Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One? 192
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?"
Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:3)
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:3)
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 officer misconduct, but only if the video is streamed to a third party database that provides access equally to police, prosecution, defendants & reporters. And there are SEVERE penalties for having "accidents" with your video equipment at an "inopportune" time.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3)
This is the case [slashdot.org] that I was referencing specifically. The only thing the man was guilty of was being incapable of following the officers' orders and we all know how authoritative thugs hate it when someone doesn't listen to them. This was not supply second decision making, the man was completely unarmed. This was just a ruthless murderous beating.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas [wikipedia.org] The actual link
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:3)
You can mod it down but it does not make it any less true.
Regardless how much cud you have to chew.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
Thanks dude.
Yes I was venting and made my point more harshly than I would normally, no what I am saying is anything other than what I observe and believe.
Hence not a troll.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
poster is not trolling.
the fact that what he says is UNPLEASANT to hear does not mean he's a troll.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:3)
It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
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.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:3)
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, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?
Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.
Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
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.
Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score:2)
I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
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 eye on them until they're assimilated into the new culture.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:4, Informative)
The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video [digitaltrends.com].
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Funny)
The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video [digitaltrends.com].
Don't most NY cops only have a 30 minute working time followed by a 2 hour donut break. They can use that time to charge the batteries.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.
And, of course, there is no way to connect GG to a much larger battery that hangs on the policeman's belt, alongside with his Taser, his firearm, and a ton of other stuff?
Where there is a will, there is a way.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:3)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:3)
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 - an Ex-approved version, of course - or similar would be a huge improvement over walkie-talkies, which are used nowadays.
You don't have the freedom to keep your workplace activities a secret.
No. "Manna" has as its premise automation, which is unrelated (and already happening). This story is about monitoring.
FACIAL RECOGNITION, not Video Recording. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:3)
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.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:3)
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 be very careful to make sure that nothing incriminating appears in the feeds.
This is surveillance of the cops as well as citizens--souveillance, not just surveillance. Read Contrary Brin to find out what souveilance is. All the conspiracy theorist here need to take their tin foil hats off for a moment and try to understand what this really means.
Re:I'd say Great Idea: You'd be Wrong (Score:2)
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 for police work. The best it could do would be to ship an image of face off to some computer farm in the sky for matching, with results coming back some minutes or hours later.
In fact the ability to take pictures and have maps (hud) would probably be the most beneficial thing it would have to offer, just like it does
for everybody else.
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:2)
Even when the recordings are available on Youtube, the officers are pretty much safe. In many cases, they are suspended *with* pay and keep their jobs or are assigned desk jobs for a while.
Here's the deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Just some thoughts (Score:3)
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.
Re:Just some thoughts (Score:3)
How does editorializing by the author of this piece equate to Google trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs?
Horrible Idea (Score:1)
Judging Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Judging Performance (Score:2)
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.
Re:Judging Performance (Score:2)
I think what we gain from the security of a consistent rule of law, and the protection from the abuse by law enforcement officers, far outweighs the difficulty in having to think through and create reasonable laws. I dont want to trade protection from abuse just because we're to lazy to write correct laws. I don't want the current system of "make everything illegal" + "trust the cops" as the solution for that.
Some type of shoulder, dash cam, or Google-Glass-like device could go a long way towards that. I also think that there can be clear distinction at least when the cops must act and when they cant. Most places seem to have speed limits that are too low causing everyone to drive 5-15 over. But if the chances were high that you would get a ticket for going a few miles per hour over the limit, would you always put yourself in a situation where your are likely to accidentally drive over the limit? I think people would find a natural "buffer" and protect themselves. And speed limits should probably be increased and if the law was consistent and strict, people would find a reasonable speed to travel. Most of the time driving the actual speed limit becomes dangerous when everyone else is going that much faster. Or, specifically regarding speeding, cops could be prevented from pulling someone over unless they were traveling at 15mph or higher over the limit. I don't think it's hard to work out the details.
As for smokers...walking past smokers is a minor nuisance, people should just get over that (IMHO). I recently quit, switching to e-cigs, and people still cough when I walk by. They think I am smoking because my e-cig looks like a cigarette. It is all in their heads (there is no second hand smoke with e-cigs). Second hand smoke only becomes a problem indoors. And any rude smokers should be asked to make way nicely. (I used to always try to keep away from doors to buildings and especially keep my distance from children). But I'm not sure a law is needed here. Smoking is largely on the way out in the US.
As for pot, I think that should be legalized.
As for parking, that is not done by cops usually. And I can't remember a time when parking was ignored as a minor offense. Most towns see those tickets as cash cows.
While I appreciate what you saying, I dont think that is a good enough reason. If the law was applied consistently, people would adjust. Right now people just roll the dice against how much they can get away with. And cops walk around with power they should never have been granted.
Re:Judging Performance (Score:2)
Unlikely because.. (Score:2)
Re:Judging Performance (Score:2)
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....
Re:Judging Performance (Score:2)
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 that the public should be guiding the policing policy :-)
Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. (Score:2)
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 officer can't simply say "we weren't recording during the altercation" or whatnot. You would also be able to see if the camera was activated while approaching someone, then switched off for 5 minutes, and then reactivated and now there is a guy bleeding on the ground. Any arrest made without a complete record, could be tossed out.
Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. (Score:3)
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 them not have it. them having it gives them more power and yet our power is the same or even less, now.
I would propose citizen committes that watch live realtime video feeds of all cops who carry such gear and if there are ever gaps, that cop is recalled back IMMEDIATELY and severe sanctions are brought on him. I don't ever expect our legal system to be this fair and upfront - and that's exactly why I think cops carrying these is a bad idea.
Depends (Score:2)
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.
require them to retain video (Score:5, Insightful)
and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.
Re:require them to retain video (Score:2)
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.
Re:require them to retain video (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Panopticon (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:Panopticon (Score:1)
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)
And if they have nothing to hide, they should have no objection!
Re:Panopticon (Score:2)
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?
Re:Panopticon (Score:2)
ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.
Re:Panopticon (Score:2)
Oops, I hope you are not in business or a tradesman. At least I (hopefully) have a choice in doing business with you.
Good idea (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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).
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
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.
It depends (Score:2)
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.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
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 traffic conditions, ie how dangerous this behaviour is at the time. It shouldn't be about *who* the person is. Now suppose the glasses come up with a bunch of internet accusations against the jaywalker about beating his wife. So the cop decides to go talk to the guy and give him a ticket anyway.
By giving agents *more* information than necessary, it makes it harder or impossible for them to make correct decisions. It's not unlike hiring decisions, say. If every resume has race, religion, and age right next to the name, that's going to influence decisions for the worse. It's extra information, but it should *not* be available to the decision maker.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
it is good (Score:2)
Not too late... (Score:1)
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 are killing Slashdot to silence us.
US5722418
+
US5644363
+
GoogleGlass
+
Acceptance
=
????
If history is any sort of an indicator, any rights we sell today, our children must buy back with blood tomorrow
It should be required (Score:2)
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)
...as long as the citizens can keep on recording on theirs. Fair's fair.
Predictions for public statements from PD (Score:3, Interesting)
"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."
obviously. (Score:2)
I have Glass, and... (Score:1)
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.
Glass is not rugged enough for this usage yet (Score:4, Insightful)
No difference (Score:3)
What the difference between that and 'ooohh shiny Google Glass'?
Related: Stross ended a trilogy early (Score:2)
Hmm... Where have I seen this before? (Score:2)
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.
There's video and then there's smart video (Score:2)
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 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...
Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...
Re:There's video and then there's smart video (Score:2)
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 public records. If the public were not meant to be able to access this data it wouldn't be public. While I'm sure there will be individuals, some of whom won't even be on those lists you mentioned or ashamed of what the web remembers of them, who will object to this instant access on principle I'm struggling to see exactly what that principle is.
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),...
I tend to agree. I would hope, however, that any video they do record is both timestamped and watermarked in some way, so as to provide some level of trust in the veracity of any footage.
...and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.
And this I emphatically agree with. The occasions when certain police officers have forbidden members of the public from filming them, and even removed cameras from them, is just wrong. There is no justification, and any excuse is generally couched in terms of an appeal to authority. That authority does not exist.
Re:There's video and then there's smart video (Score:2)
Any data that police receive should be required to have been sanitized before making it to the cops.
awful idea (Score:2)
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".
Bad idea (Score:2)
Electronic Glasses [youtube.com] can be vewwy vewwy dangerous.
"can send a constant stream of video and audio" (Score:2)
I've heard this claimed before, in other articles about Google Glass. When did Google develop batteries that last forever?
Re:"can send a constant stream of video and audio" (Score:2)
Why not (Score:2)
Sounds like Stross's predictions are true (Score:2)
Or coming true. It'll be interesting to see what else he was right about.
Only under the right circumstances (Score:2)
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.
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:2)
and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!
I've got news for you: Whether a phone is a designer phone or not has zero effect on how well or how badly it renders a web page. What matters is the hardware and software inside the device.
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, are you stupid? It is one of the more popular phones on the market, and there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon.
I can understand people having the occasional toke, even if I don't personally care for it, but I draw the line at people injecting stuff directly into their veins.
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:2)
It seems to be the camera that has made it popular, not the operating system. What happens when android ships on something with over 40mp?
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:2)
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:3)
and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!
Everything runs badly on a Windows Phone®
Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (Score:2)
No, the built in processor can detect how "hip" you are and clocks the CPU according to your hip factor.
See this video for more technical details on this amazing Microsoft invention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:Is it a bad idea? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, my life has led me to a point where I can never trust a cop or have love for law enforcement. I've met good cops, guys who truly believe they can do good with their badge and who often choose not to enforce laws they see as unnecessary (which, unfortunately, is a problem in and of itself). Bless them for trying to do good in society while so many are either apathetic or downright evil.
But, in the end, FTP [urbandictionary.com] because ACAB [urbandictionary.com] and 911 is a Joke [youtube.com]. And I feel like more members of each new generation feel this way than the last, and I hope the powers that be understand they are on a collision course with historical truths, IE, what is outlined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence [wfu.edu] or the opening words of Fighting For Our Lives [scribd.com].
I don't think I want to be in the western world when it collapses. I think we are such a violent bunch that even I might not survive, and I've spent years homeless, did time in Iraq, and so forth. I still don't have faith I'd be able to guide my family through the chaos of a societal meltdown in a culture which is so coddled and takes so much for granted. I think we need to GTFO here and definitely within the next ten years.