PDA

View Full Version : Body-worn video: LE use in the USA?



davidbfpo
02-19-2012, 06:32 PM
A colleague and I recently discussed the use in the UK by LE of modern technology, in particular the use of mini / head-cameras.

The UK is well known for having millions of CCTV cameras, sometimes the results seen in “fly on the wall” documentaries, using CCTV, vehicle-mounted video cameras and still a cameraman. I was in the USA over Xmas and noted when watching a few police TV shows none used the mini-cameras.

The impetus for head-cameras here came from a bar threatened with closure for disorder etc and their website is: http://www.robocamuk.com/node .

There is a short CNN News clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjZIm9nNgs

Wearing these cameras has become an option for non-law enforcement personnel, notably in high-risk actions or locations, for example door staff at clubs and bars. Here is an example of a cyclist –v- a ‘road rage’ motorist:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWt1SYTlZU

Are there reasons for the apparent lack of interest in head-cameras?

slapout9
02-20-2012, 07:33 PM
A colleague and I recently discussed the use in the UK by LE of modern technology, in particular the use of mini / head-cameras.

The UK is well known for having millions of CCTV cameras, sometimes the results seen in “fly on the wall” documentaries, using CCTV, vehicle-mounted video cameras and still a cameraman. I was in the USA over Xmas and noted when watching a few police TV shows none used the mini-cameras.

The impetus for head-cameras here came from a bar threatened with closure for disorder etc and their website is: http://www.robocamuk.com/node .

There is a short CNN News clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKjZIm9nNgs

Wearing these cameras has become an option for non-law enforcement personnel, notably in high-risk actions or locations, for example door staff at clubs and bars. Here is an example of a cyclist –v- a ‘road rage’ motorist:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWt1SYTlZU

Are there reasons for the apparent lack of interest in head-cameras?

I don't know for sure but it may be technology overload. There is so much Tech and Money floating around becuase of Homeland Security sometimes it is hard to abosrb it all. Just speculation on my part.

Uboat509
02-21-2012, 06:55 PM
Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

Firn
02-21-2012, 08:26 PM
Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

I guess that it must be the latter and other issues, as the technology is mature and not too expensive, at least from those bike kids video on youtube and a quick google :wry:

davidbfpo
06-04-2013, 10:16 PM
An update after Twitter id'd this Forbes article 'Watching The Police: Will Two-Way Surveillance Reduce Crime And Increase Accountability?':http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2013/06/04/watching-back-how-using-surveillance-technologies-on-law-enforcement-can-improve-policing/

KenWats
06-05-2013, 01:09 PM
Cost and complexity are probably factors but I suspect that the thought of having their actions second guessed after the fact by someone sitting safely behind a desk does not appeal to US LE.

Which is kind of funny, given how helpful the dashboard cameras seem to have been as evidence during DUI stops.

davidbfpo
08-14-2013, 07:34 PM
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered a pilot program of the cameras and other major reforms to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy this week, after she found the NYPD intentionally discriminated against minorities.......In New York, Scheindlin ordered one police precinct per borough where the most stops occur to host the yearlong pilot program. That means possibly more than a thousand officers would be recording with cameras on their eye glasses or lapels.

Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/APf61b0f9eb99f4b50a254d67974397784.html?KEYWORDS=l apel

Fuchs
08-14-2013, 08:26 PM
related video (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-13-2013/frisky-business)

condottiere
08-15-2013, 12:11 PM
Cameras don't lie, at least not without leaving clues showing manipulation.

Technology just gets cheaper and better, so it's more a question of where society will allow the expectation of privacy.

davidbfpo
08-15-2013, 02:44 PM
There are ample signs in England that if a criminal prosecution lacks some video footage - if relevant or possibly available - then managers and prosecutors maybe reluctant to press ahead. For example for benefit fraud, where a claim is made for disability, three separate video clips are needed that show the person is able bodied, e.g. lifting heavy weights.

At court it is well known that magistrates will give weight to video evidence. It will be interesting to see if this changes when the defence has their own video. Even in a relatively short incident at Downing Street gates, known as "Pleb Gate", the video record has been challenged.

As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.

slapout9
08-15-2013, 07:01 PM
As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.

Some years ago I was at an Officer Survival seminar and a defense Attorney was giving a lecture about courtroom testimony, evidence, etc. One of his points was that whenever possible he would use Visual evidence not Testimony or audio evidence. Visual is much more persuasive at least based upon his courtroom experience which was considerable.

TheCurmudgeon
08-15-2013, 07:58 PM
Some years ago I was at an Officer Survival seminar and a defense Attorney was giving a lecture about courtroom testimony, evidence, etc. One of his points was that whenever possible he would use Visual evidence not Testimony or audio evidence. Visual is much more persuasive at least based upon his courtroom experience which was considerable.

I remember hearing a lecture on evidence as to which was more powerful, 100 nuns who say they watched the courtyard all night and never saw anyone cross it or the footprints in the snow across the courtyard demonstrating that someone had crossed it during the night.

That being said ...



As a society we are becoming a visual generation; no pictures, nothing there.


... I was actually just thinking the oposite, that today I cannot trust anything on video.


http://www.noupe.com/inspiration/50-amazing-realistic-cg-portraits.html

With the right technology I can prove that velociraptors shot Kennedy...

carl
08-16-2013, 01:24 AM
Something else to wear, more wires to route, another battery to check, more opportunity for your Sgt and anybody on high to bug you, more things to catalog and store and if the durn thing malfunctions in operation, storage or retrieval what you witnessed didnt really happen. And more OJ juries who firmly believe that if it ain't on tape, it didn't really happen.

To me this is just another manifestation of the modern cultural belief that we can make things perfect if we only have another machine. In the long run little good will come of that belief.

slapout9
08-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Not LE but close. San Francisco Fire Chief has banned helmet cameras.




http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=83bf57c7-4743-a177-031a-1be55a95614d&from=en-us_msnhp

carl
08-19-2013, 06:12 PM
Slap:

There is something I just thought of when I read your post. Do you think some the the less thoughtful guys might do some grandstanding for their head cameras they might not otherwise do?

selil
08-20-2013, 02:57 AM
I had to operate in a 360 surveilance environment. Guys would grandstand and idiots would idioate. All on film. CIs shutdown. The footage from non related times would be used to embarrass. Scratch your crotch, pick your nose, it was all there on film ready to be edited into a story that didn't happen.

slapout9
08-20-2013, 04:16 AM
Slap:

There is something I just thought of when I read your post. Do you think some the the less thoughtful guys might do some grandstanding for their head cameras they might not otherwise do?

Definitely!

Fuchs
08-22-2013, 09:33 AM
http://de.scribd.com/doc/130767873/Self-awareness-to-being-watched-and-socially-desirable-behavior-A-field-experiment-on-the-effect-of-body-worn-cameras-on-police-use-of-force

used camera: http://www.taser.com/flex

Moderator's Note

Normally to avoid copyright issues SWC removes Scribd links, on this occasion it appears the publishers, the Police Foundation, have loaded this article onto Scribd, so it remains here. Nice article too, thanks (ends).

davidbfpo
11-30-2013, 05:00 PM
The use of body-worn cameras is spreading, although with some resistance and taken from a BBC News report the rationale:
Incidents can be subject to interpretation whereas with the cameras we've got that real view of what actually did happen.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25024204

Firn
12-02-2014, 06:33 PM
With Obama's Support, Police Body Cameras Could Become the New Normal (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-02/obamas-plan-would-almost-double-use-of-police-body-cams#r=hp-ls)


For people who support putting cameras on cops, this is a very big deal. The White House plan is intended to outfit 50,000 officers with cameras, which would almost double the number of cameras in use in the country. There are currently two major U.S. companies selling body cameras: Vievu, which has sold more than 40,000 cameras to 3,900 police agencies, and Taser (TASR), with 30,000 cameras in use by 1,200 agencies. The $75 million earmarked to purchase new body cameras is more than seven times the total revenue Taser earned from selling the devices in 2013.

I'm curious what impact this will have on citiziens (especially of certain backgrounds), law enforcement officers and the society in general. We are now talking about considerable numbers.

flagg
12-02-2014, 06:56 PM
I wonder how much this will adversely effect command latitude for police officers?

Is there potential something meant to help will actually hurt?

Will officers be reluctant to use personal judgement and latitude when everything is recorded?

davidbfpo
12-02-2014, 09:05 PM
I wonder how much this will adversely effect command latitude for police officers?

I don't think anyone really knows. The UK police have a habit of one police force (we only have 43 in England & Wales) adapting a new piece of kit, within a short time everyone else follows suit. Rarely is there a proper evaluation after deployment, let alone an independent one. There is a Home Office (Interior Dept) technology / scientific assessment process before deployment and in the last few years an ethical assessment has arrived in a few places.


Is there potential something meant to help will actually hurt?

Yes. We should recognise we are in the so-called 'digital age' and for at least twenty years here live audio and or visual recordings are seen by virtually everyone as essential. No video can become no evidence.

Body-worn video (BWV) is an extension of this. I doubt many would advocate the removal of in-car video systems (although in the UK only a small proportion of patrol vehicles have them).

I do wonder whether every member of the public will want their presence, let alone engagement with the police recorded. They also become potential witnesses for clever, aggressive criminals and lawyers to pursue.

So if a citizen wants to help how do they say to an officer "Turn video off now, then I will help" and will official rules allow this?


Will officers be reluctant to use personal judgement and latitude when everything is recorded?

Maybe, especially where targets apply or a top-down emphasis exists. In the UK personal discretion has steadily been eroded; yes, discretion has been wrong exercised too.

flagg
12-03-2014, 02:55 AM
I don't think anyone really knows. The UK police have a habit of one police force (we only have 43 in England & Wales) adapting a new piece of kit, within a short time everyone else follows suit. Rarely is there a proper evaluation after deployment, let alone an independent one. There is a Home Office (Interior Dept) technology / scientific assessment process before deployment and in the last few years an ethical assessment has arrived in a few places.



Yes. We should recognise we are in the so-called 'digital age' and for at least twenty years here live audio and or visual recordings are seen by virtually everyone as essential. No video can become no evidence.

Body-worn video (BWV) is an extension of this. I doubt many would advocate the removal of in-car video systems (although in the UK only a small proportion of patrol vehicles have them).

I do wonder whether every member of the public will want their presence, let alone engagement with the police recorded. They also become potential witnesses for clever, aggressive criminals and lawyers to pursue.

So if a citizen wants to help how do they say to an officer "Turn video off now, then I will help" and will official rules allow this?



Maybe, especially where targets apply or a top-down emphasis exists. In the UK personal discretion has steadily been eroded; yes, discretion has been wrong exercised too.

Thanks for that.

My biggest issue comes down to what I perceive(worst case scenario) as front line Policing turning in the direction of video equipped "meat robots".

The only thing missing being an audio feed connected to a Mumbai call centre with a customer service decision tree.

When it comes to Policing, I think there is nothing more important than well informed and well equipped Police at the coal face.

I see a day coming soon where the average Police patrol car in 1st world countries is equipped to automatically track and prioritize work for the Police driver/passenger.

I don't even have a problem with a Police "smart car" automatically issuing speeding, expired rego, expired warrant, expired insurance type of citations recorded and tracked on the road by a "smart car".

The idea of a "smart car" automatically prioritizing a suspected wanted felon in a vehicle over an expired vehicle warrant is a valid one in my opinion.

But I don't like the idea of the risks and behavior change that might come with BWV.

While I see persistent surveillance of great use in both protecting the individual Police officer and the public, I see the risk of a further divide between Police and the public with the potential loss of discretion.

I reckon if Police lose individual discretion then they will lose positive perception of Police by the public....individual by individual.

I'm concerned it could become more transactional and less transformational.

davidbfpo
12-06-2014, 04:48 PM
Well, well someone is asking where is the evidence. An article from The Guardian, with many links:http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/body-cameras-police-eric-garner?CMP=twt_gu

Citing Michael D White, an Arizona State University criminology professor:
Although advocates and critics have made numerous claims regarding body-worn cameras, there have been few balanced discussions of the benefits and problems associated with the technology and even fewer discussions of the empirical evidence supporting or refuting those claims...e. The overwhelming theme from this review is the lack of available research on the technology.

davidbfpo
03-02-2016, 09:41 PM
Body worn video cameras for the UK police are spreading fast, although locally a number of issues remain unclear and no-one wants to hear that several US police departments, Seattle PD IIRC being one, baulked at the cost of storage.

As if on cue here is a laudatory press article, but it does draw attention to some of the issues:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/how-the-polices-body-worn-camera-technology-is-changing-the-justice-system-a6905691.html

davidbfpo
10-05-2016, 05:19 PM
A report from Cambridge University, based on data from four UK police forces and two in the USA:
Police body cameras can dramatically reduce the number of complaints against officers, research suggests. The Cambridge University study showed complaints by members of the public against officers fell by 93% over 12 months compared with the year before. Almost 2,000 officers across four UK forces and two US police departments were monitored for the project.
The author is cited:
I cannot think of any [other] single intervention in the history of policing that dramatically changed the way that officers behave, the way that suspects behave, and the way they interact with each other.

Once [the public] are aware they are being recorded, once they know that everything they do is caught on tape, they will undoubtedly change their behaviour because they don't want to get into trouble. Individual officers become more accountable, and modify their behaviour accordingly, while the more disingenuous complaints from the public fall by the wayside once footage is likely to reveal them as frivolous.Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37502136

Taking a very different stance based on practice in the USA 'Atlantic' weighs in:
recent events subvert the idea that the devices help or increase the power of regular people—that is, the policed. Instead of making officers more accountable and transparent to the public, body cameras may be making officers and departments more powerful than they were before.Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/body-cameras-are-just-making-police-departments-more-powerful/502421/

davidbfpo
01-19-2018, 01:22 PM
Discovered this website after a Tweet on a new academic article on the impact on video: 'Exploring the Potential for Body-Worn Cameras to Reduce Violence in Police–Citizen Encounters and it is American.'
Added as a potential resource.
Link:http://www.bwctta.com/

davidbfpo
08-21-2018, 10:07 AM
An article from the New Yorker on policing in the era of body worn video cameras alongside Taser. It is clearly dependent on Taser, now Axon's help, but does cover many of he issues.
Link:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/27/can-the-manufacturer-of-tasers-provide-the-answer-to-police-abuse?

davidbfpo
03-28-2019, 03:26 PM
An article that reflects the mainly US experience and sub-titled:
What’s likely the most comprehensive review of research on body cameras shows that they're most often used to prosecute citizens, not police. And while they've led to fewer citizen complaints, their impact on other aspects of policing, such as use of force, is less certain.

That’s the conclusion of a new report (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12412) from the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University.
Link:https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-body-camera-effects-research-gmu-study.html

I have amended the thread's title to reflect the change from head to body-worn video (BWV).