from the good-idea-turned-backwards dept.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is urging the Department of Justice to deny a grant to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The grant would allow the department to pay for 700 body cameras:
Los Angeles could also become the largest city in the country to use body cameras on a wide scale. LAPD has already purchased 860 cameras using private donations and plans to purchase 7,000 cameras total. The city has a goal of outfitting every LAPD officer with a body camera.
But amid these ambitious plans, LAPD has enacted a body camera use policy that runs completely counter to every reason to employ body cameras in the first place. At its heart, the policy appears designed to protect law enforcement officers rather than members of the public who they have sworn to serve.
The policy fails for four main reasons:
- It does not provide for any public access to body camera video—even in cases of shootings or alleged misconduct. In fact, LAPD has made clear that it will not release video footage unless required to do so in court—or unless the chief, in his discretion, believes it would be "beneficial."
- It not only permits but requires officers to review body camera footage before they write up their reports—even before they provide an initial statement to investigators when they are involved in critical uses of force or accused of grave misconduct.
- It has no consequences for officers who fail to turn on their cameras during use-of-force incidents.
- It provides no clear rules to prevent LAPD from using body cameras as a tool to surveil the public at large. It doesn't address the use of back-end analysis tools such as facial recognition on footage; nor does it provide guidelines for use of the cameras during First Amendment-protected activity.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Subsentient on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:07AM
Can't have anything that actually benefits normal people can we? Gotta keep that regime in power!
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday September 17 2015, @08:40AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday September 17 2015, @11:56AM
How does it benefit normal people? I have several municipal police departments as clients and the body cams are generally regarded as headaches. First there's the initial expense, for the cameras and a computer used to store the footage on. It's another thing that has to be kept charged. You have to remember to turn it on and off. And the footage must be stored forever, since it's considered part of the public record. In less than 3 months a small department w/ about a dozen cops accumulated almost 1TB of footage, filling the hard drive of the computer they got. The mayor asked me to make some recommendations on long-term storage options, which bring on additional, perpetual costs. Even if they obtained grant money for the initial investment in cameras and a computer, budgets that are stretched thin as it is now have to deal w/ all the expense of storing the footage (something that's never part of a grant).
And do you think the cops always remember to turn it on? Need that footage of your baby brother getting a beatdown for sassing back? Oops, we forgot to turn on the body cam that day...
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @12:13PM
And the footage must be stored forever, since it's considered part of the public record. In less than 3 months a small department w/ about a dozen cops accumulated almost 1TB of footage, filling the hard drive of the computer they got.
Because hard drives are so hard to come buy these days and sooo expensive, right? The cost of a 1TB HD is at least a couple (2) of orders of magnitude smaller than all that fancy military gear they buy. But hey, priorities, right?
And do you think the cops always remember to turn it on? Need that footage of your baby brother getting a beatdown for sassing back? Oops, we forgot to turn on the body cam that day...
Analogy: "I am a software engineer and I've been writing code all day, I swear boss... I just forgot to plug my keyboard in that day."
This is a crucial part of your job, if you fail to turn it on, you are not qualified to do your job & basically incompetent and should be fired on the spot... especially because you've been given a license to use lethal force and a weapon to boot with it.
From what you're telling us, it looks like you've been on the other side of 'the thin blue line' for a bit too long and have started swallowing whatever they are feeding you. I'm not going to call you names because I don't know that it wouldn't happen to me also if I were in your situation but I am going to implore you to be critical of what you are told.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:42PM
The remembered to turn it on thing is a joke. Did you remember to load your gun? Did you remember to clean your gun after taking it to the range? Did you remember to check the charge on your taser? Did you remember to check the charge on your radio? I have never been a cop but i was a soldier. Before walking out the door you check your shit. Then you check your buddies shit because he's stupid and you know he can barely tie his shoes at times. A camera would be a small addition to an already long list. It wouldn't be at the bottom of the list either. But you are right on the "oops, we forgot thing". It would most likely be intentional.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:03PM
Yes, but the body cams are not on all the time. If they were, the storage needs would be even greater.
Here's a scenario: One of my cop clients was telling me a story about answering a call at a house that had vicious dogs. Before he even got out of his car there were 2 pit bulls barking their heads off in the yard. When he did get out, one of the dogs broke through the gate and started charging at him. Would you spend time making sure your camera was switched on before drawing your weapon and defending yourself? It's like having to tell a burgular to hang on while you get your gun out of your safe, remove the trigger lock, and load it.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:13PM
This is not an issue if the cam is on all the time. Cops should not be allowed to turn them on or off at will. If the camera was on before he exited his vehicle/all the time, this is a non-issue.
And for storage, see A/C above about how expensive disks are these days
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:50PM
Still a silly argument. I'll bet you he didn't have time to call in on the radio too and nobody complained. He probably didn't even get a chance to give verbal commands. If you can articulate the reason for not having time to switch your camera on then that is fine. After he isn't fearing for his life he can do all the things he didn't have time to do before being attacked. That is just common sense. I'll bet you he learns to turn on his camera BEFORE getting out of the car in the future. Do you think that cops story is a good reason to not have body cameras at all?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:14PM
I don't think it's a reason for anything, it's just a scenario that actually happened that prevented body cam footage from being obtained.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @08:25PM
This "scenario that actually happened that prevented body cam footage from being obtained"; you are referring to "the cop not turning on the camera", right?
Please stop making excuses...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:43PM
I assume that wasn't a major issue because the dash cam probably captured that encounter to some extent. If there was no dash cam then why would the body cam be off while the cop is driving their cop car and therefore on duty?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 18 2015, @11:07AM
Holy jesus, you have swallowed all the shit they've been telling you.
Let's take your enlightening story at a slightly slower pace...
> Before he even got out of his car there were 2 pit bulls barking their heads off in the yard.
At this point, HE TURNS ON THE FUCKING CAMERA.
> When he did get out, one of the dogs broke through the gate and started charging at him. Would you spend time making sure your camera was switched on before drawing your weapon and defending yourself?
No, because THE CAMERA WOULD ALREADY BE FUCKING TURNED ON.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:13AM
If the locals decide the cops need cameras then the locals should pay for them. This is not a federal issue, it's local. Washington needs to quit spending money it doesn't have.
Disclaimer: I used to own a lot of Taser stock until I dumped all stocks last June. When I think the market is stable I plan to buy a lot more of it.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:35AM
Heh [engadget.com] - anyway, that's not even the cost of a single day of "policing ISIS in Syria" [ibtimes.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:40AM
The feds should pay for them in the case where local power is entrenched and using cost as an excuse to not implement a tool for greater accountability of the police force.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:44AM
> Why are the feds paying for them?
Because Taser lobbied for it. Pork!
> This is not a federal issue, it's local.
If the feds are going to pay for them, they can put strings on them to enforce standards of usage. Want the fed's money? Play by the fed's rules. Of course those rules are subject to lobbying too, but at least they aren't written by the people with an interest in using them offensively like the local PD.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:31AM
(besides, on the cheap on ebay: starting from $17 - so what's the fuss with $12k for a PD?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @12:18PM
Because you can't just get any body-cam. It's got to be one that's been certified and follows a bunch of compliance rules. This means that there's only so many suppliers and you know the law of supply & demand I guess?
It's the same reason your internet/cable costs an arm and a leg for a trickle of bits. Sure, nationally, there are 10-ish ISPs, but too bad that your area only allows {Verizon|TWC|Comcast}... And lo... the price is multiples of what other countries pay. Countries that are more developed than the US (Norway, S Korea, etc...)
(Score: 1) by number11 on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:58PM
Cites? I just browsed a few of the cop-market manufacturer websites, and the only mention of certification I found was for stuff like RoHS (and just about every electronic gadget, even very cheap ones, has those certifications). Certified for what? And what sort of "compliance rules"? If that was really important, wouldn't the companies selling body-cams to cops brag about their compliance?
Sure, features like geotagging and digital signatures are nice, but not essential, and you'd want something more ruggedized than the $20 cheapy. But I'd bet China can crank out ruggedized body cams with a battery that can record for 10 hr for under $100.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:10AM
How does this issue involve the electronic frontier in any way? And in a world where absolutely everyone is already on Facebook, how does the electronic frontier even exist anymore?
EFF is really operating outside of its scope these days. Time to change the name already.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:33AM
How does this issue involve the electronic frontier in any way?
What are you even referring to?
And in a world where absolutely everyone is already on Facebook, how does the electronic frontier even exist anymore?
I'm not on Facebook, so you're completely incorrect. People should not use that terrible surveillance engine.
And what does Facebook have to do with this?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:55AM
The Internet was the Electronic Frontier, dumbass. You've proven the point by not even remembering there was a time when the Internet was a new frontier. It was a time before Facebook existed, remember? Of course you don't. The Electronic Frontier is long gone. Time has past for the Electronic Frontier Foundation to cease to exist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @08:16AM
The Internet was the Electronic Frontier, dumbass.
So you're hung up on the name and some arbitrary notion of "frontier" instead of more important things like the organization's goals. I had hoped you might have some kind of point, but I guess that was improbable. I'm always glad when more organizations exist to defend our rights, and I won't get hung up on inconsequential details like their names.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @08:33AM
Rights? Holy fuck. You think you have rights. Hey, jackass, you remember that thing that happened called 9/11? Remember the aftermath? DHS, TSA, watch lists? Was that all before you were born, or are you just a fucking moron? YOU. HAVE. NO. RIGHTS. YOU stupid fucking TERRORIST. Now, shut the FUCK UP, vote for who you're told to vote for, and do what you're fucking TOLD. Idiot.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:35PM
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday September 17 2015, @08:59AM
LA is 503 sq mi (1,302 km2), which is incredibly big for a municipality. A real fix would be to break the monstrosity down into neighborhood-cities, so the people can have a government that is responsive to them. That would put an end to out-of-area police walking around like blue gangstas far from home and repercussions.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:19PM
Technically speaking the local government I am a resident/subject of is ten miles square, or about 20% the size of LA. The local population is less than 10,000. Is that too big or too small? Do they represent my interests?
Then again, me being on the very edge of a metro area and a close drive to two more of the largest metro areas in the country might make things a little weird.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:22PM
Only if they had to live in the area they worked in. Some cities have had that requirement. Some removed it. In the ones that I'm aware of, things got worse after the requirement was removed. OTOH, it allowed them to avoid raising police salaries.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:35PM
Good. If I call the police because I or someone I care about has been a victim, I don't want the video released to the public and ending up on some awful website.
Good. Writing up reports of what happened should be an exercise in committing truth to paper, not a test on how well your in-the-moment perceptions matched reality.
Cameras should always be on. You don't know when use-of-force incidents are going to happen.
Halfway. They should always be on. Perhaps footage should go into a sealed repository that the police can't access without a court order, either.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by number11 on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:20PM
Sort of. But if I have been a victim of the police, I may well want that footage to be very public. I shouldn't have to hire a lawyer and go to court and deal with mucho stalling by the LAPD. Maybe have a rule that the video must be provided to anyone who appears in it?
Helpful if you're going to commit lies to paper, too. You can make sure that what you make up is consistent with the video.
That's true. Plus, that's one less thing to have to do going into a tense situation. They don't have to (and shouldn't) release the potty break episodes. But if the cop is on the clock, the video should be recording.