Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United Kingdom

UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras 161

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the comforting-gaze dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras More

UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras

Comments Filter:

  • Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:03PM (#43969541)
    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.

    • Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Samantha Wright ( 1324923 ) on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:44PM (#43969745) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        The problem is that there is no damage to the police's case in court if they claim to have a legitimate reason why the video is not available. On the other hand if you fail to mention something you later rely on in court or if you forget your password it is evidence that you are lying and will be used against you.

        • Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Samantha Wright ( 1324923 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @03:03AM (#43970463) Homepage Journal

          I think it still leaves room for doubt, doubt that previously was much harder to place. If we assume the police are deliberately using (for example) scheduled maintenance windows to commit brutality, and the suspect is not aware the camera is disabled, then due to Bayesian reasoning we can say with certainty that the officer is more likely to be lying even when there's a legitimate technical failure. (Although we have no way of knowing how much more likely without a lot of data that has not yet been made and, anyway, wouldn't be obtainable.)

          • 1. Cop knows the camera is working + suspect expects the camera to be working -> brutality claims easily proven/disproven, both parties have a disincentive to claim brutality occurred
          • 2. Cop knows the camera isn't working + suspect expects the camera to be working -> brutality can't easily be proven, cop knows there won't be any evidence
          • 3. Cop doesn't know the camera isn't working -> as #1

          Obviously there are other factors at work like judgement of character, but the mere fact that the officer would be more confident in being able to get away with brutality should make even legitimate reasons cause a heightened suspicion.

      • Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:19AM (#43970957) Journal
        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:Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rabbitfood ( 586031 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:45AM (#43971085)

        I'm not sure about that. Judging by Hillsborough, De Menezes and Tomlinson, the courts never confuse suspicion with evidence, and are happy to accept almost any account, provided enough police officers deliver an identical version of it (even down to the punctuation, which just shows how well they're trained). Where the absence of video is concerned, the simultaneous and comprehensive failure of CCTV cameras in a given radius (which may, in London, be a few dozen) has become so commonplace in cases where police misconduct is alleged that it's hardly grounds for suspicion.

        In any case, the courts rarely get involved until years later, if at all. In England and Wales, we have an Independent Police Complaints Commission, which deals with all such cases, and which is firmly on the side of justice. Where upsetting incidents occur, the IPCC's job is to issue a press release, an hour or so before any complaint, setting out the results of their inquiry. If an investigation is, despite that, still needed, they usually outsource it to the police force in question, who are better placed to know exactly what they want to have happened. This not only produces quicker results, but insures against the further waste of public money in the courts. It is a system that, bar a few high-profile cases pursued by especially persistent mobs of bereaved troublemakers, has served them all very well for many years.

      • 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.

        Not good enough. Look at the conveniently broken recording hardware that was watching while the Metropolitan Police executed Charles de Menezes on the London Underground. The evidence disappeared and was barely mentioned in subsequent press reports. Unfortunately it is the case that state owned surveillance technology is used almost exclusively to prosecute citizens and rarely as a check on the police.

        • Actually this is a perfect example of how claims of unavailable evidence can help convict police. London Underground reported that [dailymail.co.uk] the cameras were definitely functional, thereby helping to expose the cover-up. If there had been no CCTV cameras in the station, it's probable the final charges wouldn't have been as high as they were.

    • Re:Oops - wire must have come loose. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Urkki ( 668283 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @02:08AM (#43970265)

      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: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )

        Also, same officer always having camera malfunctions sounds like something many officers would want to avoid, for fear of internal investigation

        Why would any officer fear a paid vacation?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Urkki ( 668283 )

          Why would any officer fear a paid vacation?

          Well then, perhaps you should work on that part of your "free" country, mmm? Having the cameras on every officer should make that easier, giving clear numbers of the extent of the hypothetical "camera malfunction" problem, and making it politically easier to get the rules changed, or existing rules enforced better.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Imrik ( 148191 )

      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.

    • Our arrest warning stipulates that anything you say "may be given in evidence." That's both for the prosecution and the defense. As such, evidence they lose is just as bad for them; "Their word against mine" in court is actually quite fairly weighted. No such protection from the opinions of a jury, though.
    • Actually this has been trialled in a few areas now and each area has reported a drop in both police brutality and assaults on police officers.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Which would lead one to wonder, are there really fewer assaults on officers, or is the BS charge of assaulting an officer no longer an option for dealing with "contempt of cop".

        • Likewise I'd like to know the correlation between these cameras and other such crimes like "resisting arrest" and "disorderly behaviour".
    • one cop with one camera this may be true.

      20 cops with 20 cameras, then you've got an argument against the department if 20 cameras fail.

      You should atleast get audio from others along with video from other cops involved in beating your ass.

  • But... But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:14PM (#43969599) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • Meanwhile In Soviet Russia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:15PM (#43969601)

    All russian police cars got equipped with cameras.

    Aimed inwards.

    (At least there is an insight in, and admission of police corruption there)

  • I believe all police activity should be filmed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenJCarter ( 902199 ) on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:15PM (#43969605)
    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.
    • Elvis Costello was the first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watching_the_Detectives_(song) [wikipedia.org] followed then by Montreal http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/02/1243200/montreal-union-wants-a-camera-on-every-policemans-uniform [slashdot.org] and now the UK police. A move in the right direction when used with strict controls on stored images so that the chain of evidence can be assured.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by andrewa ( 18630 )
        If you think "Watching the Detectives" is about police surveillance, then you need to actually listen to the lyrics. It's about a woman that the singer finds so attractive, "pulls your eyes out with a face like a magnet...". Costello once explained the title of the song in an interview, saying he was trying to have sexy time with this lady but she was more interested in "watching the detectives" on TV. Don't get cute...

    • Me too!

      Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.

      And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.

      • Especially when they are peeing in a public restroom, and they get footage of themselves, and anyone else that happens to be there. I expect they will work in mirrors when the officer is washing their hands.

        They're going to have to have people review the footage anyway, they can mark bathroom breaks as such.

        And with no way to turn it for lunch breaks, we can see when they take too long, or are technically off duty and make comments to other cops who are technically off duty.

        That would actually be very useful. Not to make sure they're not taking long lunches, but to make sure they're not committing skullduggery on their lunch time.

    • 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.

      Quite frankly I'm beginning to find the hate directed at police quite disappointing. I mean sure we hear about once or twice a month of a case of police brutality, but then there's 12000 police officers in the UK. Are you surprised that the occasional incident goes bad?

      I think police should be filmed too. The last local case of police brutality was caught on film and run in the news which showed two officers run up to and beat down on some teenager.
      More footage of the same event was released a few days late

      • Re:I believe all police activity should be filmed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ConfusedVorlon ( 657247 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @06:41AM (#43971303) Homepage

        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.

        • 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.

          The problem is the other side of the scale is completely unfair as well. What's the typical punishment for a juvenile assaulting a police officer? A token fine, slap on the wrist, and if they are really unlucky a few days of community service. This will get marked troll but I was really glad that kid got beat down on when I saw what he did.

          Maybe when the law wakes up and makes punishments fit crimes, i.e. don't jail someone for steeling cable, and don't slap someone on the wrist who just performed an unprov

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        Are you surprised that the occasional incident goes bad?

        The problem is that it isn't the occasional incident, it is pretty much par for the course for many officers. There have been quite a few exposes using hidden cameras to film the police at work, being racist and abusive or just speeding for fun with the siren on. People who enjoy inflicting violence on others see the police as the ideal career because it lets them do it legally to people that the general public consider to be scum and fully deserving of a beating.

        On top of that even when the evidence is cle

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kraut ( 2788 )

          Factcheck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

          Manslaughter, at best. If you want to "murder someone for fun" I would suggest striking them in the leg with a baton and then pushing them to the ground is a great way to do that.

          PC Simon Harwood was tried for manslaughter. And not found guilty.

          And then he was sacked for gross misconduct. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627

          Doesn't sound like the police are above the law. At least not in this instance.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

            He went to those protests to fight people, to hit them with his baton while covering his face and his police number badge. He intended to injure people because he enjoyed that sort of thing and to hide is identity to avoid facing the consequences or being identified by his victims.

            He's a murder, and escaped the normal custodial sentence for that crime.

      • If we video tape everything police do, it removes doubt. Too many bad police have not been truthful and it has seriously corroded public trust. It will also provide them with good evidence in day to day operations.

  • Probably won't prevent police brutality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nyder ( 754090 ) on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:19PM (#43969625) Journal

    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: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      At which point you charge them with destruction of evidence. They are claiming a crime was commited, and they destroyed the proof?

  • I'm all for police wearing cameras, provided that they cannot disable them. Unfortunately, it sounds like these can be disabled.

    • I'm all for police wearing cameras, provided that they cannot disable them. Unfortunately, it sounds like these can be disabled.

      Don't think for a minute that the police intend to use the videos to clear suspects of wrongdoing, or to have documented evidence of police abuse that can be used in court.

      It's the other way round: the police want video evidence to prove either that someone was rebellious during their arrest, or that the police didn't abuse them. People often try to blame the police in court to get

      • Re:all for it... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:42PM (#43969733) Homepage
        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.

        • ...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...

          Yeah but the snag is that you must apply for it in a highly nasal voice and a hick accent.

        • Also the UK has no rule against self-incrimination, so failure to present footage that shows one in a bad light can count against someone.

          • My, they teach some interesting things on DeVry's JD program.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales [wikipedia.org]

            • That's an interesting "right to be silent" you point to: you have a right to be silent, except the jury may draw "adverse inferences" if you "fail to give evidence at trial or answer any question". Sounds actually like the DeVry graduates got it right.

              • Essentially your silence doesn't come with the legally-enshrined neutrality it receives under the fifth amendment. "It may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court."

      • There are plenty of scenarios where the concept won't help - or could be misused/abused...

        Having said that, those shortcomings do not invalidate the concept.

        Whenever there are two police officers present, they would need to conspire to turn off their cameras (or delete the footage). That can still happen, but the likelihood will reduce significantly for each additional officer. And it only takes one officer with a healthy conscience to keep their camera rolling.

        I don't think that there is a silver b

      • snip...
        People often try to blame the police in court to get off easy, and the police always has to prove they didn't use undue violence during the arrest. So videos are a good idea.
        snip...

        Hmmm

        Does this actually occur? I know that in the UK, blaming the police would not help a person to get off, indeed it is more likely to increase any sentence. As for the police having to prove they did not use violence / excessive force, the UK courts seem to except to almost always accept the word of the Police regardless of how far-fetched the Police version of events is. It is only when there is overwhelming independent evidence of the violence / excessive force that the authorities / courts look at t

        • I'm not aware of it happening. Maybe a defendant gets off if there's good evidence that the police had a disproportionate racist response or something, but that's just an issue of politics and a condition of making the bad press go away. The only other closest thing I can think of is questioning the probable cause. if the evidence was gathered with probable cause, it can get thrown out.

    • Or how about without video footage suspects automatically go free, in the case of police abuse no footage means officer is guilty.

      Oh wait I forgot I don't live in my idealized fantasy, carry on, beat the public and arrange false charges.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xelah ( 176252 )
      Not being able to disable them does come with a few problems, though - enough that the 'cautious' thing for a force to do is allow it. Police come in to contact with a lot of people who really don't want their identities, locations or information disclosed for very good reasons - from informants to domestic violence victims. Compulsory cameras does risk getting more 'I don't know nuffink' answers and fewer crime reports, not to mention the potential shitstorm if pictures of a celebrity, politician or victim

  • EASY steps (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @11:23PM (#43969647)

    This is worth repeating, there are easy steps to reducing surveillance of your personal life:

    I've moved my stuff off Google,Hotmail and Yahoo. I never used Facebook or the others on the list. You should too. It's the simplest easiest way of removing PRISM rights from the NSA.

    To take yourself off the phone graph, use multiple prepay phones (not just cards), use one for home/private use one for work/business use one for girlfriend etc. Don't mix them up and don't use them repeatedly in the same location. Leave each phone is a single location is the easiest method of breaking the location test. Have a dodgy friend whose always spouting anger at [anything]? Best avoid talking too much to him on the phone.

    The Internet surveillance is far more problematic. Watch what you say online, what for words that can be used against you. Be aware of people who try to take language to the extreme, they're no different than agent-provocateurs planting drugs on protestors. By adding extreme comments to this forum, they gave the NSA the right to dig into every Slashdot users mail as a potential terrorist. Be aware of that game and avoid joining in.

    • "I've moved my stuff off Google,Hotmail and Yahoo....
      ...use multiple prepay phones
      ...Watch what you say online"
      It looks like NSA has already backed you into a corner. Doesn't your story prove that they have too much unwarranted power and should be dealt with, instead of everyone just quietly letting them get away with such atrocious invasion of privacy?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      Problem is I have a life. My friends use Facebook to organize social events, they won't keep up if I change my phone number ever month or two.

      • Problem is I have a life. My friends use Facebook to organize social events, they won't keep up if I change my phone number ever month or two.

        Problem is, I, too, have a life, and I don't have a Facebook account. Are your Facebook friends all so shallow that they wouldn't/couldn't erm, I dunno, PHONE you? or TEXT you? or EMAIL you? or KNOCK ON YOUR FUCKING DOOR?

        This bullshit "I need Facebook or I won't have a life", doesn't indicate a lack of life, it indicates a lack of brain, so yeah, perhaps the same thing.

        cheers,

        • Problem is, I, too, have a life, and I don't have a Facebook account. Are your Facebook friends all so shallow that they wouldn't/couldn't erm, I dunno, PHONE you? or TEXT you? or EMAIL you?

          I like to use Google Voice, some of my friends do not, some use AIM, some use texting only, some use Facebook.

          Why is it any more or less shallow to demand that someone use YOUR particular choice of services (email, text, phone) and not consider that the friends might have their own preferences?

          What if we said "NO PHONE FOR YOU."? How about no texting. I have texting blocked on my phone, are my friends shallow for wanting to use texting? Or preferring it as their primary method of contact?

          Should we all go

    • I never used Facebook or the others on the list.

      Know someone who does? That's enough for them to know you.

    • Re:EASY steps (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @03:50AM (#43970637) Homepage

      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

  • I assume we are beyond the point that anyone can pro-actively watch all available cameras in real time (unless automation is much better than I would guess).

    So, that moves us away from a priori prevention to simply making a posteriori investigation easier, no?

    In other words, yes, you are being "recorded" a lot, but not being "watched". Get over yourself.

    • It's still a little bit creepy.

    • Great so basically we give up all our liberties and get no safety, but at least we can find the terrorists after they blow things up.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Benaiah ( 851593 )
      As computer power increases, facial recognition improves, databases become linked, ai improves we will all be watched. Someone with the right authority could do a search for all footage, location data, internet traffic of an individual. And wham instant blackmail material. Any activist, opposition member could be charged with enough crimes to give them life in prison. Fake tagging someone in a photo, identity theft. Using your partners credit card, fraud. All of this evidence could easily be compiled and us

  • Wish this happened in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flimflammer ( 956759 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @12:43AM (#43969995)

    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.

  • Now this I actually agree with. I don't agree with cameras being everywhere, but an ability to know any Police Officer approaching you can have their choices reviewed on a real record is a good thing. It'll help keep Cops more honest.
  • People always parrot this. The only source is a report based on a survey of two major shopping streets in London and extrapolating from that.

    Now, a busy popular street with several banks, restaurants and shops, most frequently part of a chain, is not representative of all the businesses in London. These include one man businesses, consultants, delivery companies and home businesses which have no need for a CCTV system.

    Even if the count is accurate, no similar survey has been taken of any other city. T
    • King St in Melbourne is the same, lots of violent young drunks on a Friday/Saturday night, therefore lots of cameras. The more violent footage they get on the TV the more it's reputation sinks, the more it's reputation sinks the more cameras they install. It's the same thing as increasing the old fashioned foot patrol, at the end of the day the troublemakers just move to a new location.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stiggle ( 649614 )

      Don't they also include the London Congestion Zone cameras & bus lane cameras & traffic light cameras in their CCTV numbers - after all these are cameras watching the public.

  • Time for me to make a camera-blinding hat, perhaps..?

    http://hacknmod.com/hack/blind-cameras-with-an-infrared-led-hat/ [hacknmod.com]

    • Which very possibly would add the charge of interfering with a police investigation on top of other charges they might have against you.

  • Not new, police have had similar cameras for years (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rHBa ( 976986 ) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:43AM (#43971077)
    The police have had body mounted cameras in the UK for 5 years [dailymail.co.uk].

    The only news here is that they've started using them in Melton (a medium size town in the Midlands) and presumably the tech has improved.

    • presumably the tech has improved.

      Yeah, I guess you could presume. Or, you could try reading all both sentences in TFS. I'll go ahead and spoil the surprise: they're night vision!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rHBa ( 976986 )
        Sorry, I RTFM and it said to never RTFA on Slashdot.

        Of course if you RTFS it does mention the IR capabilities but the summary title and most of the comments here are all about the fact that "UK Police Now Double As CCTV Cameras" which is not news.

  • 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.

  • You can not stop the onslaught of recording devices.
    Spend you energy protecting the rights and usage of said recording devices.
     

  • http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html [goldengryphon.com] explains why universal CCTV cameras might not be a good idea. Or, perhaps _is_ a good idea. You be the judge.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close