Watching the Police: Will Two-Way Surveillance Reduce Crime? 309
An anonymous reader writes "As surveillance technologies have matured in both their sophistication and usage, some are starting to ask the question: is it time we start using them to watch the watchers? The proliferation of dashboard cameras has reduced liability costs, provided valuable evidence, and made police officers safer. The next progression would naturally be for the camera to move out of the car and onto the officer's uniform itself. In The Verge appears a fascinating report about the company behind the non-lethal stun guns that have become commonplace around the world, Taser International, which has set out to transform policing once again – this time, with Axon Flex, a head-mounted camera with a twelve-hour battery life that officers can use to record interactions. The device is constantly on, but it only captures video of the thirty seconds before its wearer begins using it, and then both video and audio while police are speaking to a citizen. Footage is then uploaded to a cloud-based service where it can be accessed by the police department. It includes an audit trail to reveal who has accessed the information and when."
Re:The ONLY Way this should work is... (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps even send the raw footage to the AFL-CIO
Nitpick, but I assume you mean the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [aclu.org], not the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) [aflcio.org]...
Re:Crime isn't what concerns me (Score:5, Informative)
The proposed devices record constantly, but they throw away the video after 30 seconds unless the officer triggers them to keep it. That's not "recording at all times"; it's "recording when the officer chooses to record".
The police have the same incentives as the public for selective recording. They also "aren't recording for the sake of having a complete and accurate record of events". They're recording to have something to justify their actions and preserve their jobs. They're not going to record if their actions aren't in fact justified, at least not except by mistake.
If they're recording selectively, then there'd better be others recording to take up the slack. If both "sides" have the ability to record, then you have a chance that at least one recording will get out when there's a matter of public interest. One might hope that both recordings would get out.
The alternative would be continuous recording even when neither side thinks it's a good idea. I'm not sure I want to live in that world.
Re:It was predicted 20 years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Strangely, the scenarios presented were placed 20 years in the future. Posted in 1993, then-revolutionary Wired Magazine got it exactly, dead on. [wired.com]
Actually, in 1990 then-science-fiction-author and some-time Wired Magazine contributor David Brin got it exactly, dead on [wikipedia.org]. He just kept on writing about it for several years after that.