skycop 0 #1 January 16, 2017 http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Groups-Concerned-About-Use-of-Police-Body-Cameras-During-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html The ACLU says body cams are to be turned off, unless the officer is taking "action". "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #2 January 17, 2017 Why is asking the government to avoid recording protesters a double standard? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #3 January 17, 2017 skycophttp://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Groups-Concerned-About-Use-of-Police-Body-Cameras-During-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html The ACLU says body cams are to be turned off, unless the officer is taking "action". Good. The police shouldn't be videoing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. That smacks of intimidation and is inappropriate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #4 January 17, 2017 kallend***http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Groups-Concerned-About-Use-of-Police-Body-Cameras-During-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html The ACLU says body cams are to be turned off, unless the officer is taking "action". Good. The police shouldn't be videoing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. That smacks of intimidation and is inappropriate. You guys amaze me. Seriously. You wanted body cameras on all police then you only want them turned on at times when it suits your needs. Next you'll be having kittens because somebody forgot to turn on their camera. In my mind the camera is there to protect the police from bullshit claims of police brutality and to make sure the LEO isn't out of line. It's a win/win. We live in a country that is loaded with surveillance equipment. Is that impinging on your rights as well?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #5 January 17, 2017 airdvr******http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Groups-Concerned-About-Use-of-Police-Body-Cameras-During-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html The ACLU says body cams are to be turned off, unless the officer is taking "action". Good. The police shouldn't be videoing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. That smacks of intimidation and is inappropriate. You guys amaze me. Seriously. You wanted body cameras on all police then you only want them turned on at times when it suits your needs. Next you'll be having kittens because somebody forgot to turn on their camera. In my mind the camera is there to protect the police from bullshit claims of police brutality and to make sure the LEO isn't out of line. It's a win/win. We live in a country that is loaded with surveillance equipment. Is that impinging on your rights as well? This. If we are going to have them, they need to be on 100% of the time. Anything else will inevitably lead to a situation that isn't recorded and should be. Which is totally understandable - because if I was an LEO, the camera would be pretty far down the checklist during a high stress (and potentially deadly) confrontation. It should all be recorded .... but I do think there should be a discussion on policy regarding how to secure all of that data so that it can't be abused in some way.BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #6 January 17, 2017 HalfpastninerIf we are going to have them, they need to be on 100% of the time. Anything else will inevitably lead to a situation that isn't recorded and should be. This. If nothing happened during the demonstration, then the video can be erased. But if something does happen, we need the video. I have a dashcam in my car. It is on anytime the engine is running. I don't turn it on only when I anticipate having a traffic accident."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #7 January 17, 2017 airdvr******http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Groups-Concerned-About-Use-of-Police-Body-Cameras-During-Inauguration_Washington-DC-410581715.html The ACLU says body cams are to be turned off, unless the officer is taking "action". Good. The police shouldn't be videoing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. That smacks of intimidation and is inappropriate. You guys amaze me. Seriously. You wanted body cameras on all police then you only want them turned on at times when it suits your needs. Next you'll be having kittens because somebody forgot to turn on their camera. In my mind the camera is there to protect the police from bullshit claims of police brutality and to make sure the LEO isn't out of line. It's a win/win. We live in a country that is loaded with surveillance equipment. Is that impinging on your rights as well? I'm with you on this one. Having to turn them on and off means they would be worthless.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,119 #8 January 17, 2017 The one problem I can see with their being on all the time is someone going over them forensically later to find people doing wrong. Kind of like instant replay. Not that I condone doing wrong and not getting caught, but I'd imagine two likely end results: 1. A big analysis program that costs lots of money and has storage and retrieval issues 2. Eventual targeting of individuals "because they're against" the police, the mayor, whoever. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #9 January 17, 2017 ryoder***If we are going to have them, they need to be on 100% of the time. Anything else will inevitably lead to a situation that isn't recorded and should be. This. If nothing happened during the demonstration, then the video can be erased. But if something does happen, we need the video. I have a dashcam in my car. It is on anytime the engine is running. I don't turn it on only when I anticipate having a traffic accident. I don't agree. Cops need bathroom breaks. Cops need breaks in which they can discuss office issues etc. Cops deal with situation which should not be recorded: Child abuse, people in very vulnerable situations etc. 100% on is not the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #10 January 17, 2017 airdvr We live in a country that is loaded with surveillance equipment. Is that impinging on your rights as well? I have no problem with a private citizen doing that on their own property. 100% Government surveillance 100% of the time? Maybe you should re-read some George Orwell.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #11 January 17, 2017 THIS is were the country is at. We don't believe the LEO if there is a white cop that kills a black man - so the video damn sure better be on.... in a sad way AND I MEAN SAD....for the most part if the video equipment knew it was a white office and black man and TURNED on we'd have the best of all worlds because the ONLY thing BLM and the press cares about is that circumstance.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #12 January 17, 2017 mirage62THIS is were the country is at. We don't believe the LEO if there is a white cop that kills a black man - so the video damn sure better be on.... in a sad way AND I MEAN SAD....for the most part if the video equipment knew it was a white office and black man and TURNED on we'd have the best of all worlds because the ONLY thing BLM and the press cares about is that circumstance. I have no problem with a LEO turning on his camera when planning to confront a suspect. Routine surveillance of law abiding citizens going about their lawful business, especially if that is business protected by the 1st Amendment - that I have a problem with.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #13 January 17, 2017 kallend I have no problem with a LEO turning on his camera when planning to confront a suspect. And there is the catch. They won't be going to a demonstration planning to confront one, but things can escalate in seconds. Quote Routine surveillance of law abiding citizens going about their lawful business, especially if that is business protected by the 1st Amendment - that I have a problem with. One of the arguments for allowing citizens to video the police, is that it takes place in public. What is good for the goose..."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #14 January 17, 2017 ryoder*** I have no problem with a LEO turning on his camera when planning to confront a suspect. And there is the catch. They won't be going to a demonstration planning to confront one, but things can escalate in seconds. Quote Routine surveillance of law abiding citizens going about their lawful business, especially if that is business protected by the 1st Amendment - that I have a problem with. One of the arguments for allowing citizens to video the police, is that it takes place in public. What is good for the goose... So we have different views of the cost/benefit ratio. Fair enough. Just remember that routine surveillance of the people was a feature of Stalin's USSR and Honecker's GDR.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #15 January 17, 2017 QuoteOne of the arguments for allowing citizens to video the police, is that it takes place in public. What is good for the goose... I agree. Ubiquitous surveillance can surely be used to limit someone's First Amendment rights. But until that happens using police body cameras, it's a theoretical problem, as opposed to the real problems that they can help solve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #16 January 17, 2017 kallend So we have different views of the cost/benefit ratio. Fair enough. Just remember that routine surveillance of the people was a feature of Stalin's USSR and Honecker's GDR. I can see your side of the argument, but in the case of cops attending a demonstration, if things escalate, we have an armed LEO who is authorized by the state to use force. I would rather have actual video of what happened, rather than two conflicting verbal accounts from the two sides."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #17 January 17, 2017 billvonQuoteOne of the arguments for allowing citizens to video the police, is that it takes place in public. What is good for the goose... I agree. Ubiquitous surveillance can surely be used to limit someone's First Amendment rights. But until that happens using police body cameras, it's a theoretical problem, as opposed to the real problems that they can help solve. Removal of a president by the process of trial after impeachment hasn't happened either, so it's purely theoretical too. We still consider it important.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,391 #18 January 17, 2017 >Removal of a president by the process of trial after impeachment hasn't happened >either, so it's purely theoretical too. We still consider it important. I agree it's important. It is a question of which is MORE important - and to me, monitoring police (and demonstrator) misconduct is more important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #19 January 17, 2017 SkyDekker******If we are going to have them, they need to be on 100% of the time. Anything else will inevitably lead to a situation that isn't recorded and should be. This. If nothing happened during the demonstration, then the video can be erased. But if something does happen, we need the video. I have a dashcam in my car. It is on anytime the engine is running. I don't turn it on only when I anticipate having a traffic accident. I don't agree. Cops need bathroom breaks. Cops need breaks in which they can discuss office issues etc. Cops deal with situation which should not be recorded: Child abuse, people in very vulnerable situations etc. 100% on is not the answer. Same issue with aircraft cockpit voice recordings. Doesn't stop aircrew from discussing pretty much everything. 100% on. The preamble and distractions of participants may or may not be contributing factors to a accident or event. If nothing happens its nothing but data in a cloud that gets erased at some point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #20 January 17, 2017 QuoteSame issue with aircraft cockpit voice recordings. No, not the same. Not even close. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #21 January 17, 2017 Phil1111 If nothing happens its nothing but data in a cloud that gets erased at some point. Funny how often stuff that should have been erased turns up at inopportune moments.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #22 January 17, 2017 SkyDekkerQuoteSame issue with aircraft cockpit voice recordings. No, not the same. Not even close. What like pilots don't talk union issues. F**k up management issues in the cockpit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #23 January 17, 2017 Phil1111***QuoteSame issue with aircraft cockpit voice recordings. No, not the same. Not even close. What like pilots don't talk union issues. F**k up management issues in the cockpit? Sure. They aren't on video. Nobody in their organization has access to the recordings. They don't get videotaped taking a piss or shit. They don't videotape the aftermath of a rape of a 10 year old. etc. etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 910 #24 January 17, 2017 AFAIK cameras are generally not allowed in bathrooms in situations where they can be viewed by the opposite sex. Anytime there is the option for cameras to be turned off there is the opportunity to miss an event. Or miss what leads up to an event. An acquaintance was telling me about the cameras that his heavy truck has. The camera tracks eye movements and head movements. In addition to all the other parameters of operation. If it detects sleepiness. Where the eyelids close for more than 1/2 second and a corresponding drop in the head occurs. It sounds an alarm and its recorded. If two events occur in a singe shift, head office is notified. More than two notifications and head office sends someone to have a "talk". Keep it up and you're fired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 January 17, 2017 ryoder I would rather have actual video of what happened, rather than two conflicting verbal accounts from the two sides. this - body cams are not a one side only protection. 1 - proof that lets us protect citizens from bad cops and abuse of authority 2 - proof that lets us protect cops from bogus accusations and staged conflicts (it might surprise some to recall that cops are also citizens and people too.....) potential 2ndary uses I'm not in favor of (marketing, ad placement, blackmail, personal entertainment, political leverage, picking up chicks, facebook live streaming, etc etc etc) 2ndary I 'might be in favor of (refining police processes and policy, training, public relations between police and those they serve) I find it weird when people argue for cams for one purpose and not both. Both happen. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites