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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 o
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
poster is not trolling.
the fact that what he says is UNPLEASANT to hear does not mean he's a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.
Re: (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: (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,
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd say Great Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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
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: (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: (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 b
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely because.. (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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
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: (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 off
Re: (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 the
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: (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.
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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 ar
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
Re: (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
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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 [youtube.com]