British Traffic Wardens Issued CCTV Head Cameras 410
Rick writes "The Surveillance Society of Great Britain has taken another turn for the worse, as
traffic wardens in Eccles, Manchester are being issued with CCTV head sets and
given the legal power to impose fines of up to £80 for littering and other anti social behavior"
Gargoyles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could all see it coming, Stephenson was just the first to point out how horrible the idea is. Lets see if they can build in the remote retinal scanner gadget.
Not all that ominous IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you and with Steve Mann [wearcam.org] - cameras on people, ok; cameras making your city a Panopticon prison [wikipedia.org], bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, these helmet cams are really helping,
but crime is still there.
Let's hire more police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
please do. too many of the old guys are retiring now and we're starting to get kinda short on lawmen.
Re:Not all that ominous IMO (Score:5, Funny)
-- Marge Simpson
I'd tend to agree (Score:3, Interesting)
That way, if somebody alleges police violence, you can show footage. If something happened, it will be there. If the cop turned off the camera, then it will become apparent pretty quickly that there was a likely ulterior motive in doing so. Part of procedure should be to flip on the cam upon exiting the police vehicle, so no turn
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Now they have fixed surveillance AND mobile surveillance. Even if one were better than the other, in combination Manchester is moving much closer to a total surveillance society.
I do not like the idea that the state is sending roving cameras looking for antisocial behaviour. And the head-mounted cam does not just see what 'the guy' is seeing; it records whatever comes into focus in the direction that his head is turned. There is no guarantee that he actually sees what the camera sees, and thus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
are you serious? the idea that public space equals surveillance space? i know that we have no right to expect privacy in a public space, but by the same token a liberal society should have no right to surveil it indiscriminately and thoroughly. if it does, it is not liberal, but, by definition, totalitarian.
moreover, such a practice if anything is harmful to law enforcement, and for at least two reasons. (1) it causes massive resentment (almost nobody enjoys being watched all the time). (2) it changes the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you don't accept total surveillance
My original post only railed against indiscriminate surveillance, not surveillance per se. A private business can surveil its premises all it wants (changing rooms, etc. excluded) - I have no say in that, and, well, it's their right. I can always shop somewhere else if I want. With court-approved requests, the state can surveil suspected criminal actions. I could go on.
But i
Re:Not all that ominous IMO (Score:5, Interesting)
It could, but by an amazing coincidence, whenever anyone reports cases of overzealous law enforcement in the UK, investigation shows that for some strange reason none of the CCTV cameras that cover the area were working.
It's weird, that. You'd think with more CCTV cameras than pretty much anywhere else in the world, we'd be able to make them reasonably reliable by now.
Re:Not all that ominous IMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not all that ominous IMO (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that in that case, there should have been video footage. The fact that it strangely isn't available becomes far from a moot point, and instead an exacerbating one.
Ubiquitous CCTV, until the police do something illegal.
Obligitory Dead Kennedys Quote. (Score:2, Insightful)
read people read!
Sweet, as long as they put them on YouTube (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
The Surveillance Society of Great Britain has taken another turn for the worse
This sentence imposes the view that this move is obviously bad, when in fact, although I really hate privacy breaches and measures that remove privacy, I like this idea. It gives some legal weight to these fines, and will hopefully do their part to stop people littering mindlessly. While anti-social behaviour is a bit ambiguous in terminology, I'm sure that if you are given a fine with evidence on camera, then the reason can't be that frivilous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of our police cars are fitted with cameras that record all the time the vehicle is in use (generally for traffic cars). If there is an incident (like, they crash it) where the video is unavailable, or doesn't match up with the telemetry from the car then the officers using the car are assumed to be at fault. It tends to make them even more careful drivers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
except that's not what it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if everyone else wore a camera on their head and recorded the police, *then* the police action would be recorded. Given how many times I have seen footage of police putting their hands over TV camera lenses in order to stop the filming of what ever the police were doing, I somehow don't think the idea of all of us pointing our cameras at *them* would be popular.
The first time a camera-wearing officer tries to stop a citizen
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
This ain't just a slippery slope. It's a fucking teflon ski hill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF are you talking about?
1) The GP didn't make the 'nothing to hide' argument.
2) These cameras only record what the warden would see in any case.
3) Cameras recording private & public spaces are completely different.
I don't expect you to read the article - but at least read the comment you're replying to.
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if only they removed CCTV and use the cameras like this on every officer we should probably have less misconducts and brutality.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the laws are like in the UK but just because an officer of the law is seeing something doesn't mean it isn't an invasion of your privacy. By standing in any particular location doesn't suddenly make the nature of your surroundings different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While anti-social behaviour is a bit ambiguous in terminology
I got the impression from the news last night, that the cameras were to stop the people who feel it's the traffic warden's fault they're parked on double yellow lines. Here in England, a huge number of people have a huge problem with parking laws and seem to believe that abuse and violence will get there ticket canceled. If I was a warden, I'd want the evendance that some chav really DID spend 20 mins shouting death threats at me. As a side note: I met a doorman with a camera on his head before, and I ho
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that. They're also talking about using them to have these wardens issue fines for miscellaneous antisocial behaviour, such as littering. I don't know the situation in the locality here, but in many places these days, parking enforcement is done by target-driven, commercially-employed civilians, not police officers or similar officials. It's bad enough giving police officers the power to level on-the-spot fines, but giving it to other civilians is just a recipe for disaster.
For the record, I don't park illegally, and have never received a ticket. However, it's not hard to see why people feel aggrieved, when many local councils are (a) deliberately reducing parking opportunities and dramatically increasing the associated charges, in a fairly transparent move to penalise car drivers, and (b) using target-driven enforcement that allows no discretion to the warden (though to be fair, you usually can appeal afterwards if you'd rather waste several hours of your life than pay a small fine). Just remember, the next time your car breaks down and you pull it over to the side of the road to minimise the disruption to others before it can be reparied/towed, that there is no exemption in law for this, and you can be penalised for something you have no control over.
It's a bit like car tax: the government is very proud of its database (as its adverts keep telling us) and smart enough to find people to send them penalty notices if someone forgets to pay, yet somehow they can't reliably distribute the reminders (which are also necessary to pay in the most convenient ways, though apparently you can get an alternative form from a Post Office if you dig out four different bits of paperwork and take them all along in person). Although you can pay on-line, it takes about five days to get you a tax disc, and driving without displaying one (even if you've properly paid the tax) is an offence in its own right that can carry a 1k fine. Oh, and while they can have an entire on-line system for payment, and a robust database that has everyone's contact details, it seems to be beyond them to send an e-mail reminder a couple of days before the deadline to those who "forgot" (or just didn't get the reminder letter). Presumably this would save many drivers the embarrassment of being criminalised, but it would also cost the government all those lovely fines.
Such a culture inevitably breeds contempt for the law and those who enforce it, and it's the same with parking fines. Sure, ticket the antisocial gits who think their need to get takeaway pizza is more important than anyone else's need to get down a busy road in the rush hour, but someone who gets back to a pay-and-display car park five minutes late on a properly bought three-hour ticket shouldn't be treated as a criminal. Everyone makes mistakes, and laws that penalise everyone are broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit, do you mean you don't care about the streets beeing filled with rubbish or kids spray painting yout front door with crap? because i sure fucking do. and this has ZERO privacy problems. it's only filiming what the officer can SEE anyway, so even if he is spying on you there will be video evidence to bust his arse with later. video cuts both ways you know.
my only regret is that other countries can't be more like singapore where t
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
With regard to "only filiming what the officer can SEE", the cameras will indeed film everything that the officer can see, and also what the officer does not see. Do you register every car's license plate in your memory as the cars go by? I don't, but the camera does. Does the officer recognize every unfamiliar face? No; but a camera, combined with a complete face database, will. The addition of cameras creates an ability that the officers did not have before. I would compare it to giving officers an X-ray eyesight, where they could see through clothes - presumably to search for weapons. This helps in creating the class of enforcers who are legally and physically stronger than you, who are better organized and supported, who see more and know more... and who would be you to them? Anything but an equal citizen; a lowly plebeian, to be abused in any way. Police are already top dogs, unaccountable and unreachable and always right; the society does not need to elevate them any further.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so let's be generous and assume the cameras and other gadgetry (portable storage device, accumulated cost of computer(s) at main office, etc) add up to abut $2000 per warden. This will allow you to hire an extra warden for...a day or two? (Remember, the same cameras will be used by all three shifts). I can only conclude that hiring more wardens instead of adding cameras does not seem very economical to me
Re: (Score:2)
Either Great Britain completely solved the problem of jobless people, or you need to let the job seekers decide on this. Deciding on their behalf is a little odd.
On the other hand, if by "register", you mean, that it can be read later by an observer looking at the recording, you are also wrong; the cameras most likely have far too low resolution, and low shutter speed, to capture anything but the
Re: (Score:2)
seriously either up or cut the dose because there's no connection between helmet cams and super strength x-ray vision traffic wardens.
and claiming that police aren't accountable? you clearly have no conception of what goes on in the day of a police officers life. ALL they do for a large part
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we do. Many people subscribe to the broken window theory and vast majority want the streets clean and safe.
Become? Have you seen a mobile phone or digital camera in the last 2 years?
Well unless they can see through the wall of my house I can.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen any large group of people who would be regularly and intentionally wandering the streets and recording everything in their sight, who also would be likely to use the recordings against you. Even videotaping of demonstrations does not come close; your mobile phone example is clearly not proper.
Well unless they can see through the wall of my house I can.
Unless you have a private, secure teleportation device your comings a
that much easier to watch the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite apart from that, can the police be tracked by the signal from the head mounted camera and radio? Why yes, they can be. The more RF-emanating equipment the police carry, the easier it becomes to track them, know when they're coming, and evade them. RF profiling ain't that hard. Catch the litterbug, but miss the bank heist. Silly LEOs.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its watching the traffic wardens... (Score:5, Funny)
And then there is the boss screaming on the walkie-talkie -- robbers, robbers, i want visuals, get a moveable camera^H^H^H^H^H warden to stand in the middle of traffic at Charring Cross...
Takes the fun right out a job that does.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like this? http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/9 52.html [geekculture.com]
With great power comes... (Score:4, Insightful)
One council was forced to apologise for its 'litter wardens' lately after they fined a woman £80 for her son dropping *two* crisps onto the pavement - despite the mother picking the packet up.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6665641
Cameras on heads is a daft idea which will similarly be abused by an already overbearing, orwellian government.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, it should be an inform first system. If the intent is to educate, rather than gather revenue, the warden should have said 'Could you take those home with you please, because they will attract rats?" and only issued a fine if the person refused.
Having the cameras would allow the wardens to prove that
British Traffic Wardens Issued CCTV Head Cameras (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent! (Score:2, Funny)
re: anti social behavior (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
UK Internet Monitoring Service box on that site (Score:2)
When you visit the site mentioned in the article, a scary box labeled "UK Internet Monitoring Service" slowly fades in and wants you to answer a questionnaire. It supposedly comes from "Forrester Research".
Your desk should face the telescreen - "Big Brother"
Why no mass uprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better for the people; Non-invasive (Score:2, Insightful)
this works for citizens, not cops (Score:2)
i wish people would stop thinking so stereotypically about cameras and what they actually represent
shouting "orwell" or "1984" is not a very good replacement for actual critical analysis
well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Priorities. (Score:3, Insightful)
Concerns about police states aside there's a real and serious problem with crime in the United States, and presumably the UK given what I've read and heard. One of the biggest problems I see in the city where I live is that the authorities always react, they never prevent anything. They're always showing up after something has happened. Obviously, they can't predict crime, but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the chances of crimes being committed.
The biggest problem I see is with the lack of police presence. It's not that my city has an under-staffed police department. It's that whenever I do see a police officer he's speeding past. I can't count the times I've seen an excessive number of police flock to a relatively minor incident. Then there are times where a police officer will decide they no longer feel like waiting at a traffic light and just blow through it. But like I said, these are the few times I actually see them.
So what happens? I have no direct contact with these officers. And the only time I do my impression isn't always a favorable one. And I'm a law-abiding citizen who tends to be sympathetic with the sort of problems the police have to contend with. Now, compound that problem with the inner city mentality of us-versus-them. There's this attitude that the cops are out to get them. The culture perpetuates this idea, so you've got children being indoctrinated, indirectly, with the idea that the police is the enemy. Growing up I've known kids with exactly this sort of attitude.
So ultimately, what I think would go a long way to help reduce crime would be to have police officers patrolling on foot, perhaps in pairs and with a patrol car nearby to respond to emergencies. This has a few advantages. First, these officers linger in neighborhoods longer because they're walking. People are less apt to commit a crime with a police officer standing by. Secondly, because they're out in public they're a lot more likely to interact with citizens. This builds understanding and sympathy. Police officers are less likely to be arrogant and citizens will respond more favorably. As things stand right now the interaction between officers and citizens is too impersonal.
It tends to bother me when people automatically lash out at something intended to fight crime because of fears of freedoms being trampled. Apparently it's not a problem when criminals and troublemakers are trampling on people's freedoms. When I was working in Asia I could walk around at 3am without much concern. There's no way in hell I'd venture to do that in most American cities. I've had a gun pulled on me on the way home from the train station in the States. And this is in addition to the general bad attitude, disregard for public and private property I see day in and day out.
Think about it. Who really has to be concerned about these head cameras? I'd say the criminal element, because if you're going about your business doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about? I think there's a misplaced sense of priorities when people are more outraged about some cameras than they are by how much crime there is out there.
Re:Who really has to be concerned ? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't quite see the problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like what? I can't afford the level of bribe that big companies can, so I have no involvement in democracy as it is practiced in the UK. 30 years of Thatcherism has really taken its toll on the concept of democratic choice here. If there's nothing in it for multi-nationals it simply doesn't happen anymore.
TWW
Tax Revolt (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect they will only be willing to pay for this for a very limited time.
I give this whole experiment at most 10 years before they start tearing it down under the flag of "scaling it back and reducing costs," at which point another period will pass and they'll scrap the whole thing.
Time for citizens to carry cameras too (Score:2)
For example, a man was arrested for being in possession of an egg with intent to throw [bbc.co.uk]. A pregnant woman was fined for being 1cm over a parking bay line, and a mother was fined for not seeing a single crisp (potato chip) that her child dropped. Strangely, there was
Will someone not think of the Traffic Wardens? (Score:2)
Nothing New Here (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy - Easy to lose, hard to get back (Score:3, Insightful)
In previous threads on /. regarding CCTV coverage of public space(s) in Britain, there have been observational comments (here's one http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229567&cid=186 18653 [slashdot.org]) about street level nuisance behaviour - broken windows, drunks hassling people, etc. I don't live in Britain, so I have no experience of my own to comment on WRT this topic.
However, in my world of values, proceeding through one's normal daily activities without an expectation of surveillance is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Removing or impinging upon this characteristic is a direct step in the direction of what I call a police state.
The output of this surveillance will inevitably be used for purposes beyond the original stated intent. People will keep coming back to that well until they get what they want in some relative circumstance. You may shut them down once, twice or one hundred times, but they will prevail.
If indeed a culture of hooliganism (or whatever you want to call it) is growing in the U.K., then the reasons behind this trend need to be examined and addressed.
I know this sounds idealistic and not particularly practical to those who are living the problem, but this is Big Shit that will define your culture in the mid- to long-term. So if this burns karma on me, so be it.
BTW, I'm a Canadian social democrat, not a /. libertarian. Believing in collective social values does not map onto embracing a culture and government that enages in daily surveillance of Joe and Joan Citizen.
On a pessimistic day, it seems to me that we've already lost the war for privacy on a global level. But fuck it, I'm not giving up on fighting against cameras in my town's downtown core. Our local downtown business association has been lobbying to install just such a system for three or four years now, offering to pay the upfront capital cost if the municipality takes on the maintenance and upkeep. Every time it comes up, I write to and phone my city council representative, and write the downtown biz association telling them I fall right in their target demographic and have too much disposable income for my own good, and that their membership will never see another penny of my money if they push this initiative. The chickenshits have *never* responded.
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
That would be "behaviour", mate.
DT
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
While we have more CCTV cameras than any other country, this means that even criminals caught on film go about unhindered. The cops are too lazy to look at the footage and follow up the crime, even if you try and press charges (whether it's footage you hand them from your business CCTV, public footage on a street CCTV cam or footage from a private CCTV cam - e.g. run by the local estate in the case of a privately managed housing complex).
In the defense of the police, even if they do catch them, they know (as do we) that it's a waste of time as they will be right back on the streets - we don't have any room in our jails (see the recent debacle about moving to 'prison ships' as an emergency measure to increase capacity) and so the judges - who are complicit in following 'goverment recommendations' that suggest not putting people in jail - will turn them free with some 40 hours community service at best.
So, we have one of the highest prision populations in Europe with the most street surveillance, but our streets are still full of hooligans and the police are unwilling to go after anything that isn't a glamerous / high profile crime (like arresting drug dealers, murderers, etc). The big problem we have is that successive governments seem to think installing CCTV cameras helps, which it manifestly doesn't.
I actually like the vagaries of our legal system, in that they are generally applied sensibly. European legislation also helps counter-act it by protecting the rights in the individual in a number of ways.
I agree with you on the 'moving to Canada' idea. As a less drastic option, maybe now the SNP (Scottish National Party) are in charge in Scotland (barely) and are keen to establish independence I can move up north (assuming they spend money on more sensible things, which they claim to be keen to do).
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgsJU2d45Y [youtube.com]
It shows at least 10 police setting up a sting operation to bust people for minor amounts of marijuana. The video shows the police arresting someone for attempting to purchase $10 of pot. When confronted by the police most of the people stop and put their hands up. The police then proceed to tackle from a full speed run. The people are pinned down and arrested. Now this is someone i want to see police do to violent criminals. Confront them, tackle them if they flee, book them and prosecute them. But what is this all about? Now i don't want to bring up the legality of marijuana other than this video is of very minor criminals who are having LOTS of police money spent in chasing them.
Police are supposed to enforce ALL laws regardless of their personal feelings and that is fine. This however is a waste of money. I don't want to dwell on one video too much because this aggressive attitude is all over. Tons of money is being spent in America setting up CCTV systems for police. Traffic lights are getting cameras put in place to enforce minor traffic laws. I realize there is a safety issue but that is really not what is at stake here. The police enforce more crimes that make them money (traffic tickets, drug charges where they can seize cash and property) and they spend less time on the safety of society as a whole. The police are underfunded and overstressed which leads to some meathead cops blowing off steam by roughing up marijuana users. The whole thing is very sad for the police and the criminals but the ones who really lose out are the normal members of society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the UK, the huge crowd of cops involved would probably get fired for that.
Re:well (Score:4, Insightful)
But the big winner is the prison industry, for which these laws were designed to benefit. The law isn't about justice. It's about generating revenue. The only relation it has to society is its ability to squeeze more money out of that society. So, in some places you will spend more time in prison for drug law violations while they tell you that they are too full to incarcerate somebody for assault on a child [news24.com]!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now i don't want to bring up the legality of marijuana
Why not? Why is any money spent on marijuana enforcement? Couldn't those ten cops with the sting operation have been out patrolling somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* this is not necessarily directed at the OP
* I don't live in the US, I don't live in the UK
* this is not a political comment
Now, this one bit always irked me badly whenever I would see something on
HOW THE HELL does one manage to get "PUBLIC places surveillance" and "PRIVACY concerns" in the same sentence, refering
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No they can't: in England only a court may impose a fine, anything else is just a Penatly Charge Notice with an intent to prosecute if you refuse to pay.
The 1689 Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] says that Englishmen have freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally don't think that head mounted cameras are the way to go, but these cameras are more about stopping parking disputes for wrongly issued tickets. I know that the parking attendants are on a target based system, so are very likely to blanket ticket an area because there is no recource for the driver. I think these cameras will help this problem out a lot, and stop these idiots from fining a random vehicle just to make target. Believe me, a £40 ($80) parking fine for doing nothing wrong is not nice.
I am more concerned about the 100's of camera that appear over night covering the entire of the Eccles/Manchester region. There is some serious invasion of privicy going on that makes me less than comfortable. I did a small counting excercise while I travelled into work... I can see over 40 cameras during my work journey. Scary.
I say we should all ask for the footage of us on camera under the Data Protection Act and swamp the government/businesses with stupid amounts of administrative paperwork.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was thinking of doing this and encouraging others to do so, but at £10 a go it soon gets pricey
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before the US catches up with the UK (Score:3, Interesting)
From their site:
Re:well (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More, more, more. (Score:4, Interesting)
now what i've seen is that migrant workers coming from poorer regions are the cause of most of the street crime, the same for england, the immigrants after a better life for themselves, where would i live today? well i'm still in china almost 10 years later.
the camera's wont deter problems, they'll only cause an uprising. social change will. better education that isn't led by an agenda and plenty of things that keep younger people interested and challenged will stop a whole lot more.
only reason i participated in most of what i did in this small village, was from boredom.
give people back the right to make their own choice, how ironic is that from someone who chooses to live in a communist country? well I've seen the best of both worlds, and I've also found myself to have more control over what i can and cant do in communist china. especially in a protected city such as shanghai, oh and i rarely get bored, but then i work for 2 companies and run 2 of my own businesses.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An improving economy (remember Clinton? government surplusses? jobs? reasonable oil prices? etcetera?) coincided with Giuliani's years in office and, like improved economies always do, led to lower crime.
But Giuliani is a master at taking credit for stuff he didn't do (some of us have long memories and remember his crap even way back when when he was in the Manhattan District Attorneys office).
Maybe he should forget about the presidency and go back to repeatedly charging $12,000 a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly so, the problem is lawyers (Score:4, Informative)
The US model was rooted in a very different society. In the UK, the lawyers are behaving like US lawyers, challenging everything, while in general the magistrates and the judges have been more tolerant than they would be in the US. This has caused low level criminals to believe that they can always get off, and leads to the need to have several police involved in even the most minor cases because lawyers will challenge the evidence of a single policeman. In the past they would not, and, while this led to the occasional miscarriage of justice, it did mean that the integrity of the police was very important because bad evidence by one would taint all police.
The headcams are basically a way of circumventing challenges from bad lawyers. As such they are not evidence of a surveillance society, they are evidence of a society where the justice system has been tilted too far in favour of criminals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So they're the equivalent of a "meter maid" (or parking enforcement dude, if you want to be P.C.) in US cities?