Cameras On Cops: Coming To a Town Near You 264
An anonymous reader writes "The trend of police officers using body-mounted cameras is going nationwide. As we discussed last month, the NYPD is pondering the cameras, and the LAPD is actively testing them. A town in California (population ~100,000) has tested them with seeming success: incidents involving officers using force have dropped more than half, and citizen complaints have dropped almost 90%. '[C]ops are required to turn on their cameras in any confrontation with a suspect or citizen. The footage is uploaded to computers when they return to the station, and is typically retained for one to three months.' The town's success is even drawing interest from police departments in other countries. The ACLU likes the idea, but has problems with it in practice, so they're opposing the trend (PDF). They worry about privacy abuses, and they want citizens caught on camera to be allowed equal access to the footage."
Re:Won't do any good. (Score:5, Informative)
Fact is as long as they can turn the cameras on or off and the video is in police custody this will do almost nothing to reduce police abuse. Either the camera will be off, the video will be "lost" or the recording device will be "broken". They want the video for convictions, but they will make damn sure the video is lost or the camera is off when they go to beat the shit out of some innocent person.
And yet, the actual evidence cited in the summary shows the exact opposite result of your theory.
Kind of funny, considering that you also posted a comment [slashdot.org] about how the anti-vaccination movement ignores real evidence that contradicts their views.
Re:Won't do any good. (Score:5, Informative)
I was dating a female sheriff. She was laughing about how a police friend of hers would like to sneak E in his dates drinks and how one girl caught him and swapped drinks.
The fact that she found it funny, that all of his police friends knew he was date raping these women, really put a dent in my view of the police.
And the worst thing is, they would probably treat a civilian that did the same thing as a filthy monster.
Re:Broken camera (Score:5, Informative)
But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.
That is exactly what the ACLU objected to.
The proposed bill mandated that police carried them, but left optional what is recorded, did not require access by citizens, and did not specify a data retention policy. The ACLU objection (see the actual story) cited cases where police turned off the cameras during the (alleged) abuses, sometimes multiple cops turning off each others cameras, and where judges ruled in favor of the cops when the evidence was missing. Data could also be deleted the same day for no reason other than a personal judgement call.
The bill was a good start, but needs mandatory recording requirements, mandatory citizen access, and mandatory data retention policies.