloud provider, with pretty good forensic tools.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/business/taser-internatio...
The NYTimes article you posted hints at an uncomfortably cozy relationship between Taser, law enforcement and local governments...
Yet as Taser works to sell cameras and software to more departments,
it is coming under fire for questionable business practices. In some
instances, it has paid police chiefs to travel to Taser conferences.
In other cases, chiefs who have bought Taser products have joined
the company as consultants shortly after leaving public service.
And several cities have awarded contracts to Taser without
competitive bidding.
It is probably easy for a records clerk to export redacted video, but should be hard for them to really delete video, or tamper without leaving a trail.
Some customers might justify the risk, I suppose. But if they were to regularly winkwink at cops deleting video evidence, they'd get walloped.
They will if they want to keep getting contracts.
In the absence of laws requiring full transparency and access to body cam footage, the body cams are just likely to be abused.
Missing audio and a big "redacted" sticker is a pretty damning evidence that "Something" was removed. IF there was nothing to hide, why did they remove it?
In the process, you destroy the evidence exonerating them, i. e. footprints of shoes much smaller than theirs.
Obstruction of justice? Nope.
Now imagine the same thing happened. Except that this time, you include their lawn not just because you always do, but to get them thrown in jail. You're really tired of doing all these chores for them, and it's time for new neighbours.
Obstruction of justice? Yep.
Intend matters.