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.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
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/tarunwad...rove-policing/
davidbfpo
Link:http://online.wsj.com/article/APf61b...KEYWORDS=lapelU.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.
davidbfpo
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.
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.
davidbfpo
Bookmarks