A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations • Hacker News Board

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#41

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

> Researchers tracked use-of-force incidents,

This is literally impossible. Researchers tracked reports of use-of-force incidents, which is factually rather different. If you hypothetically have fewer incidents and simultaneously higher percentage reporting of incidents when people are able to see if there's probable evidence supporting their complaints (i.e. the visible presence of a body camera), you could end up with a similar number of reports. This would be especially true when reported incident counts are percentagewise quite low relative to total encounters.

I'm not saying that this is true or even likely. I'm saying that it sounds like they didn't actually learn what they are saying they learned, and if true then that cavalier lack of contemplation is very upsetting.

> The primary outcomes of interest were documented uses of force and civilian complaints

The DC/Baltimore area has had some recent high profile falsification of evidence accidentally caught on camera cases. I notice that it's not discussed. Maybe catching when police plant evidence is a legitimately worthwhile endeavor.

Besides, we already know that gathering evidence of malpractice is irrelevant if no meaningful punishment ever results from it.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#42

Post by cavanasm » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #12

eric_h wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be footage recorded by those cameras that will drastically impinge on the privacy of civilians should it be shared publicly. It's a nice idea, but I think it has some pretty significant potential for downsides.

I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere, then that place and the goings-on that were witnessed are a matter of public record. If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition. In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state suppo…

In many places, it's already public record, you just have to request it. However, some places are putting rules in after overly broad and onerous requests ("I want to every piece of body camera footage ever taken" for example, which actually happened in Washington state, and lead to a law a few years later). Usually privacy rights are strongly taken into consideration, and the videos have to be edited and reviewed by humans before release.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/washington-s...

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#43

Post by mtalantikite » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:42 PM UTC

I only briefly scanned the published paper [1], but I saw no mention made about whether or not the officers knew this study was happening to their teams. Does anyone know if the study was blind?

[1] http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material...

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#44

Post by lostlogin » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #40

dsr_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only millions? No problem at all. Let's revise that estimate, though. 765,000 sworn state-level personnel in 2008. We'll round up to a million. At $1000 each for hardened, certified cameras, that's a billion dollars. But we should expect them to last about three years, so $333M each year. Storage costs are cheap, but secure handling of storage is not. Let's say one full-time $100K employee per hundred camera-wearing…

Why is the lifetime so short? Are the batteries non-replaceable? I'd definitely be looking into replacing worn out batteries on $1000 devices.

And yet many people don’t on their phones that cost close to this.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#45

Post by dsr_ » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #40

dsr_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only millions? No problem at all. Let's revise that estimate, though. 765,000 sworn state-level personnel in 2008. We'll round up to a million. At $1000 each for hardened, certified cameras, that's a billion dollars. But we should expect them to last about three years, so $333M each year. Storage costs are cheap, but secure handling of storage is not. Let's say one full-time $100K employee per hundred camera-wearing…

Why is the lifetime so short? Are the batteries non-replaceable? I'd definitely be looking into replacing worn out batteries on $1000 devices.

Oh, it will probably go down over time, but remember that police departments aren't going to go out and buy $399 Go-Pros.

No, they'll be buying tactical harnesses and military-tough specially cased relabeled $299 Go-Pros for $999 for each complete system, from a certified minority-owned business in partnership with Halliburton.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#46

Post by s73ver_ » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #3

It probably shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Police officers are almost entirely decent people that shouldn't feel the need to change their behavior just because they're being recorded. Regular citizens would already be on their best behavior around cops, the camera doesn't change much. I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents. Counte…

I can't agree with the characterization of them being "almost entirely decent people" when they clam up and defend the objectively bad among them. Decent people don't do that.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#47

Post by jMyles » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #22

jMyles wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere, then that place and the goings-on that were witnessed are a matter of public record. If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition. In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state suppo…

This is trivial to argue against, though. Officer heads to restroom to help patient that is having seizures. Heck, officer heads anywhere to help citizen having seizures. (Substitute any of a number of incidents and the argument remains mostly the same.) Is it public record that it happened? Yes. Should it be shielded from anyone knowing? I don't think so. Should it be publicly broadcast? Almost certainly not.

The underlying question here is: what does enforcement of the public ordinances have to do with medical aid? Why has our society conflated those? Why has our society conflated law enforcement with emergency response at all? What do these two things have to do with each other?

That's the problem. The fact that we're talking seriously about affording public policing a sphere of secrecy is just a symptom of that problem.

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#48

Post by pavel_lishin » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #3

It probably shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Police officers are almost entirely decent people that shouldn't feel the need to change their behavior just because they're being recorded. Regular citizens would already be on their best behavior around cops, the camera doesn't change much. I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents. Counte…

> I think people get a skewed perception of the police force from a relatively small number of highly publicized incidents.

It's not just the incidents themselves, but the fact that the entire force seems to be quite willing to shield the worst offenders.

Sure, Office Steve probably won't knock me around because of my skin color, but how many times has he looked away while Officer John did?

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#49

Post by jMyles » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

sigstoat wrote: post #24

jMyles wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere, then that place and the goings-on that were witnessed are a matter of public record. If that isn't so, and isn't sacred, then we're saying that secrecy in policing is normal, and that goes against hundreds of years of progress in the common-law tradition. In order for people to enjoy the kind of privacy you discuss, we need to have non-state suppo…

> I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere... if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (something which happens regularly), and they capture some video of you walking around eating cereal naked, do you think that should immediately and irrevocably go up on youtube?

Obviously in a decent society this is a horrific, abhorrent affront.

And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim.

How about we stop allowing police to search homes in the first place in 99.9% of cases?

Re: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

#50

Post by fredophile » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #33

gph wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Instead, I've always thought they were good for those particularly difficult "he said / she said" cases that capture public attention. I agree, but at what price point would you say it's worth it? In principle I want bodycams, but with this new study it's making me wonder if pragmatically it's really worth spending millions of dollars each year just for a handful of difficult 'he said / she said' cases to be better…

Only millions? No problem at all. Let's revise that estimate, though. 765,000 sworn state-level personnel in 2008. We'll round up to a million. At $1000 each for hardened, certified cameras, that's a billion dollars. But we should expect them to last about three years, so $333M each year. Storage costs are cheap, but secure handling of storage is not. Let's say one full-time $100K employee per hundred camera-wearing…

$1000 is way too high. I bought a helmet cam in 2009 that was designed for military applications (fairly robust, easy to change AA batteries) and it cost about $300-400 back then. Looking for fairly robust cameras I can see that the action camera in Olympus Tough lineup is currently selling for $350. I've seen other cameras in this product line take a good beating and come out fine.

Obviously there would be additional costs (memory cards, readers, batteries, chargers, harness, etc) but I don't see why it would come to more than $500-600 per person at most.