Body Cameras on LEO & Ferguson, the true cost of accountability

[etrain16]

To be fair, gov. RFPs often have so much crap in them it drives up the cost to meet their specs. Sometimes most of the specs are valid for the application, but sometimes you get a spec where they throw in every mil-spec std. they can think of where something much less would have been fine.

Then there was all the documentation and red tape and crap.

Conversely, I have seen the gov. go for the cheapest crap they can get. I still remember the boots (especially the boots!) and other clothing they gave us in the USCG - many NCOs went out and bought their own because of the poor fit and quality of the gov issue crap.

I work in contracting. I've bid on many different RFP's, including those put out by government agencies. By far, they are the worst. They are the longest (very wordy, lots of pages), very bureaucratic, full of lots of unnecessary sections, clarifications and requirements. By the very nature of how they're structured, they end up forcing the costs up over private projects, in our case, by 30% or more due to all the extra (and usually unnecessary) requirements. It irritates me to the point that I cringe when I find out we have to bid a government RFP. I think that's also why people are so flummoxed when they see the cost of government projects/contracts.

 

[Riot]

Let's break this down...

Why should we make it to where an officer should not be able to control whether or not a body camera can be turned on and off at their discretion?

1) To find and hold accountable bad officers
2) To make the system less complicated for the officers so that in stressful moments they are not worried about activating the camera prior to performing any other activity (i.e. drawing their firearm, exiting the vehicle, etc.)

Why should we make it to where officers should be able to control whether or not a body camera can be turned on and off at their discretion?

1) To protect the identities of undercover law enforcement entities, confidential informants, victims and sensitive information of the agency
2) To prevent privacy violations in recording the public without their consent
3) To allow officers to have personal privacy while on duty (using the bathroom, calling their spouse, conversing with their colleges).

Did I miss anything? Do you thing the "nots" outweigh the "shoulds"? Discuss...

 

[The Heretic]

Why should we make it to where officers should be able to control whether or not a body camera can be turned on and off at their discretion?

1) To protect the identities of undercover law enforcement entities, confidential informants, victims and sensitive information of the agency
2) To prevent privacy violations in recording the public without their consent
3) To allow officers to have personal privacy while on duty (using the bathroom, calling their spouse, conversing with their colleges).

Did I miss anything? Do you thing the "nots" outweigh the "shoulds"? Discuss...

As I mentioned, for each of those cases the LEO can just take the cam off their person.

 

[IronMonster]

On the clock, camera on. My feeling is that 99.5% of the time the footage recorded would never be viewed. Just like it is with most all other video. The footage is an asset and you will never know when it will be needed. Officer turns off his cam and walks into the can, Gets jumped by a drug crazed wacko and has to pull his weapon. Officer is chatting on the phone with his wife and sees a mugging in process and has to case after and ends up pulling his weapon and firing.

I think the privacy issue is all about respect. The officer would have to trust and respect his superiors to do the right thing with the footage, Just the public has to trust and respect the officer.

 

[IronMonster]

And I live with this, by my choice. I have 11 cameras in my shop and a 2 terabyte hard drive. I am watched 24 hours day, everything I say and do recorded ( granted I dont have one in the can )

My feeling is if its really something that private, it can wait till your off duty.

 

[Riot]

As I mentioned, for each of those cases the LEO can just take the cam off their person.

And put it where? You're still assuming only one scenario...

Cop is in on or near a patrol car, takes camera off his person and places it in the patrol car, closes door then does what he needs to do.

On the clock, camera on. My feeling is that 99.5% of the time the footage recorded would never be viewed. Just like it is with most all other video. The footage is an asset and you will never know when it will be needed. Officer turns off his cam and walks into the can, Gets jumped by a drug crazed wacko and has to pull his weapon. Officer is chatting on the phone with his wife and sees a mugging in process and has to case after and ends up pulling his weapon and firing.

I think the privacy issue is all about respect. The officer would have to trust and respect his superiors to do the right thing with the footage, Just the public has to trust and respect the officer.

So- no privacy, whatsoever, for cops while on duty? Got it.

I guess screw those guys he's also recording while walking into the bathroom?

 

[IronMonster]

Nope, that is not what I mean or said. What I am saying is that its up to the guys in charge of the video to make sure that its not misused, not abused and peoples privacy violated. I dont like that, I am not that trusting that they would do the right thing. However I think that if it can be turned off and on at will then there is simply too good of chance it wont be on the one time its needed. I also think there would be a percentage of the officers who would just continue to do what they do, just a little more careful to make sure the video is switched off when they do it.

As a officer you are a public servant, You give up a lot of rights to personal privacy and actions while on duty. You cant just do what you want, You must act for the public good and you must be accountable for those actions.

 

[etrain16]

Let's break this down...

Why should we make it to where an officer should not be able to control whether or not a body camera can be turned on and off at their discretion?

1) To find and hold accountable bad officers
2) To make the system less complicated for the officers so that in stressful moments they are not worried about activating the camera prior to performing any other activity (i.e. drawing their firearm, exiting the vehicle, etc.)

Why should we make it to where officers should be able to control whether or not a body camera can be turned on and off at their discretion?

1) To protect the identities of undercover law enforcement entities, confidential informants, victims and sensitive information of the agency
2) To prevent privacy violations in recording the public without their consent
3) To allow officers to have personal privacy while on duty (using the bathroom, calling their spouse, conversing with their colleges).

Did I miss anything? Do you thing the "nots" outweigh the "shoulds"? Discuss...

On the clock, camera on. My feeling is that 99.5% of the time the footage recorded would never be viewed. Just like it is with most all other video. The footage is an asset and you will never know when it will be needed. Officer turns off his cam and walks into the can, Gets jumped by a drug crazed wacko and has to pull his weapon. Officer is chatting on the phone with his wife and sees a mugging in process and has to case after and ends up pulling his weapon and firing.

I think the privacy issue is all about respect. The officer would have to trust and respect his superiors to do the right thing with the footage, Just the public has to trust and respect the officer.

I tend to agree with IronMonster on this one. Where I work, we are required to go through training every year on a number of subjects related to our employment - HR stuff, sensitive information, and the use of company devices and networks. We are told that any email, any phone call, should be considered public, and that your privacy when using these things is not assured, guaranteed or even protected. Now, this all comes from the company legal team, so I'm fairly certain they've done their homework. The only way I can assure privacy is to use my own phone, outside the building, and off the company's WiFi network.

I don't expect that my company is actively recording what I do or say. I do know for a fact that every email I send on the company network is stored for up to 10 years. Do they ever review them? I very seriously doubt it unless they have reason to suspect something is amiss. They also record video in the office (not in the restrooms of course), but in many other places, you are recorded. I basically assume I don't really have privacy when I'm on the job. But I'm aware of it. It's not hidden, so it's my own fault if I discuss something there I don't want others to know about.

I'm not sure of the best solution for some of your examples Riot. I certainly don't want a camera or microphone in the restroom, so maybe a button to briefly suspend recording, but perhaps one that requires you to reactivate the suspend function every 90 seconds, for example, and a notation in the file that recording was suspended by the officer, so there was at least a record that they initiated it.

This is a tough one. Certainly no easy answers, but I think many of us agree that cameras are a definite plus.

 

[Riot]

Nope, that is not what I mean or said. What I am saying is that its up to the guys in charge of the video to make sure that its not misused, not abused and peoples privacy violated. I dont like that, I am not that trusting that they would do the right thing. However I think that if it can be turned off and on at will then there is simply too good of chance it wont be on the one time its needed. I also think there would be a percentage of the officers who would just continue to do what they do, just a little more careful to make sure the video is switched off when they do it.

You trust a police video reviewer to not be coherced or abuse their possition (leak sensitive information, edit films to suit their agenda) but not the officer's themselves?

As a officer you are a public servant, You give up a lot of rights to personal privacy and actions while on duty. You cant just do what you want, You must act for the public good and you must be accountable for those actions.

This is probably the only thing I've agreed with you on thus far...


On a side note...I want you guys to view and read the article below...it's about a bad cop caught on another cop's body camera doing a bad thing...being reported by the good cop.


http://www.newson6.com/story/18992499/city-of-owasso-releases-video-of-officer-hitting-suspect

 

[Riot]

I'm not sure of the best solution for some of your examples Riot. I certainly don't want a camera or microphone in the restroom, so maybe a button to briefly suspend recording, but perhaps one that requires you to reactivate the suspend function every 90 seconds, for example, and a notation in the file that recording was suspended by the officer, so there was at least a record that they initiated it.

This is a tough one. Certainly no easy answers, but I think many of us agree that cameras are a definite plus.

Any interruption in camera recording during and incident must be verbally articulated or a written submition of reasoning by the officer when recording is started or resumed.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf

 

[IronMonster]

Its not so much about trust (although it is a little, even good cops may sometimes do things they dont want others to see)

How about this? What if the officer had the ability to "mark" the video as private during recording. So the video kept rolling but it would only be accessible after something like a court order?

So as he is about to walk into the can he keys a button and until he keys it again it is all marked private and is recorded in a way that is not visible to anyone except a order by a judge?

 

[Riot]

Its not so much about trust (although it is a little, even good cops may sometimes do things they dont want others to see)

How about this? What if the officer had the ability to "mark" the video as private during recording. So the video kept rolling but it would only be accessible after something like a court order?

Haven't thought of that...I kind of like that. Like a blue button on top that flags the video during recording? You press it, it flags...press it again and it unflags? That's the part that is either omitted or that you want highlighted? Privacy or not, that sounds like a good idea.

 

[The Heretic]

And put it where? You're still assuming only one scenario...

Cop is in on or near a patrol car, takes camera off his person and places it in the patrol car, closes door then does what he needs to do.

That would cover most situations.

I am sure there are straightforward answers for other situations where that isn't the answer.

Like I said, nothing is perfect.

 

[The Heretic]

Haven't thought of that...I kind of like that. Like a blue button on top that flags the video during recording? You press it, it flags...press it again and it unflags? That's the part that is either omitted or that you want highlighted? Privacy or not, that sounds like a good idea.

Given the courts, given the lawsuits, given that the gov does not respect anybody's privacy, even less its employees - I don't think that is a solution.

If the vid is there, someone will have access to it and someone will abuse that access.

 

[Riot]

That would cover most situations.

I am sure there are straightforward answers for other situations where that isn't the answer.

Like I said, nothing is perfect.

How about placing it in a sound-proof bag in your pocket? When you place it in you state your reason, when you remove you state why it you are continuing?

For example...

"Logging camera off to use bathroom and take lunch"

*place camera in bag and in pocket*

"Back in service, break completed"

 

[The Heretic]

How about placing it in a sound-proof bag in your pocket? When you place it in you state your reason, when you remove you state why it you are continuing?

For example...

"Logging camera off to use bathroom and take lunch"

*place camera in bag and in pocket*

"Back in service, break completed"

You could do that.

 

[Riot]

You could do that.

I guess those bike cops would have to explain the buldge in their pocket...

 

[RVTECH]

While I agree with the concept of body cams what concerns me is all the variables and shortcomings that have been, and are currently being mentioned and discussed. I am beginning to wonder if this would even be worth it given the potential legal ramifications of improper use, altercations or improper use. I agree nothing is perfect but considering all that COULD go wrong I am having a hard time with it.

 

[jbett98]

Omni Corp figured it out. Machines don't make human errors.
Problem solved.

 

[soberups]

How about placing it in a sound-proof bag in your pocket? When you place it in you state your reason, when you remove you state why it you are continuing?

For example...

"Logging camera off to use bathroom and take lunch"

*place camera in bag and in pocket*

"Back in service, break completed"

Combined with a GPS unit, this would work well. The GPS would validate the officers location near a restroom. You could also have an "override" feature that would automatically turn the unit back on if the patrol car's lights were activated. Another idea would be a chip attached to the holster that would turn the unit on whenever a pistol or Taser are drawn.