San Jose police test head-mounted cameras for officers(mercurynews.com)
mercurynews.com
San Jose police test head-mounted cameras for officers
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14030412
2 comments
Why make the officer remember to turn on his device?
Do we want a bunch of video of the officer in locker rooms and lavatories hitting YouTube? Because that is what is going to happen if the officer can't turn it off (which means they'll have to turn it on later).
Do we want a bunch of video of the officer in locker rooms and lavatories hitting YouTube? Because that is what is going to happen if the officer can't turn it off (which means they'll have to turn it on later).
I'd rather have that _and_ the video of them abusing power than neither. Also, they're not going to be wearing the headsets while doing those things... it's not like it's implanted.
At $1,700 per kit and a $99 per officer monthly fee, the system could cost $2,888 per officer in the first year, or $4 million.
That seems remarkably expensive, though some of that cost may be due to the difficulties of night recording. On the other hand, it only needs to record standard definition, and real-time compression and storage in consumer devices already offer the technology to record a whole shift.
That seems remarkably expensive, though some of that cost may be due to the difficulties of night recording. On the other hand, it only needs to record standard definition, and real-time compression and storage in consumer devices already offer the technology to record a whole shift.
Also consider that a lawsuit for police abuse or wrongful arrest can easily cost millions (based on NYCs regular annual payouts for misdeeds). In that regard, $4m in exchange for avoiding/winning lawsuits could be a bargain.
The $1700 equipment cost doesn't sound too bad for specialized, ruggedized stuff. I wonder if this monthly fee includes off-site, long-term video storage?
I used to work for a trucking company that was looking into archiving dashcam video along with left/right lane video. Interestingly, drivers were begging for it. Why? They perceived that big trucks were often blamed unfairly for accidents, so they thought that the net effect would be fewer at-fault accidents -- even if the video occasionally could be used to show their culpability.
Before the trucking gig, I worked for a healthcare software company. One of our hospital clients had locator devices for its floor nurses. One could tell, for example, that Sue was in Room 512 and could use that room's intercom to communicate with her. Apparently, the system was once used to fire an employee for taking frequent smoking breaks, but it also once helped exonerate nurses when a patient claimed neglect. In this case, the mother of a chronically ill child complained that she had to perform a particular treatment herself because the staff never followed through. A review of the location data showed that, even if she was telling the truth, a staff member was in the room watching her each time! The mother recanted her story.
If I lived in San Jose, I would welcome a policy where the police would be forced to release video of a civilian interaction upon request from the civilian involved. The default for police departments ought to be transparency, but I'd take this as a first step.