SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TechDirt reports
Taser, the company, gets a lot of cop love because of its titular product, which is deployed (too) frequently to subdue arrestees. It probably doesn't get as much love for its body cameras, especially since it's already wired one line to sync footage with Taser deployment.
Its cameras are going to get even less love now. Taser's latest product looks to ensure no shooting goes unrecorded.
To ensure accountability during police encounters, Axon, Taser's police body camera division, has announced a small sensor for gun holsters that can detect when a gun is drawn and automatically activate all nearby cameras. The sensor, Signal Sidearm, is part of a suite of products aimed at reducing the possibility that officers will fail to or forget to switch on their cameras during encounters with the public.
This isn't a welcome development for cops who'd rather have every shooting/killing go unrecorded. And it's probably not going to be picked up by many departments as it's an aftermarket add-on that serves the singular purpose of accountability.
[...] Say what you will about Taser's taser, but its camera division (Axon) continues to make strides towards better law enforcement accountability. In addition to the gun-out, camera-on clip, Axon has also made body/dash cameras that begin recording when squad car doors are opened and/or the cruiser's lights are turned on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @11:55PM (12 children)
Say what you will about Taser's taser, but its camera division (Axon) continues to make strides towards better law enforcement accountability.
Nowadays we are near the peak of accountability from copcams.
All the big copcam companies like Taser already sell entire packages that automatically upload all the recorded video to the cloud. Right now they do it so that each PD doesn't have to hire a dedicated A/V/IT geek to manage all the data.
But once it is in the cloud they can sell additional services. Like facial recognition/tracking. Think facebook phototagging but on every frame of video along with time and place data. They can also do more esoteric things like audio-print engine noise so that any car in the vicinity of the copcam gets tracked, even if it never shows up on camera.
Copcams are going to turn cops into mobile surveillance units and that will flip the balance of power back to the cops because the cops will own the footage but the citizens won't be able to access it due to 'privacy' laws. If you are recorded on a copcam you'll need a subpoena to see it. But if they want to selectively release footage to damn you in the court of public opinion, [businessinsider.com] there won't be anything stopping them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @12:08AM (10 children)
You have no expectation of privacy in public spaces. But you do fund the police with your tax dollars (or asset forfeiture), elect the local politicians that control the budgets, and the state lawmakers that pass the laws restricting public records access to bodycam footage.
... right?
The easiest solution is to continue recording the police, always and forever, regardless of whether they have (functional?) bodycams. And get a forward and rear dashcam for your car.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @12:34AM (9 children)
You have no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
BULLSHIT
When a judge said that he assumed that cameras were neither ubiquitous nor linked up to permanent databases that were automatically cross-referenced with thousands or even millions of other cameras.
Circumstances have changed, the law needs to change too.
The easiest solution is to continue recording the police,
Your definition of "easiest" is pretty damn hard, its also ineffective for all but one form of copcam abuse.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @01:55AM (8 children)
Pick one.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:41AM (7 children)
What an utterly meaningless response.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @02:53AM (6 children)
Anybody who doesn't understand that what happens in public is subject to being recorded doesn't need a meaningful response. It's a good thing, too. And no, there won't be a change in the law, unless you manage to amend the Constitution to weaken or repeal the First Amendment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:21AM (5 children)
Anybody who doesn't understand that what happens in public is subject to being recorded doesn't need a meaningful response.
Yer not very bright, are ya?
We already have laws regulating what you can do with recordings made in public and they didn't require a repeal of the 1st amendment.
Ever see a tv show shot on a public street? All the people who didn't sign a release have their faces blurred out.
Not to mention that the police are entirely a creation of laws so they have no 1st amendment protections.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @03:54AM (4 children)
That's an industry practice, not a legal requirement. You can stand on the sidewalk all day long recording peoples' faces or license plates. You can post that footage online or sell/license it.
Not true, see Rowland v. State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition.
Maybe you meant something else. You still have no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:18AM (3 children)
That's an industry practice,
Correct.
not a legal requirement.
False. It is required if the person making the recording intends to use it as part of a business. Which is what any non-government organization would do with these "public" recordings.
Not true, see Rowland v. State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition.
The rights of a public employee union with respect to employment negotiations are 100% irrelevant to the issue of a government organization doing government work. I don't WTF you were thinking citing that case, but it has nothing to do with restrictions of on-duty actions by police as part of their jobs.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday March 13 2017, @03:23PM (2 children)
I wouldn't say it is "legally required" so much as that the people who are recorded may have reasonable claims to royalties. If you want to profit from the recording, you don't want everyone in the background getting a cut for being an "extra".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:51PM (1 child)
That's really a distinction without a difference.
If you don't want to be sued for every dime you made off the recording you need to get a release because people have a property right to their own image. That's a well-established legal principle and it is not much of stretch, certainly nothing on the order of repealing the 1st amendment as Tak claimed, to apply that principle to restraining pervasive surveillance in public spaces by private companies.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday March 13 2017, @08:41PM
The legal distinction is important because it has natural consequences. If it is "legally required", that implies a patchwork of laws the impose penalties for capturing a person's image without permission, presumably with some complicated exclusions for non-profit use. But if it simply a matter of royalties, then the exclusions for non-profit use are simply a natural consequence of the enforcement structure.
The distinction is especially important when trying to determine whether the law can be easily used against surveillance. If getting permission is a requirement, then it almost certainly can (or at least surveillance uses would need to be carved out of the law in specific detail, so we would know exactly what is allowed and what isn't). But if the only real restriction is based on profits, then surveillance (which doesn't generate a profit) can't be fought with laws governing property rights.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday March 13 2017, @01:11AM
This is why I bought TASR 2 years ago, selling and rebuying a couple times since. They get to 28 or so I sell, they drop to 22 or so and I buy. Right now I'm buying.
It's not the tasers nor the cameras. It's the razor blades. Yahoo isn't working for me at the moment so I don't know the name, but they're managing the data from every camera in a court sanctioned way, with a recurring monthly fee for every camera. This is why they will be worth 30-35 in the next 2-3 years, and who knows what after that.
Don't try to time the market. I've got shares in my retirement account that is holding them. I've got shares in my extra money account they I buy and sell every few months.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.