Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#41

Post by lucideer »

unit91 wrote: post #36
vorotato wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say if an officer has their camera off in line of duty, and something happens they should be charged with obstruction of justice.

What if they need to go to the bathroom?

Try not to assault anyone in the stalls?

OK, the above is slightly tongue in cheek, I know, but this seems like a fairly weak "what if". We're primarily talking about confrontational incidents of conflict where there's issues of trust around accounts of events. The majority of these incidents will hopefully not take place during toilet breaks.

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#42

Post by ufmace »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #12
cruschtGlacz wrote: post #5

Surprise! You can’t expect to extract any value from cameras under police control. The cameras must exist beyond the reach of police departments, and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored. The body cameras get censored because the police have created a system that benefits them, above all else. The reality of this outcome should weigh heavily on everyone’s mind, about how this correlates with every other a…

> and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored Easier said than done. Police officers are often seeing people on the worst day of their life. It would be an incredible decrease in privacy and general dignity if all footage was just published uncensored. If someone assaulted you and stole your cloths would you want a video online of you being interviewed about the experience with just a towel on (and probably…

The related argument against this that I've seen from a few cops is that this also removes their ability to use discretion and not charge people. If somebody reports a crime and happens to have some drugs in their pocket and the police find them, they could have just ignored them or confiscated them and not charge the guy in pursuit of the greater good, but with the whole thing on tape, they essentially have to charge everything they see/find.

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#43

Post by lunchables »

unit91 wrote: post #36
vorotato wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say if an officer has their camera off in line of duty, and something happens they should be charged with obstruction of justice.

What if they need to go to the bathroom?

They should have to request it over the radio and the camera should be remotely disabled. This would mean they couldn't turn it off in mere seconds in the heat of the moment or right after taking a call before it was resolved. It's not a perfect solution but it's pretty good.

Another option would be for the "off" button to mark that section of the tape as "off duty" and store it in a special archive that required a court order to access. That way the only time we would need to look is if there was some issue where there was an empty spot in the recording during an event where they were clearly not "off duty".

I think it's worth pointing out that while using the bathroom I don't think a chest/shoulder mounted body cam would see much, if anything, inappropriate. It's not attached to their head looking where they look.

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#45

Post by CaptSpify »

ufmace wrote: post #42
throwaway2016a wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored Easier said than done. Police officers are often seeing people on the worst day of their life. It would be an incredible decrease in privacy and general dignity if all footage was just published uncensored. If someone assaulted you and stole your cloths would you want a video online of you being interviewed about the experience with just a towel on (and probably…

The related argument against this that I've seen from a few cops is that this also removes their ability to use discretion and not charge people. If somebody reports a crime and happens to have some drugs in their pocket and the police find them, they could have just ignored them or confiscated them and not charge the guy in pursuit of the greater good, but with the whole thing on tape, they essentially have to charg…

Is that an issue though? It's my understanding that police are allowed a lot of discretion as to whether or not they should charge someone with a crime. ianal, so genuinely asking

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#46

Post by CaptSpify »

paulus_magnus2 wrote: post #4
bsder wrote: post #2

tl;dr: The problem isn't the "body cam". The problem is that the victims can't get at the body cam footage due to various rules put in place by departments and police unions.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

The day Schmidt releases recordings of himself having sex for all to see is the day that I'll take that quote seriously. There's a mountain of things we do that are good for us to keep secret from others.

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#47

Post by dsp1234 »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #20
sergiosgc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The article states two huge downsides: 1) Privileged footage access by the police results in selective publication of parts of the video, creating false or distorted narratives; 2) Police cameras are cameras, so this results in increased surveillance.

I dont get number 2. There's already a police officer where the camera is, they themselves are surveillance. Id much prefer the camera. Especially if I did something wrong so it can be seen exactly what I did instead of the report being blown out of proportion to ensure the charges stick.

There exists no computer in the world that can combine the memory of hundred of thousands of police officers together. With video footage, that's not necessarily true.

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#48

Post by jetti »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #20
sergiosgc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The article states two huge downsides: 1) Privileged footage access by the police results in selective publication of parts of the video, creating false or distorted narratives; 2) Police cameras are cameras, so this results in increased surveillance.

I dont get number 2. There's already a police officer where the camera is, they themselves are surveillance. Id much prefer the camera. Especially if I did something wrong so it can be seen exactly what I did instead of the report being blown out of proportion to ensure the charges stick.

Right, but what about all the times that crimes aren't being committed? In Illinois, the law is that the cameras must be able to record 10 hours and must be on when not in the car or the officer is talking with a victim, witness or confidential informant and those individuals request the camera be turned off [0]. That means that whenever the office enters a private area, where one expects a reasonable amount of privacy, that privacy is gone as long as the officer if following the rules. There are, of course, private places that one would not expect privacy such as any business that states they are recording video.

[0] http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=3662&Ch...

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#49

Post by orclev »

darkerside wrote: post #39
hbarka wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And guess who does the selection bias on the on/off button.

This only matters if you assume malicious intent. I'm not saying it isn't ever there, but let's not pretend it's proven to be statistically significant.

Malicious intent must be assumed. The body cameras exist in order to be a deterrent to malicious police behaviors and as such any system which puts the officers in charge of the functioning of the cameras, and which does not heavily discourage or prevent police from operating with a broken or malfunctioning camera is failing in its primary mission. It should be illegal for an officer to operate or be on duty with a broken or otherwise non-functioning body camera, and the footage from body cameras should be held by an independent third party that is not subject to oversight or control by the police (FBI might not be a bad idea).

Re: Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force

#50

Post by bmcusick »

The cameras are a positive step anyway. The political debate cannot help but be effected every time a cop is caught on video doing something shady, but nothing happens. Over time this repeated evidence will cause social change, even if it doesn't create justice for the particular victim of that particular moment.

But for cameras to be really effective a couple things need to happen:

1) They have to be on by default, and not turned on and off by the cop.

2) The video needs to be archived with a neutral party that can provide the raw source data to attorneys for both prosecution and defense on equal terms.

3) The law needs to change and juries need to change so that cops are actually held to the same standards of violence and self-defense as any other citizen. This is necessary for US police to claim to actually be civilian police, and not a military occupation. But nonetheless this last one will be the hardest and slowest change of the three.

Post reply on HN