UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras

First time accepted submitter Voxol writes "From the international capital of CCTV cameras now comes the latest innovation: always-on police-mounted night-vision capable cameras. 'I can't imagine that there is any downside to having such an invaluable piece of kit like this on hand' say police."

But... But...

[Greyfox]

How are you supposed to bludgeon suspects mercilessly?

Ah, they have to download them onto a computer! Sadly the victim's resisting arrest appears to have badly damaged the camera. We were unable to recover any video from it. NOW I don't see any down sides!

I believe all police activity should be filmed

[BenJCarter]

To cut down on the "he said she said" and reduce the ability of police to lie. Pictures or it didn't happen. Or at least their testimony is more open to reasonable doubt.

Probably won't prevent police brutality

[Nyder]

Police wear the cameras on the front of their stab vests and after attending an incident download the footage captured onto a computer where if needs be it can be transferred onto a DVD to be presented as evidence in court.

Seems that since it's all in the police hands, they can make it disappear pretty quick also. So unless they have no way of tampering/deleting the video in the camera, my guess is they will just delete what makes them look bad.

Re:all for it...

[techno-vampire]

Unfortunately, it's a rather one-sided protection, as the police would never show videos in which they'd appear to have abused their powers.

I don't know how things work in GB, but in the USA, the defense can subpoena the footage and, if they feel it would help, can submit it to the court themselves as evidence. And, I'd hope, any police claims that the video has been lost or not properly preserved would go a long way toward refuting their claims.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Samantha Wright]

It's still a step in the right direction—it's no longer the police's word vs. the suspect's, but "the police officer says he was having convenient technical difficulties at the same time his account of the incident is in conflict with the suspect's." It looks worse in court, since police will be more than happy to produce video when they are innocent. This is much better than no camera at all.

Wish this happened in the US.

[flimflammer]

I actually think this is a step in the right direction. They should make it something that can't be tampered with by anyone, police or otherwise. I'm not sure how it works over in the UK but that kind of footage could be subpoenaed in the US if it's available and used for your defense, so it wouldn't be a tool only for police officers. If police are often reporting malfunction or missing footage in cases where their work ethic is being called into question, surely that can't look good for long in a court of law.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Urkki]

I was really hoping that this incident of police brutality was caught on video so as to prove my innocence, but unfortunately we've run into a hardware problem.

First step is having cameras. If there is a high rate of tampered cameras, next step will be more tamper proof cameras. Also, same officer always having camera malfunctions sounds like something many officers would want to avoid, for fear of internal investigation. If there's any chance of catching hell for being a bad cop, it will have a chilling effect.

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[Imrik]

How about a data retention policy to delete any video not flagged as evidence. Make sure the retention time is less than it would take for a citizen to file the legal paperwork against an officer that would get it flagged.

Re:EASY steps

[ledow]

1) Those steps aren't "easy". They involve conscious, thoughtful decisions at every point in your life and no mistakes.
2) That doesn't stop you appearing - in fact, it makes you more suspicious and thus worth investigating. Absence of data is a data point in itself - any old spy movie would tell you that. The guy who exists but has no records, no data, no phone? Yeah, we'll look into him first.
3) You're paranoid if you ACTUALLY do that.
4) As someone whose just trawled their Slashdot history going back years while looking for a particular post I made, I can tell you that I've crowed on these forums multiple times about everything from Guantanamo Bay, the government treatment of Alan Turing, the fact that I have an interest in cryptography, the stupidity of people who can't work out to encrypt data properly, even "potential terrorist scenarios" (i.e. if terrorists are so bright, why did they do X, leave trail Y, or not do Z?).

If the above targets me for interest, then I would be in deep, deep trouble already. Maybe I have been flagged already. Who cares? The fact is that I'm not doing anything that any random, thoughtful person isn't doing anyway - and I have zero intention of causing harm. And it's basically my country's intelligence services job TO FIND THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THAT, but most importantly to SORT THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF.

I once considered applying for jobs with MI5 and GCHQ. I'm a maths and computer science graduate, with an interest in cryptography, and they were advertising positions for exactly that. It seemed like an avenue worth looking into.

I didn't, mainly because 1) I disagree with militarisation of anything I do (a conscientious objector, you could say) and 2) I disagree with an awful lot of the military decisions made by my country (still "backing" the US and their illegal torture programs in Guantanamo, for instance - OOPS! I did it again!). Though I love the work of Turing, I don't love that it probably ended up, indirectly, killing people too. Sinking U-boats, things like that. Yeah, they were the enemy, and it was better than the alternative (i.e. more people dying), but still it's military action.

But if I'd applied seriously, with those organisations I would quite expected someone to dig around on the net and find these things out about me by themselves. That's their damn job, and they wouldn't want to be letting people like me in - people who place their own morals above that of orders from above. If someone tells me "shoot/kidnap/kill/injure him", my first question would be "What? Why? Is he about to do the same to me?" (unless I'm playing Counterstrike, in which case he'll be missing his head before you finished the sentence).

This is what they do. This is what they have to do. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. It's very easy to get the wrong people into a place that you don't want them to be. Hell, there's a CIA agent in the news at the moment telling everyone their secrets because he disagrees with how they function. That could be me, in the same position.

You have nothing to fear but driving yourself crazy trying to avoid the things you fear. "I don't like surveillance" leading to absolute paranoia that infests your daily life and stops you meeting up with friends? Yeah, the worst of two evils, I think.

That's not to say that I support a surveillance state (but, if I support ANY element of a surveillance state, it's to have constant, recorded surveillance of police and military procedures so that there is NO element of doubt when it comes to questions of justice being served and law enforcement following the law - hell, what I wouldn't give to have proper footage of some of the greater terrorist incidents that have been reported released, and even parts of the "war on terror"), or spying, or anything else.

There's a lot more wrong in this world than a few cameras here and there. In fact, I'd say there aren't ENOUGH cameras in the right places. Imagine how different the world would be right now if ever

Re:Oops - wire must have come loose.

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'd be happier if it were touted (and designed!) as such: a tool to protect the public as well as aid the police. The camera itself might still fail to work (intentionally perhaps), but if it does work, the video should be uploaded to secure storage immediately and treated as evidence, i.e. the coppers shouldn't be able to conveniently "lose" the footage.

Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed

[ConfusedVorlon]

the shocking thing isn't so much that there are incidents where things go bad. As you say, there are lots of police, and lots of incidents - there will be some where things go wrong. The shocking thing is that there is almost never any consequence for the brutal officers.

Instead, the whole thing gets brushed under the carpet - sending a clear message to other officers that they are free to abuse their power without consequence. I have personally experienced officers casually lying in their statements to cover up a fairly minor offence by one of their own against me. Whilst most officers probably don't indulge in gratuitous brutality; It seems that most officers will not step in to stop it, or report it when they see it.

If the occasional 'bad act' resulted in all the officer's colleagues roundly condemning the actions and the discipline system enforcing significant punishment then I would start to believe that these were acts which did not represent the body of police as a whole.

Regarding the teenager incident you mention - this is actually a great case. Even if an office has been hit and knocked unconscious by a brick - the job of the arresting officers is to capture the teenager with a minimum of force and allow the legal system to administer justice. That's their job. However understandable their desire to give the kid a beating - it is not acceptable. They have a great deal of power and need to show restraint even (especially) when provoked.

Closed-Circuit Tele Vision Cameras

[Barryke]

CCTV this means that camera footage is streamed live to a TV.

Is that what the English Custodian helmets are for, a satellite dish?
What does the RF antenna model helmet look like?

I recon not, and they meant to equip the bobby's with a video camera instead.