Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday March 12 2017, @11:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the shooting-and-shooting dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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 takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @01:55AM (8 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday March 13 2017, @01:55AM (#478287) Journal

    BULLSHIT

    [...] the law needs to change too.

    Pick one.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:41AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:41AM (#478295)

    What an utterly meaningless response.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday March 13 2017, @02:53AM (6 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday March 13 2017, @02:53AM (#478297) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:21AM (#478300)

        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)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday March 13 2017, @03:54AM (#478305) Journal

          All the people who didn't sign a release have their faces blurred out.

          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.

          they have no 1st amendment protections.

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:18AM (#478310)

            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)

              by meustrus (4961) on Monday March 13 2017, @03:23PM (#478435)

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:51PM (#478456)

                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

                  by meustrus (4961) on Monday March 13 2017, @08:41PM (#478622)

                  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?