Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Government Privacy Hardware

Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One? 192

Posted by timothy
from the depends-when-it's-conveniently-turned-off dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Earlier this week, news reports leaked that the NYPD is evaluating whether to give its officers Google Glass for investigations and patrols. Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians, suggested that the NYPD must have purchased the units on its own initiative, rather than partner with the company. Some pundits and many civil libertarians hate the idea of law enforcement wearing Google Glass or other electronics that can send a constant stream of video and audio to a government (or even third-party) server. But at the same time, wearing Google Glass could also compel cops (and other law-enforcement personnel) to be on their best behavior at all times, particularly when it comes to use of force; the prospect of instantly available video detailing every aspect of an officer's shift could prove a powerful incentive to behave in a courteous and professional manner. But that's a very broad assumption; the reality—if cops really do start wearing Google Glass and other video-equipped electronics in large numbers—will likely end up determined by lots and lots of lawsuits and court-actions, many of them stemming from real-world incidents. Do you think cops should have Google Glass and other wearable electronics? And if so, what sort of regulations could be put in place to ensure that such technology isn't abused by the powers that be?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One?

Comments Filter:
  • by Spy Handler (822350) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:15PM (#46198241) Homepage Journal

    and anything it sees that's in your favor, they can just discard.

    That's how it works currently when it comes to other kinds of evidence, no reason to think Glass data will be any different.

    • by DoninIN (115418) <don.middendorf@gmail.com> on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:26PM (#46198295) Homepage
      I'm a bit paranoid when it comes to this sort of abuse by those in power. If the data is streamed back to "police Hq" then there is a layer of oversight there to reduce the abuse, it's not about whether or not the deputy who decided he didn't like the look of you decides to ignore or delete this information, it requires a larger conspiracy by those who are supposed to responsible and accountable, and those who didn't make some mistake or abuse their power to begin with, so it's not unlike dashcams for policemans hats. Also seeing this article with the XKCD extension that replace Google Glass with Virtual Boy made me smile.
      • by Belial6 (794905)
        It is painfully clear that the level of conspiracy to destroy evidence has been well entrenched at every level of virtually all police departments for a very long time.
        • by Meski (774546)
          If it's going to be used in court cases, give the judiciary charge of the cloud servers the Glass reports back to. If the judiciary is corrupt, then you're totally fucked.
      • In some cases you would be right, there are definitely cases where a department acknowledged that there had been misconduct and was open with the fact & any evidence they had. However there are also MANY cases (Michael Deherra Beating, Hollywood FL framing, etc) where there were obvious instances of personnel not involved with the misconduct covering for those misbehaving by destroying and/or editing evidence. On officer video could have very positive impact on both punishing criminals and punishing o

      • by ganjadude (952775)
        fuck it, lets stream it live!
    • by TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:26PM (#46198297)

      They don't need to discard it. Very few officers have ever been charged with murder while on duty regardless of whether or not there's video evidence and/or tons of witnesses.

      Even if you, say, bash an innocent homeless man's face in, tase him repeatedly as he screams for help, and pile six officers on him until he suffocates.

    • by MrBigInThePants (624986) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:34PM (#46198351)

      Or they could just ignore the public and do whatever the fuck they want like they currently do.

      Remember that only INDIVIDUALS get punished when they don't line up with policy and then get paraded about as the system working well.

      I still laugh when the plebs suggest that they can have a say in how anything in america goes does.

      They will or will not use this as they please and there is not a fucking thing you can do about it.

      Be a nice bovine and go back to being farmed for your productivity and wages like a good little citizen.

      • You can mod it down but it does not make it any less true.

        Regardless how much cud you have to chew.

      • poster is not trolling.

        the fact that what he says is UNPLEASANT to hear does not mean he's a troll.

    • by bondsbw (888959)

      It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.

      • by jc42 (318812)

        It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.

        Oh, I dunno, you could say the same thing about guns, and you'd be wrong.

    • by Marful (861873)
      Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.

      Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.

      So the question becomes,
    • by drolli (522659)

      Yes, thats also what i thought. If they use it the precautions should be not against turning it on but turning it off at a convenient point in time. If they really stream everything without interruption to the police car which records it, and the cops cant even turn the system off then they like to, then its fine with me.

  • I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GerryGilmore (663905) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:15PM (#46198243)
    This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.
    • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:24PM (#46198289) Homepage Journal
      As Spy Handler suggested, the bar would only be raised as high as the chief of police's scruples. Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.
      • by ultranova (717540)

        Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.

        Sadly, no. Some bad cops get paid in money and some get paid in the security and convenience of doing nothing about it. It's the culture - the spirit - of the organization itself that becomes corrupt. Simply replacing some personnel won't purge it; you have to destroy the organization by moving the less-corrupt members into other, healthy departments in a dispersed manner, and keeping an

        • by Belial6 (794905)
          That would imply that there are healthy departments, or even enough healthy departments. At the current state of things, it is more likely that the corrupt would so outnumber the good that you would just end up breaking the oddball uncorrupt departments that may exist.

          You are right though about not being able to just fire the Chief. It's not like a new Chief of Police could walk into the department and fire/suspend 90% of his staff.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:32PM (#46198331)

      The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video [digitaltrends.com].

    • by bluFox (612877)
      What you don't get, is if this succeeds, what is to prevent our employers from insisting that each of us wear it while we work? If your argument is that we will somehow restrict it to cops, what differentiates cops from other government employees (facing similar flak - either for not working full time, or inefficiency and such) Is raising the bar on cops worth it to lose this freedom? You may want to read this short story which has such a thing as its premise. http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]
      • Errr... A) being police, they are rightfully held to a much higher standard of accountability (how many teachers pack iron and have the latitude to use said iron?) B) being public employees, have arguably less rights in this area than other workers and C) the old slippery-slope argument rears its head yet again. :-)
      • Most people are not in a position where they can legally take someones life, so I don't think this is really a slippery slope. Maybe make it a policy that the video can only be accessed if the officer is being investigated for wrongdoing.

        • by phmadore (1391487)
          Why would you want that policy? How about develop software that automatically blurs out faces once the feed hits the public. FOIA, bro.
      • by ultranova (717540)

        What you don't get, is if this succeeds, what is to prevent our employers from insisting that each of us wear it while we work?

        What makes you think that's a bad idea? There are plenty of jobs where this would be a godsend. For example, take a factory. From examining industrial accidents to being able to send live video feed to the maintenance ("is that supposed to be doing that?") to accessing piping schematics to accessing factory's control systems from the field to simply locating people, a Google Glass

    • by Etherwalk (681268) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:59PM (#46198811)

      Google glass for cops is not about video recording. Even if it starts there, it's not about that. It's about facial recognition.

      Every cop being able to know, looking at a person, who that person is, where they work, where they live, whether there are any warrants, what their facebook page says, what political party they are... almost anything big data can generate.

      This is one of the single biggest threats to individual freedoms we have ever seen.

    • A lot of cops already have dash cams they ostensibly don't control. Google Glass would be easier to hack.

      Really, I think the main new thing that would be introduced by cops wearing Google Glass is there'd be a lot of down-the-blouse cleavage shots circulating within the department - thanks to the traffic cops.

    • by fafalone (633739) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @08:02PM (#46199407)
      Just like dashcams right? Instead I think we'll just see 4 Google Glass fail at the same time instead of 4 dash cams failing at the same time, at the exact time abuse is alleged to have occurred.
    • by Thangodin (177516)

      Agreed. Where cops are required to wear surveillance gear, they are on their best behavior, because the video is available in court--this has already been demonstrated in the EU. And that's not up to the chief of police. Your lawyer can demand it. And Google glass feeds to the Google servers, not the police station. Ultimately, the cops don't own it, so they can't just delete or edit what they don't like, they can only modify their copy, which is not the master, which your lawyer can request. So they will b

    • This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

      The summary is pretty much wrong.
      Just because they are wearing it does not mean its recording.
      In fact you really don't have enough storage or bandwidth to record an 8 hour shift.

      There are body-cams especially designed to record police encounters for a full shift, but Google Glass is not one of them.
      So lets put all that nonsense of monitoring the cop away.

      The facial recognition capabilities are something to worry about in the future, but I doubt this is available in real time, at least not real time enough f

  • Here's the deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djupedal (584558) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:17PM (#46198245)
    Just got my glass last week, and the way I see it (pun!), it is ok for the cops as long as it is ok for the public at large too.
  • by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:18PM (#46198257)

    Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians

    I DO NOT MIND if google helps police agencies investigate crimes better by making google glass some type of Minority Report style computer (sans the whole crime prediction thing aspect of the movie).

    I DO MIND if they build government backdoors to my data.

    Not really hard, completely seperate things. But google is trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs.

    • How does editorializing by the author of this piece equate to Google trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs?

  • Yes, it's a horrible idea. End of argument.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:21PM (#46198277)

    My concern would not be that it would compel officers to be on their best behavior at all times, that is something I'd generally look at as a perk. Instead I'd be worried about how we would then judge cops job performance. This could very well remove the cops ability to ignore trivial and insignificant breaches of law that go on around them, as well as giving people a pass. With cops performance already often judged by the frequency of their tickets this could just open a new opportunity to diminish their role as protectors of the people.

    • Shouldnt the law be equally applied? It shouldn't be at the whim of an officer to decide if something is punishable.

      If it's trivial and insignificant, then it shouldn't be illegal. If it is not trivial, then the cop should have to follow up on it. The alternative (what we have now) is that many trivial and insignificant things are illegal and cops can follow up on them at their own whim.

    • ... we already have plenty of cop shows that give us a general idea how officers let others off.. Further, I doubt it will be public record except later, or at hearings, and there will always be exceptions - like maybe detectives, or people who work contacts..
    • by Afty0r (263037)

      Selective enforcement of the law is one of the most harmful possible aspects of policing - the sooner we are rid of it, the better.

      Instead, for small crimes which are rarely prosecuted (because the punishment is crazy high, like littering) we will instead prosecute all instances, and by popular demand reduce the fine to something more palatable....

    • by stiggle (649614)

      Police performance should be judged on the public perception and reporting of crime.
      Its not how many tickets you issue - its how safe the neighborhood feels to the public that live there.
      So if speeding in the neighborhood is an issue the public have then that is one of the areas the police should tackle, if the public aren't worried about the traffic then the police shouldn't be concentrating on speeding tickets and should look at those areas where the public are highlighting issues.

      I know, its a crazy idea

  • by jcochran (309950) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:25PM (#46198291)

    I don't see a problem with the police using Google Glass provided that if they do, the use is non discretionary and that the unedited video is provided in full upon demand by the public or accused. After all, we don't want the police turning off their glass if they're about to do something questionable. And we don't want anything that's in the favor of the accused to be discarded because it's "not relevant"

    • by Pikoro (844299)

      Along the same lines, how about the "metadata" is put up on a public website immediately. For example, as soon as one of the police cameras start recording, there would be a log entry on a public website which would show activation time, officer who activated the camera, and termination time, plus a checksum for the newly completed video. That way, when evidence is needed, we can tell if the video has been edited/altered, and there is also a public record of who and when the camera was used. Then the off

    • there are dashcams and cams inside jails and, well, more often that you or I would want - the video data 'goes missing'. how convenient!

      until that is a zero-occurrence situation, we have a LOT to worry about due to this imbalance. if we are defending ourselves, the video never goes missing. if the cop is being charged with breaking the law, the video goes missing more often than it should.

      until there are severe FINES and JAIL TIME for 'video that goes missing', this is a huge imbalance and I'd rather the

  • If they are just wandering around recording everything they see, its bad. If they are going to limit to recording 'interactions' then its not much worse than dash cams.

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:30PM (#46198317)

    and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

    • by Nkwe (604125)

      and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

      And if for some reason the video gets "lost" or "corrupted", require that none of the video for a week before and a week after the "lost" video can not be used as evidence.

      • by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @06:32PM (#46199013)

        I don't see that going through the court.

        That said, maybe the real solution is for everyone to have cameras running on them all the time.

        We've been amused of late by motorists in Russia sharing their dash cams with youtube. Apparently that's a thing in Russia... dash cams. Maybe as we push into the 21st century there is an increasing need for pedestrians to have recording devices on their persons at all times in the event of police harassment.

        • As I understand it, dashcams in Russia are common because the video is used against the uninsured drivers who do hit and runs. The only way to prove damages is to catch the accident as it happens.
  • Panopticon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tokolosh (1256448) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:36PM (#46198365)

    Every single person on the government payroll should wear one, and the video and audio live streamed on the internet.

    Any gaps in the record are presumptive evidence for employee malfeasance, and public innocence..

    • Every single person on the government payroll should wear one...

      Well, maybe just those who write and enforce the rules... And as long as we can record them with our own cameras, I see no problem.

    • Re:Panopticon (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tokolosh (1256448) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:42PM (#46198405)

      And if they have nothing to hide, they should have no objection!

    • That is far more people than you might think.

      Every college student on a project that lives on a government grant?
      Every public school teacher in the classroom?
      Your garbageman that happens to look into your back yard?
      • by Tokolosh (1256448)

        ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.

  • Good idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by twnth (575721) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @04:42PM (#46198409)

    Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

    In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

    Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

    Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

    • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ugen (93902) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:32PM (#46198657)

      I am a "white guy with a job" too, about as law-abiding as anyone can get without becoming a monk - yet I absolutely do not trust police. My (albeit limited) personal experience with police, as well as what I see happening in general, suggests that by a large margin they are no less dishonest, selfish and brutal than general population. However, where general population is held in check by external factors, police have additional "special rights", whether by actual law or by precedent, that make them that much more dangerous.

      May be up there in Canada things are different, but this was my experience in every location in US I lived in.

      That said, I think cameras of any kind on police would be a good thing in most cases, though I suspect they will quickly learn to cope by having batteries run out just in time, or suspects need to be strip-searched every time, which *obviously* would require camera to be turned off for privacy reasons (and, don't you know it, naked suspect is probably more cooperative anyway).

      • Personally, I've had great and horrible experiences with cops. One locked me up just because I was freak (hippie to you outsiders!) and he was pissed about something. Another literally risked his life to save mine. On balance, I do trust the police as a group. Despite the first extreme episode I mentioned, I've found them to be professional, polite, dedicated, sorely underpaid and - considering the crap they have to deal with - resolutely patient.
        • by phmadore (1391487)
          Underpaid? In my experience, they make as much as 5 times the minimum wage, and I this is perhaps why they feel the fines they hand out are reasonable.
    • by dasunt (249686)

      I'm for this if it becomes a regular habit to the point that if there isn't a recording, the case is almost certainly to be dismissed.

      If we can ensure that, then google glass should reduce bad cops and increase the number of good cops. If we can't, then it's just another tool for abuse.

    • Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

      In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

      Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

      Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

      It depends on the department. Different departments have different cultures, and there are a lot of good cops, or cops who are good when dealing with a particular person or issue. (Like responding to certain issues of a white guy with a job.) But there are also a lot of bad cops who will beat the crap out of you because they want to--I've heard specifically of problems in L.A. and Nevada, for example.

    • Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

      The timely arrival of information can interfere with the correct application of decisions. Suppose a cop sees a minor infraction, like crossing the street 50m away from a pedestrian crossing. The choice to go and give that person a ticket or let it go is a function of the

    • by Belial6 (794905)
      I don't know how good or bad things are in Canada, but here in the U.S., being a "white guy" hasn't been protection against corrupt cops in the last 40 years.
  • especially if they are live streaming to the internet where anyone can watch it, that way if the police are guilty of brutality the evidence will be obvious, and on the other side of the coin if the officer is doing his job properly the evidence will be there to clear the officer of any misconduct
  • When the cops are all wearing them, they no longer need us to wear them.

    Edward Snowden seriously fucked up their roll-out schedule--GoogleGlass was meant for us--so now they focus on getting it in place on the people that control us. They are running out of time because of people using websites like Slashdot, sharing information and raising public awareness. Even without Slashdot, YOU can still do the same. Seriously, folks--do you really think they are killing Slashdot on accident? Sheer stupidity? They ar

  • for use in an arraignment at the minimum. A sworn affidavit and the video evidence. it makes any look of impropriety or bias, out of the question. Why on earth would anyone that wants fair and impartial justice oppose this? Especially considering the question of incarcerating someone who's not yet found guilty?

  • Sure (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman (15628) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:15PM (#46198585)

    ...as long as the citizens can keep on recording on theirs. Fair's fair.

  • by b1tbkt (756288) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:29PM (#46198641)
    "I'm sorry, we can't release the officer's Glass-cam video at this time, as it's part of an ongoing investigation."

    "Due to the overwhelming amount of video collected by our officers, we can only retain video streams for n days. Since the incident in question occurred (n+1) days ago, there's simply nothing that can be done to retrieve that data."

    "Our department's forensic computer investigation unit has confirmed that the officer's Glass-cam was malfunctioning on that day and all attempts to recover video from the incident have proven unsuccessful."
  • cops should obviously be recording and recorded at all times. this will make sure that they are not abusing their power. we live in an age where we should expect everything we do in public to be visible on the internet eventually. i dont see any issue with cops being able to record everything they see in public. at least if every cop has video, fewer criminals will get away with crime due to ridiculous reasons.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They don't stay on very well. The weight of them makes them fly off if you turn your head really quickly. Give em to cops and they'll break in the line of duty in a day.

  • by Applehu Akbar (2968043) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:43PM (#46198725)
    But I think that cops should be REQUIRED to use wearable recording devices when in the field. It's a natural, personal extension of the dashcams that are already standard. In fact, absence of a recorded interaction after an arrest should be considered suspicion of evidence tampering.
  • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @05:45PM (#46198729)
    'Glass, or just a head or shoulder mounted camera. Just yesterday, I saw a cop in my local grocery store with a shoulder mounted camera.

    What the difference between that and 'ooohh shiny Google Glass'?
  • As Charlie Stross put it in his announcement [antipope.org], ""Halting State" wasn't intended to be predictive when I started writing it in 2006."

    /. readers may be more familiar with the second book, or at least with the reference in its title: "Rule 34." The main character in that uses a descendant of Google Glass-like technology.

  • Ah yes, Cop Space augmented reality in the book Rule 34. Hopefully, the future won't be like the rest if that novel - though even that would be better than /. Beta.

  • I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence), and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

    However, there are all kinds of issues with Google Glass and other smart video processing being used, not only by cops, but by individuals as well.

    So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined

    • by Whibla (210729)

      So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

      You say this like it's a bad thing. I can't help but think that actual person specific data is a better reason to stop an individual, and subject them to a more detailed scrutiny, than the police basing their decision on race, clothing worn, policeman's intuition, or whatever reason takes their fancy at the time. Once we have granted the police the right to stop and search, giving them the ability to focus on those more likely to be breaking the law is a good thing, surely?

      Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

      I have to say, public records are

      • by Belial6 (794905)
        Specific details like supporting a candidate that they don't like? Or how about specific details like speaking ill of the police union? Maybe, specific data having posted video footage of another cop committing a crime?

        Any data that police receive should be required to have been sanitized before making it to the cops.
  • "Compel cops"

    The idea that this will ever be used in benefit of citizens is laughable. With all of the facial recognition and data aggregation apps coming down the pipe, this is just an easy-button to turn the benign into "probable cause".

    Fortunately, I don't think wearing Shemaghs is illegal in NYC, though it may be when the PC PPansies start pissing themselves when everyman walking down the street "looks like a terrorist".
  • Electronic Glasses [youtube.com] can be vewwy vewwy dangerous.

  • I've heard this claimed before, in other articles about Google Glass. When did Google develop batteries that last forever?

    • by phmadore (1391487)
      About the 50th commenter to miss the fact that cops already wear huge utility belts and they could just add auxiliary batteries to it.
  • They already have equivalents to them, these will just improve the quality of the data. What I want is for all citizens to have access to the live feed.
  • Or coming true. It'll be interesting to see what else he was right about.

  • I would completely support Google Glass on police if (and only if) there are penalties to the participating police departments for 'accidentally' losing the footage or having a 'malfunction'. These two things both sem to happen at a shocking rate whenever a policeman is accused of misconduct.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...