Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the eye-think-we-are-being-watched dept.

A pilot program was scheduled to start last week. But after no officers volunteered, Commissioner William Evans ordered 100 officers to wear the cameras. That prompted the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association to ask a judge to issue an injunction to halt the program until a new agreement can be negotiated.

Union President Patrick Rose testified Tuesday that the city violated its agreement with the union when Evans assigned officers to what was supposed to be an all-volunteer program. Rose acknowledged that he told members not to volunteer for the program before the union had reached an agreement with the city.

[...] Evans said he wants the program to begin next week and believes it's within his authority as police commissioner to order officers to wear the cameras.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/27f263abcce6437d893274792062625a/boston-police-union-goes-court-after-bodycam-resistance

No word on whether or not the Commissioner volunteered to wear a camera.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday September 08 2016, @07:41PM

    by ledow (5567) on Thursday September 08 2016, @07:41PM (#399329) Homepage

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?

    If you can't have your job monitored, what are you doing in it?

    Nobody's asking you to take the camera home, film your wife, or invade your own privacy. In fact, even the issues of the cameras recording victim statements which might want to remain anonymous, or witnesses etc. is dangerous. But nobody's asking the officer to take any more risk or invade their personal privacy.

    Hence, to me, refusal is edging towards an admission of guilt here.

    Is it unfair to the police to do this? Do they do it to others when CCTV exists? Then it seems pretty even. You know, police operate mainly in public places. If you can't be filmed doing it, why should others be filmed?

    What these police officers are saying, to me, is "We can't possibly be watched - someone might find we're doing something wrong".

    There are police forces around the world wearing these things. They aren't objecting. There are cameras in stations, and cop-shows, in-car-cams, and CCTV everywhere. But you argue over carrying one in quite possibly the most important job that could instantly provide undeniable evidence and convictions from the moment it's turned on? It just makes me question your integrity that you even question it. Nowhere else I know where the cops have cams saw opposition like this.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:53PM (#399351)

    I'm with you. You've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide. This and all that NSA stuff is getting blown WAY out of proportion. Personally, I'm very leery of anyone who thinks they need to encrypt their computers.