Dean's Cameras for Cops a go

Good work.

I'd like to think that this is a result of our very own DeanK bring this matter up and sticking with it.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/11/17/11770326-sun.html

unfortunately you have morons involved in the discussion

"
Steeves said there would have to be some rules put in place with respect to when the devices would be switched on.
"They can't just ad hoc record everything," he said, noting that if the devices are used properly he would have no privacy concerns related to the recordings. "

you freakin IDIOT! they only work when you record everything and privacy is not a concern if you dont make the information public. God these people are stupid. You would think cameras were just invented yesterday or something.

I hope he means when the cop is going to the toilet, or is between calls.

You could switch it on when you got to the call.

Wouldn't that be okay?

JTF wrote:I hope he means when the cop is going to the toilet, or is between calls.

You could switch it on when you got to the call.

Wouldn't that be okay?

If they have the option of turning it off, it loses it's effectiveness. The opinion would be that if they can turn it off whenever they want (to take a leak) then they can just conveniently turn it off during certain altercations.

If it is always on, and only viewed during criminal cases or accusations of officers abusing individuals rights etc. then privacy should not be an issue. If no case or claim is brought about, then no recording is ever viewed by anyone.

When a recording is called up to prove something, only the time frame required is viewed, the rest, is unseen.

As an employee, would any of us want our every move recorded, whether the premise is that it will only be viewed if an allegation or complaint is made? Cameras in washrooms?? I bet Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson never expected those tapes to be made public either.

If the time is tracked, then the individual should be able to turn it off . If turned off indiscriminately, or selectively when conduct is questioned, then there is a case for disciplinary action.

Agreed. Make it an offense (fire-able?) to turn the cameras off at any other time.

MrMyles wrote:

JTF wrote:I hope he means when the cop is going to the toilet, or is between calls.

You could switch it on when you got to the call.

Wouldn't that be okay?

If they have the option of turning it off, it loses it's effectiveness. The opinion would be that if they can turn it off whenever they want (to take a leak) then they can just conveniently turn it off during certain altercations.

If it is always on, and only viewed during criminal cases or accusations of officers abusing individuals rights etc. then privacy should not be an issue. If no case or claim is brought about, then no recording is ever viewed by anyone.

When a recording is called up to prove something, only the time frame required is viewed, the rest, is unseen.

exactly this.

think just recently in Winnipeg when "the batteries died" in the interview room for the camera and how well that went over.

fineable? whats that? who cares about a fine. How well do the fines for police officers work now?

Fine? No. Read it slowly Deank...

oops..

yeah but even firable.... that does not help much


think how many times this has happened.

Police officer accused ( accused only mind you) of wrong doing on the job. Police officer simply retires early. Oh well he retired before the case was sorted out so yeah he gets to keep his pension.

Or police officer simply refuses to give any testimony or statement and Tada! No case.

nope sorry fireable, fineable, none of that sh1t works.

That camera gets turned off for any reason its an automatic 1 year in prison in open custody genpop.
If that dont put the fear into them to stop them from turning the cameras off then nothing will.

grumpy old man wrote:Fine? No. Read it slowly Deank...

If found to be turned off during any call, immediate dismissal. I'd be okay with that, if it actually happened. No gray areas. Camera off on call = fired, no questions asked, no alternatives.

If push came to shove, criminally or civilly, having the camera off, for ANY reason would/could show culpability and/or guilt.

I don't see an advantage to have the cameras going 24/7...certainly not in balance to all the logistical hassles with a 24/7 system.

Camera off during a call that is.

Wonder what size hard drive would be required for something recording 24/7? How long are the recordings kept?

Typically these types of security devices are recording and storing only when there is motion. Since there will always be motion then every second would be recorded and retained.

Would be a HUGE hard drive. Wonder how that could be carried on the cop?

I know I posted it on here before but the cops in Britain already have this all worked out. I will see if I can find the link.

LONDON - Britain is taking its surveillance to a new level, strapping video cameras to the helmets of its famed bobbies a move the government says will cut down on paperwork and help prosecute criminals.

By providing dramatic footage of victims, suspects and witnesses, judges and jurors will be able to "see and hear the incident through the eyes and ears of the officer at the scene," Minister of State for Security Tony McNulty said.




The Home Office said it was allocating $6 million to fund the devices for Britain's 42 police forces enough to buy more than 2,000 cameras.

Police already use handheld cameras to monitor crowded events and the new head-mounted devices, worn around the ear or clipped on to a helmet, have been used on a trial basis by police in Plymouth, in southwestern England, since 2005. Similar cameras are used by security guards at sports venues to hunt for soccer hooligans.

Britain is not the first country to use such cameras, versions of which have been tested in Denmark. But the national rollout will tighten Britain's web of video surveillance, already the most extensive in the world. The country is watched over by a network of some 4 million closed-circuit cameras, and privacy advocates complain the average Briton is recorded as many as 300 times a day.

In a report on the Plymouth pilot project published by the Home Office on Thursday, policemen praised the head-held cameras for deterring bad behavior and providing excellent evidence against crooks.

They said rowdy youths quickly calmed when they realized they were being filmed, and those arrested for drunkenness seldom challenged police when shown videos of their behavior.

Prosecutors credited the cameras with emboldening victims of domestic violence to press charges against their partners, although the director of Rights of Women, Ranjit Kaur, said she has not been convinced the footage alone could help secure a conviction.

The Association of Chief Police Officers, an independent body of senior police officials in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, gave the devices a tepid welcome, cautioning that courts might someday expect everything police said to be backed by video evidence.

"The introduction of personal digital recording equipment for police officers and staff brings benefits and risks," the association said in a statement. "We need to guard against creating an expectation that all police activity ought to be supported by the use of digital recording technology."

Civil rights campaigner Liberty praised the guidelines for using the devices included in the Home Office report. Spokeswoman Jen Corlew noted that police were instructed to inform members of the public they were being recorded and that the footage not being used in an investigation had to be erased within a month of its creation.

But Ben Ward, Human Rights Watch's associate Europe director, expressed concern.

"The privacy questions raised by the plan will turn on whether the safeguards, including on notification and storage, are uniformly respected," he said in a telephone interview in London.

The American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concern, predicting the United States would soon follow Britain's lead and subject Americans to even more video surveillance.

"Head-mounted cameras are a little bit of a double edged sword when it comes to civil liberties," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program in Washington, D.C.

"They record police misconduct, improper interrogations and seem to have an effect on having police officers kept in line. But this just becomes another extension of widespread video surveillance," he said in a telephone interview.

Steinhardt predicted the U.S. would soon give police the same power since America already has followed the example of Britain, "the world's innovator when it comes to surveillance and surveillance technology."

Britain's Home Office said the cameras which have enough memory to hold 24 hours of video were not intended to record continuously. Officers would turn the devices on and off at their discretion, speaking into the camera after turning it on to explain where, when and why they were starting it. A second explanation was required before turning the device off.

The report also cautioned against taking extraneous video when entering private homes, and said officers should turn cameras off during strip searches. But it also threatened disciplinary action against officers who deliberately masked the camera's view or deleted video from the camera's memory.

The Home Office said it was exploring other uses for the devices, including fitting them with the ability to send video live to a command center, or special license-plate recognition software which would enable police to identify stolen or suspicious vehicles just by looking at them.

Thats not the link I was looking for... but sums its up nicely.

Britain's Home Office said the cameras which have enough memory to hold 24 hours of video were not intended to record continuously. Officers would turn the devices on and off at their discretion, speaking into the camera after turning it on to explain where, when and why they were starting it. A second explanation was required before turning the device off.

Might not be a bad idea IF the explanation was sufficient. But it still is not that smart of an idea.

JTF wrote:Britain's Home Office said the cameras which have enough memory to hold 24 hours of video were not intended to record continuously. Officers would turn the devices on and off at their discretion, speaking into the camera after turning it on to explain where, when and why they were starting it. A second explanation was required before turning the device off.

Now that makes sense.

JTF wrote:Good work.

I'd like to think that this is a result of our very own DeanK bring this matter up and sticking with it.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/11/17/11770326-sun.html

LOL. video for everyone.

say.... why did my boss give me a pen like that last week???

JTF wrote:Good work.

I'd like to think that this is a result of our very own DeanK bring this matter up and sticking with it.

[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/11/17/11770326-sun.html

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/11/17/11770326-sun.html[/quote[/url]]

heh... I have proposed it to a freakin huge number of politicians but its not like its a new idea

I know...but...I'd like to think our sandbox is the reason...

It is always $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ problem and a list of priorities- 2015 what a great year to think about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!