I'm very much in favor of these cameras, but there's one extrapolation that few have proposed: Why not encourage private citizens to record their public lives? Most of the arguments for recording police apply to everyone: Allegations are quickly discovered to be true or false. Everyone involved is less likely to be violent. People are more cordial. Determining guilt or innocence is much easier. Was a shooting self-defense or manslaughter? Did the eyewitness really recognize the defendant on the night of the crime? Etc.<p>There are other perks to life-logging. Conversations could be transcribed and searched, eliminating many disputes as to who said what. We already do this with IRC and some types of video chat. You could even save footage that becomes important only much later. For example, you could prove you sold pencils to Vincent van Gogh before he was famous. Or you could record the first time you met your now-spouse. Finally, there's the entertainment value of life-logging. Think Russian dash cams on steroids.<p>This technology has the potential to drastically reduce crime and improve quality of life. Yet I think most people would have an aversion to constantly recording their own lives, let alone being constantly recorded by others. I'm curious how people resolve this inconsistency.
I'm 23. People younger than me (generally) do not have faith in the police. My parents believe cops do no wrong. Neither belief leads to useful change.
This kind of program would moderate these thoughts into actionable ones while bringing accountability into these asymmetric encounters. This seems like a place where more surveilance is actually a good thing.
I'm an engineer at Evidence.com (a subsidiary of Taser) which makes the cameras (and accompanying software) used in this study. If you have interest in working on technology that makes both the public and officers safer, get in touch (see my profile)! We're based in Seattle and hiring in lots of areas: mobile engineers, web engineers, UX designers, etc.
I see absolutely no reason why police shouldn't wear cameras. It keeps all parties honest. I just hope they don't "lose the recording" when it conveniences the police the most.
Not only should the data be recorded, but it should also be 'live streamed' to the public. I placed live streamed in quotes as I could see the need for some sort of delay simply due to the sensitivity of the information - plus some level of post-processing would need to be done to ensure innocent parties faces are not being displayed.<p>Police behavior is such a broad ranging topic, simply having their actions recorded does nothing to solve the root of the problem. One of the topics I'd like to see addressed is their 12 hour work day. For what appears to be an enormously stressful job, it seems like some form of torture to ask law enforcement to always be on duty for such long stretches at a time. I really think that to get back to the 'To Serve and Protect' mantra we need to start treating policemen like humans first.
The biggest problem with police cameras is they "malfunction" or "forgot to turn it on" whenever the camera shows evidence that the policeman did something wrong.
It also gives police no leeway when it comes to enforcing unfair laws. Instead, even the most empathetic and genuinely helpful cop will have to enforce it to the letter.
More recently, the Albuquerque police were involved in a shooting that was recorded through the use of body cameras: <a href="http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-questions/" rel="nofollow">http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-shooting-raises-quest...</a><p>While the outcome of the incident was negative (the man died of his wounds), the fact that the footage exists and makes those officers accountable for their actions is a good thing.<p>I've noticed some police officers in Brisbane, Australia wearing what appears to be similar cameras. I don't feel much safer, but it's good to know in the event of an incident occurring that there's a much higher chance that an objective, irrefutable chain of events will exist.
I'm a big fan of public surveillance, especially if accessible to the public with cause. I know privacy advocates hate this, but it seems like a net win to me. In your private residence you have privacy but in public E should have video record.
I think having cameras all over every public safety servant/location (e.g. police station) would usher in a golden age of relations between the public and public servants. Doing so would steamroll the potential for abuse (lack of oversight, realization that you're unlikely to get caught, old boys club protecting you) inherent in any position of power without oversight by neutral/opposing (depending on your perspective on police) parties.
If the ideal police officer is a mechanistic follower of written law, these cameras are perfect. No right minded officer would stray from instruction while their actions are recorded in plain sight.<p>But I'm not entirely convinced of their worth. While onboard cameras provide concrete evidence in court, and undoubtedly solve problems in our society, we might as well replace our officers with robots (this might not be a bad idea).
I like this idea, but I propose a slight modification:<p>Do a rolling record system, so that when the officer hits record, the camera not only saves footage from that point but also the 15 minutes prior to that. Lets see how much their opinions of cameras change then..
I have one humble proposal, to make a FEDERAL law about this. Requiring law enforcement officers to record and store video of their activities on duty would improve the experience for both cops and the people they are dealing with. One study showed a staggering decrease of 88% in complaints against officers. We need federal laws to enable timely and straightforward access to this video in court cases all around the country where people are facing assault charges and years in prison. There is currently a White House Petition to that effect.<p>Please sign it: <a href="http://wh.gov/lEb2V" rel="nofollow">http://wh.gov/lEb2V</a>