Taser Wants To Sell Headcams To Cops

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Taser wants to sell a lightweight headcam to cops to help protect them from allegations of abuse. The idea is solid, the big problem is getting police unions to go along with it.

In general, British use of the devices seemed to reduce the number of false complaints against officers, produce more guilty pleas, and cut down on time spent taking statements or writing up reports. The headcams generated evidence videos that made witnesses to domestic abuse more likely to stick to their stories, according to a report issued by the British Police and Crime Standards Directorate.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see this as a bad thing. Video tends to be a good indicator of the truth in such matters. I think all this will do is level the playing field in terms of the ability for prosecutors and defendants to present their cases based on actual footage instead of circumstantial accounts.
 
I'd like to see every frame of video checksummed and digitally signed by a long-term key which is unique to every headcam device, and impossible to read from the device without planing the top off a chip. Only then would I accept the video as evidence - and yes, then I agree it would be a wonderful thing for both the police and citizens.
 
i say let them do it, then give the cop wearing it complete control over the recordings... he can go through it himself and edit out what is needed as evidence or whatever
 
Reminds me of how Robocop was able to record the crooks spilling their guts. Then I wondered, why don't we see this today? A film from 1987 had thought this up and nearly two decades later I would've wagered this technology would be on every officer (surveillance technology, not talking about robo-ass-kicking).
 
Living Weapon said:
I'd like to see every frame of video checksummed and digitally signed by a long-term key which is unique to every headcam device, and impossible to read from the device without planing the top off a chip. Only then would I accept the video as evidence - and yes, then I agree it would be a wonderful thing for both the police and citizens.
Click to expand...

Oh, and add GPS time stamp and location to the video before checksumming - this way it is possible to substatioate the validity of the recorded scene, which headcam recorded a scene (because the headcam's key cannot be easily duplicated), and where/when the action took place.
 
I can see police not wanting it. Right now it's the police's word against the suspects, and the jury almost always believes the police. This would put corrupt cops out of business, which could be a significant amount of them.

Just in todays news, a suspect who ran over a police officer was murdered in his cell. The police wouldn't be able to kill people so easily if they had to wear these all the time.

So I think it's a great idea, but corrupt police will hate it.
 
I agree with BladeVenom. Cops will refuse to wear this or disable them somehow to avoid being scrutinized by the jury or his superiors.

This should become law. Already, employers are by rights (and some case by law) able to monitor the activity of employees' computer and cellphone uses as well as having cameras in the workplace. Nothing motivates an employee more than fear of being caught and fear of being watched.

This same policy should apply to the police.
 
I dont see how many cops would want to refuse this, the in car dash cam saves their asses in court repeatidly, against abuse charges as well as solid evidence of a crime commited in front of the officer.

Ive read about new gun cameras they want to have them where too, think of how many wrongful death suits could be avoided or confirmed with this technology.

The only way a cop would refuse this to me is if they are a power tripping jerk who doesnt want to be recorded while they do it.
 
To me, the answer to excessive spying by one group on another group is not to increase the amount of spying/peeping. I really hate this whole concept of having cameras watching and recording everything we do, whether you're a cop or anyone else.

I know it'll happen anyway, but I still don't like it.
 
I can see police not wanting it. Right now it's the police's word against the suspects, and the jury almost always believes the police. This would put corrupt cops out of business, which could be a significant amount of them.
Click to expand...

It will also protect and defend the honest cops who are trying to do their job. I for one would like something like this put on the police... not necessarily to weed out the bad cops, but to put a halt to the frivolous lawsuits actioned against the police by thugs and miscreats claiming they were hurt.
 
goodcooper said:
i say let them do it, then give the cop wearing it complete control over the recordings... he can go through it himself and edit out what is needed as evidence or whatever
Click to expand...

That's just it. They wouldn't have control over the recordings. It could be set up that they simply hit a record on and off button and that's it. There may be instances where the recording may not work due to failure, it comes off, some incident requires that it be removed, etc. But even in dashcams that many police departments have had, this hasn't been an issue. At least I've never heard of an instance where dashcam footage was altered in any way.
 
Madoc said:
To me, the answer to excessive spying by one group on another group is not to increase the amount of spying/peeping. I really hate this whole concept of having cameras watching and recording everything we do, whether you're a cop or anyone else.

I know it'll happen anyway, but I still don't like it.
Click to expand...

This is law enforcement. Not some indiscriminate spying. If you are in public you don't have much of a choice in the matter outside of probable cause. Having this on an officer would level the playing field somewhat in terms of what an officer observes as probable cause. If it can be determined from footage that his interpretation of probable cause were false or simply incorrect, then that can be an actionable item. As it stands now, all an officer would have to say is that he observed anything that would be deemed as probable cause. This at least would help somewhat in making sure he was honest about it. This watches the watchers.
 
BladeVenom said:
I can see police not wanting it. Right now it's the police's word against the suspects, and the jury almost always believes the police. This would put corrupt cops out of business, which could be a significant amount of them.

Just in todays news, a suspect who ran over a police officer was murdered in his cell. The police wouldn't be able to kill people so easily if they had to wear these all the time.

So I think it's a great idea, but corrupt police will hate it.
Click to expand...

sorry but most law enforcement would jump at this. the only times I have ever had a problem was when something happened and it was my word against theirs. Some would not like it but most know the fastest way to shut up a shyster is to pop a disk in. And really if anyone is dirty by and large it will come out sooner or latter. And if some was going to be killed in their cell, most have camera now days, it would really only take a couple cartons of cigarettes to do it.
 
Methadras said:
This is law enforcement. Not some indiscriminate spying. If you are in public you don't have much of a choice in the matter outside of probable cause. Having this on an officer would level the playing field somewhat in terms of what an officer observes as probable cause. If it can be determined from footage that his interpretation of probable cause were false or simply incorrect, then that can be an actionable item. As it stands now, all an officer would have to say is that he observed anything that would be deemed as probable cause. This at least would help somewhat in making sure he was honest about it. This watches the watchers.
Click to expand...

again the camera is our friend here, nothing shuts up a lawyer like having to watch his client on camera. It also takes out some of the guess work, if someone is acting off, or other hard to justify but laudable circumstances come into play this helps beyond words.
 
Living Weapon said:
Oh, and add GPS time stamp and location to the video before checksumming - this way it is possible to substatioate the validity of the recorded scene, which headcam recorded a scene (because the headcam's key cannot be easily duplicated), and where/when the action took place.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that police aren't going to create an entire chopped and edited video complete with possible animations and movements to prosecute you. Police already use cameras which are allowed as evidence because they have this little thing called "Chain of Custody". I don't think the local pd is going to risk capturing a big criminal by skipping this process.
 
I think this is a good device. Cop cruiser cameras have long been a helpful aide to citizens and police alike... this will only show what the cruiser camera can't see.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Reminds me of how Robocop was able to record the crooks spilling their guts. Then I wondered, why don't we see this today? A film from 1987 had thought this up and nearly two decades later I would've wagered this technology would be on every officer (surveillance technology, not talking about robo-ass-kicking).
Click to expand...

money, research, and improvements in technology. 10 years ago it probably wouldnt be economically feasible to equip this technology on every cop out there. Let alone the size of it.

It's easy enough for science fiction to make the impractical practical. Thats why its called science fiction (well impart anyways).
 
Ockie said:
I think this is a good device. Cop cruiser cameras have long been a helpful aide to citizens and police alike... this will only show what the cruiser camera can't see.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Big thing is with it being head mounted you can pretty much see what the officer does. I realy think this could be a good thing.

My only concern over these things are that the footage will be edited by the media to make the cops look bad. They already do this with the dash board cams and with other peoples recordings. The don't taze me bro guy was a good example of this. All this does is spread a bad light on good cops. Mind you this is a small minus for all of the positive sides this can have.
 
For those that didn't read the article (it kinda shows in some of the comments), the video records non-stop in 10 fps with no audio and once the "Event" button is pushed the video is boosted to 30 fps and DVD quality audio is recorded. The video is hashed and the pics of it seem to include a time/date stamp. There is a "Privacy" button for umm...bathroom breaks. By the way, evidence admitted into a court of law cannot be a vague accusation. Evidence needs to have a verifiable point of reference and have a clear relationship to the case.

From my umm...run-ins with the law, it sounds like a good idea overall. The problem comes in when an offender doesn't understand the full letter of the law and their rights. Something innocuous could be taken as a threat to an officer (or bribe, etc.) and used against him/her in a court of law. ...just because someone doesn't like the law or a subjective cop with an attitude is using it against them doesn't mean that they'll get out of it. On the flipside, most cops use scare tactics to get people to give up their rights (i.e. - "you won't mind if I search this car" = giving up unreasonable search and seizure, "just give me ___ and I won't have to take your license...you know if you go to trial and lose it'll be worse and more expensive" = giving up your right to a fair trial).

I really don't see this being adopted out here in Chicago. Some of the officers here spend their time acting as taxis for the prettier drunk girls coming out of clubs and acting more lawless than the individuals that they try and arrest. If you ask a badge number (to file a complaint), they typically arrest you on the spot for <insert fake charge here> since it insulates your complaint as retribution. A cop can always claim it's up to the courts to decide justice and they only arrest because they suspect a crime. To date, private footage has been used against cops (and only after large public outcries). I've never heard of a case against a cop being prosecuted using footage from a squad car or the CCTV street cams.

If this is allowed, people need to be allowed to record police stops also. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future.
 
Valset said:
again the camera is our friend here, nothing shuts up a lawyer like having to watch his client on camera. It also takes out some of the guess work, if someone is acting off, or other hard to justify but laudable circumstances come into play this helps beyond words.
Click to expand...

I'm totally with you on this.
 
swatbat said:
Pretty much. Big thing is with it being head mounted you can pretty much see what the officer does. I realy think this could be a good thing.

My only concern over these things are that the footage will be edited by the media to make the cops look bad. They already do this with the dash board cams and with other peoples recordings. The don't taze me bro guy was a good example of this. All this does is spread a bad light on good cops. Mind you this is a small minus for all of the positive sides this can have.
Click to expand...

In the "Don't taze me bro" incident, you could clearly see and hear in the video that the moron was totally uncooperative. He was warned several times and didn't comply. Outside of some of the audience yelling at the cops to stop tazing him, the video showed clearly the situation as it unfolded. This is a good thing and keeps everyone honest. Could there be room for interpretation as to what was going on in the video? Sure, but you would have a really hard time trying to convince a jury that they see the version you would be representing vs. what they are seeing on the tape with it's full context laid out.

Let's remember that context is important. A perfect example of this would be Rodney King. You can see at the start of the tape the total beat-down he received. However, what you don't see is the initial lead-up to the beating and arrest. You don't see the high-speed chase, you don't see him not following orders, you don't see him going after officers, etc. Therefore the context wasn't laid out specifically to coincide what was seen on the tape. That would lead anyone to the interpretation that this was police brutality for the sheer sake of the act of brutalizing. In court the officers had to give their account prior to the tape being shown, but that came down to 4 officers testimony vs. Rodney King and we all know how that played out.
 
Ockie said:
Something tells me that police aren't going to create an entire chopped and edited video complete with possible animations and movements to prosecute you. Police already use cameras which are allowed as evidence because they have this little thing called "Chain of Custody". I don't think the local pd is going to risk capturing a big criminal by skipping this process.
Click to expand...
But if I read the article before commenting, it reduces the /. factor of my posts :(

Actually, the hashing is great, at least if it is sufficiently well-implemented - it makes it easier to establish chain of custody (especially on the removable mini-disks, e.g. if that ends up being needed during a long field engagement), and reduces the lawyering on both sides of the BS fence :)
 
after being conviced on falsified police reports myself, and no witnesses, im ALL FOR mandatory cameras on cops heads. make them wear pink uniforms and have helmet cams.
 
krupted said:
after being conviced on falsified police reports myself, and no witnesses, im ALL FOR mandatory cameras on cops heads. make them wear pink uniforms and have helmet cams.
Click to expand...

not saying it has never happened.

you know if I had a dollar for every time I have heard that....

Well we do agree about the cameras.
 
Methadras said:
In the "Don't taze me bro" incident, you could clearly see and hear in the video that the moron was totally uncooperative. He was warned several times and didn't comply. Outside of some of the audience yelling at the cops to stop tazing him, the video showed clearly the situation as it unfolded. This is a good thing and keeps everyone honest. Could there be room for interpretation as to what was going on in the video? Sure, but you would have a really hard time trying to convince a jury that they see the version you would be representing vs. what they are seeing on the tape with it's full context laid out.

Let's remember that context is important. A perfect example of this would be Rodney King. You can see at the start of the tape the total beat-down he received. However, what you don't see is the initial lead-up to the beating and arrest. You don't see the high-speed chase, you don't see him not following orders, you don't see him going after officers, etc. Therefore the context wasn't laid out specifically to coincide what was seen on the tape. That would lead anyone to the interpretation that this was police brutality for the sheer sake of the act of brutalizing. In court the officers had to give their account prior to the tape being shown, but that came down to 4 officers testimony vs. Rodney King and we all know how that played out.
Click to expand...


The Rodney King case is a better example. The thing with that is that the media really didn't show the entire tape. With the don't tase me guy the tape hit the internet fast and you could see what really happened. I remember watching it on the news at first though with them not showing what led to him being tased. A lot of news places took it out of context to make the cops look worst. The news spread pretty fast and if you watched the whole thing it showed he had it comming to him.
 
Won't happen because it's bad for cops, not that they could say that so the excuse they'd use is the camera make people more violent and uncooperative which in turn makes their job more dangerous and stressful.
 
yep cant fault that idea...

but then who will sucker-mob all the blacks??
 
GPS and camera with time stamps. It would save judges and cops so much time, no one would try to BS judges, trials would be a breeze, etc.

I see no disadvantage. Obviousely a cop could beat up a suspect and make them confess on video, but they could do that now too so I don't think the conspiracy theorists should overreact about this.
 
PynkFloydd said:
I really don't see this being adopted out here in Chicago. Some of the officers here spend their time acting as taxis for the prettier drunk girls coming out of clubs and acting more lawless than the individuals that they try and arrest. If you ask a badge number (to file a complaint), they typically arrest you on the spot for <insert fake charge here> since it insulates your complaint as retribution.
Click to expand...

It really comes down to how good a department is, and what policies they implement. A bad department will try to cover up for it's bad cops, and would allow them to turn off the video system whenever they want. A good department will get rid of bad officers and take disciplinary action if any video isn't recorded when it should be.

At the department I work for, the time/date, radar results, and state of the car (lights/siren/door) are all burned onto the video. (There are optional modules to record GPS and car speed.) The officers wear wireless microphones so you can hear what is being said around them. There is a constant pre-record of 30 seconds that doesn't commit to disk unless the lightbar/siren are turned on.

If a complaint were filed against an officer, and they hadn't turned on the recording system, they would be really lucky to have a job in a week.


Personally, I don't see this recording system catching on. It would certainly be useful to have the video, but it's still too bulky, and undoubtedly pricey. I think that having more cameras mounted around police cars, and a very tiny still pistol cam (that only takes a shot when the trigger is pulled) would cover the vast majority of issues. Current car recording systems are usually limited to 1-2 cameras simultaneously, and current pistol cams with their video recording are far too bulky and would cause far more issues than they would solve.
 
Methadras said:
In the "Don't taze me bro" incident, you could clearly see and hear in the video that the moron was totally uncooperative. He was warned several times and didn't comply. Outside of some of the audience yelling at the cops to stop tazing him, the video showed clearly the situation as it unfolded.
Click to expand...
I watched five different videos of it online, and in only one of them could I clearly see him struggling against the officers and hear him verbally resisting them at each step. From at least two of the videos, it was unclear just why the officers were doing what they were doing. Add to that the fact that most people don't understand why that is the proper time to tazer someone, and it did little to quell complaints.

On a side note, if you have half of a handcuff on someone resisting on the ground, then beating them with a club until you could subdue them was pretty standard. In this context, the tazer is a much safer option. Also, most departments require standard tazer training prior to being allowed to carry one, which includes being tazed, and receiving a copy a video of them being tazed, so the officers know exactly what it feels and looks like. Typically it is the same for being allowed to carry pepper spray.
 
Azhar said:
Cops will refuse to wear this or disable them somehow to avoid being scrutinized by the jury or his superiors.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, video helps cops more than it hurts them. As far as editing....I don't see that happening either. That worry would go out the window as soon as the dash cams and head cams don't sync up. It cracks me up how many people have such negative views of cops who are simply enforcing the laws we voted into government either directly or indirectly. Maybe when people start seeing themselves on tape they'll realize the cop's attitude was caused by them (citizen) being douche bags.
 
Atamido said:
It really comes down to how good a department is, and what policies they implement. A bad department will try to cover up for it's bad cops, and would allow them to turn off the video system whenever they want. A good department will get rid of bad officers and take disciplinary action if any video isn't recorded when it should be.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree! I have close friends that went into law enforcement that I served with in the military and I know that they're good officers. In the military, command usually promoted soldiers like themselves first; poor quality platoon sergeants usually meant poor quality squad leaders and so forth.

From what I understand, the problem in Chicago is that there's just not enough interest in law enforcement so you end up with a good amount of poor quality candidates. In the high profile cases (in Chicago) that involve bad conduct cops, it usually comes out that higher ups enabled or fascilitated that bad conduct in some way.

It seems that the only effective solution would be a universal standard operating procedure (similar to what you mentioned at your department) and a system that wouldn't reduce reaction time. It actually might be a good deterrent! If people (on both sides of the camera) know they're being filmed, they might think twice before acting stupid.

They tested the system in Britain and it seems that most British police (or criminals) don't carry guns. I'm sure that a system with a high quality mini-cam would be perfect. I just don't feel that Taser is the company that could pull this off. I could see Sony (with their 5 megapixel + camera phone optics) making the perfect system but, not Taser.
 
We're in line to get two test units. Unfortunately they say it will be 6 months or greater. Also this doesn't fit in with our Panasonic Arbitrator dash cam server, so now we need to have two repositories for video and manage them both. The Aribtrator system is already 40tb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top