View Full Version : LE eyes to be everywhere and record everything in the server in the sky
HowardCohodas
03-11-09, 12:11
Yesterday I watched a web cast by Rick Smith, CEO of Taser on their sister company's AXON product. Scared the hell out of me. After the scary big-brother technology he presented, he goes on to tell the audience that the time is short to get going so that they can use stimulus package money. And they are set up to help departments to apply for and justify these investments.
Watch and worry: TASER (http://www.taserpromo.com/evidence-com/)
Watch and worry:
What are you worried about???
B
HowardCohodas
03-11-09, 12:41
What are you worried about???
B
Watch the video, then ask again. I even have an LEO acquaintance who thinks this goes too far.
Watch the video, then ask again.
Ok... I watched it... So what scares you???
Inquireing minds want to know???
B
What are you worried about???
B
Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom.
State of the Union Address, Feb. 4, 1986
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom.
State of the Union Address, Feb. 4, 1986
Ronald Wilson Reagan
Nuts
From the ruins of Bastogne, Dec. 16, 1944
Brig. Gen. Anthony C. McAuliffe
If you are referring to the Axon technology, tell me what is the problem here? If you are in contact with an officer, your contact will be recorded. The officer will be on his best behavior and if you fear that he is violating your constitutional rights, that also will be recorded. There is absolutely no infringement on your rights when an officer uses a camera. You are in a public contact with a law enforcement official and there is no expectation of privacy in such a setting.
The video camera gives a full account of the events of a contact for not only the front line enforcer(the officer), but a first hand account for the judiciary to review. This is a very efficient, very constitutionally fair, and factually clear method of taking the events as they occured and helping a judge or jury to see what happened first hand. Both the officer, and the contact will be more protected from injustice than without recording devices.
If you fear a fair and effective justice system, then perhaps you venture too close to the wrong side of the law.
Marcus ,The Founding Fathers would disagree with the last sentence in your post
Fr0ntal0b0t0my
03-11-09, 14:38
If you are referring to the Axon technology, tell me what is the problem here? If you are in contact with an officer, your contact will be recorded. The officer will be on his best behavior and if you fear that he is violating your constitutional rights, that also will be recorded. There is absolutely no infringement on your rights when an officer uses a camera. You are in a public contact with a law enforcement official and there is no expectation of privacy in such a setting.
The video camera gives a full account of the events of a contact for not only the front line enforcer(the officer), but a first hand account for the judiciary to review. This is a very efficient, very constitutionally fair, and factually clear method of taking the events as they occured and helping a judge or jury to see what happened first hand. Both the officer, and the contact will be more protected from injustice than without recording devices.
If you fear a fair and effective justice system, then perhaps you venture too close to the wrong side of the law.
Well said Marcus
Marcus ,The Founding Fathers would disagree with the last sentence in your post
We are a nation founded on the rule of law. Without fair, and effective enforcement of the law......then it is worthless. The founders were very adamant about the preservation of a Republic and a Republic works by a system of checks and balances and a foundation of law. The electorate, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and the Executive branch must adhere to the rule of law in order for the Republic to remain intact. Here's a nice little video that gives a good explaination:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
If the electorate does not like one law or the other, then the voting process allows the electorate to change out the Legislative branch of the government with representatives that will better fufill the public's wishes. Unfortunately, the voters don't realise how important these elections are. The idea that resisting the rule of law makes you some kind of a George Washington or Benjamin Franklin is a false premise in my opinion. If you wish to live and prosper within the boundaries of this country, then you are also expected to respect the foundation of this country......law.
Yesterday I watched a web cast by Rick Smith, CEO of Taser on their sister company's AXON product. Scared the hell out of me. After the scary big-brother technology he presented, he goes on to tell the audience that the time is short to get going so that they can use stimulus package money. And they are set up to help departments to apply for and justify these investments. Watch and worry: TASER (http://www.taserpromo.com/evidence-com/)
Watch the video, then ask again. I even have an LEO acquaintance who thinks this goes too far.
You should anticipate that every word spoken and event transpiring in a public place, or a private place you've allowed others to access or been allowed to access, is recorded by some sort of AV device. Conduct yourself accordingly, and take some comfort in the fact that those deploying it will likely do the same.
Patrol-based video recording has convicted offenders and exonerated the innocent. Further, it's produced an unprecendented level of accountability to the public. Moving the AV gear from the car to the person is a logical progression.
Some will wail and cry that "big brother" is watching. Many of the same will wail and cry that big brother wasn't watching when it would suit them.
Looks like pretty cool technology. What do you think the reaction of LEO would be if I got one, put it on and followed various patrol officers and detectives around all day? Do you think they would be happy to see me? Maybe mug for the camera and dance a little jig?
No, realistically I would expect to be ordered to turn it off, detained, charged with various bogus things like obstruction of justice, unauthorized recording and whatever else they can come up with. This has already happened with hand held video cameras in various jurisdictions across America.
Why would LEO do these things? Don't they know that we are a nation founded on the rule of law?
The short answer is that this tool can be misused just like any other tool. Any cop understands that. For the same reasons that cops don't want themselves to be recorded 24/7, non-cops don't want to be recorded in their day-to-day activities. I guarantee you that if I was interacting with an officer wired up with a Taser cam, he would get the least cooperation from me as possible.
"Yes Sir, No Sir, May I leave now Sir."
I wouldn't act like that because I am an evil lawbreaker, I would act like that because I'm a human being.
Video recording can be a useful tool. Dash cams do an excellent job of helping to decipher what goes wrong in a traffic stop. The Taser Cam might be great for doing the same thing on a no-knock raid. But if every patrol officer has one running all the time, he is not going to get the time of day from anyone he meets.
I do not want to live in a society where I have to worry about state operated video surveillance everywhere I go. The UK already has that kind of surveillance. They have already "given up an essential liberty for temporary security"
As far as a Fair and Effective justice system, when you can show a 100% fair and effective justice system, I’ll be happy to reexamine my ideas about video surveillance. But thanks for the underhanded accusation about being a crook.
Gringop
fruitjacket
03-11-09, 17:54
Ok... I watched it... So what scares you???
Inquireing minds want to know???
B
I call BS on you brother.
You posted 18 minutes after he requested you watch the video, yet the video is 54 minutes long.
If you're not going to bother digesting the material before arguing your point, your opinion doesn't mean much.:rolleyes:
Patrick Aherne
03-11-09, 18:00
I have not watched the video, but if it's made by TASER, I expect it to be too expensive and break shortly after purchase.
As to video recording every officer contact, I work for an agency that has a mobile AV system in every marked car and issues a digital tape recorder to every officer. We have very few complaints.
I have been exonerated from an internal use of excessive force complaint because of our mobile AV system.
I know that when a defendant presents in court, he is usually sober and dressed in his Sunday-go-to-meeting best. It's nice for the judge and jury to see what a drunk, drugged jerk he was at the time of the crime.
As to the guy who thinks he won't talk to the cops now: Did you ever think that what you said would not be memorialized in some fashion? Better a video recording that captures what you actually say, than the faulty memory of a patrol officer.
Jay Cunningham
03-11-09, 18:00
fruitjacket
You just earned yourself a 3 day time-out for disrespect to an M4C moderator. Choose your words more carefully next time.
thopkins22
03-11-09, 18:11
When I read the thread title, I was getting amped up to rant on our adoption of something like the British have...where so much of the public space is under video surveillance.
What I saw in that video wasn't big brother...as anything the camera would catch would have happened in front of an officer anyway. This seems good for both citizen protection and officer accountability.
Looks like pretty cool technology. What do you think the reaction of LEO would be if I got one, put it on and followed various patrol officers and detectives around all day? Do you think they would be happy to see me? Maybe mug for the camera and dance a little jig?
No, realistically I would expect to be ordered to turn it off, detained, charged with various bogus things like obstruction of justice, unauthorized recording and whatever else they can come up with. This has already happened with hand held video cameras in various jurisdictions across America.
In a great many of those cases, and having arrested a self-appointed "watchdog" or two, the people doing the recording were interfering, obstructing, endangering officers, or were otherwise committing some sort of offense. It's all in how you do it.
But if every patrol officer has one running all the time, he is not going to get the time of day from anyone he meets.
That was the same empty argument many made when patrol car cams hit the streets. Folks eventually forgot that they're there, even when it's right in front of them.
I see both sides of the argument. Frankly I think that the officer is at the biggest risk. Citizens have far more leeway for getting into trouble that LEO's do, or at least so it seems
fruitjacket
You just earned yourself a 3 day time-out for disrespect to an M4C moderator. Choose your words more carefully next time.
have to agree with fruitjacket on that one. video is 53 minutes long and the two responses by the mod are 16 minutes long, and he said he watched the video. If an opinion is based on viewing partial evidence, then the opinion isn't valid.
respect is earned, not granted by fiat.
+1 lets not have the heavy handed modding TOS is famous for.
This guy could use one for his wheelchair.:D
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90e_1201001527
This lady could use one in her hairnet.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=576_1174529756
Sounds like a great idea to me too!!!
RogerinTPA
03-11-09, 22:23
I personally have no problem with that technology. I think Marcus is spot on in his assessment. No disrespect to the honest law biding LEOs out there, but seems like I have personally witnessed quite a few bad seeds out there, creating evidence to fit the crime and falsifying reports, especially when working bar or club gigs off duty (3 in the last year at 3 different clubs). I wrote a witness statement for a person that I knew, who was with the group I was with, wrongly accused stealing an off duty cop's wallet, who was working security. I witnessed the entire thing, all the intimidating yelling and screaming, unlawful search of her purse (Snatching it from her, then later saying she was drunk and voluntarily surrendered her purse), side whispering with the other LEO's who responded to the incident, after the fact, etc...I sent a copy to the Sheriff's Office and was totally harassed by them afterwards. All of a sudden, I was having their patrol cars following me and parking outside my home. Periodically watching my movements and following me for several days. Literally tail gating me several times. I finally filed a complaint (with times, dates, locations and patrol car numbers) with the states attorney's office and suddenly, it all stopped. Hopefully, it will keep them honest and on there best behavior.
HowardCohodas
03-12-09, 03:48
Random Thoughts
As a product of the "1984" generation, I am a priori, suspicious of this concept.
An LE acquaintance of mine is happy with his car cam, but also concerned that this technology is a step too far.
Officer exoneration is a good thing.
Officer restraint is good and troublesome at the same time.
The pilots union only permits the last hour before the termination of recording to be physically retained in the "black box." And the pilot can manually erase it after landing if there was no incident.
I am also unhappy about cameras everywhere in the public space and the development of automatic recognition software so that I can be tracked whether I have committed a crime or not. England is no longer on my travel wish list.
The automatic dump of the camera contents at the end of every shift means that the record of observations of you are "permanent" even if you did nothing wrong. Although there may be the ability to discard portions of the daily record irrelevant to any incident, I see no incentive for LE officers or supervision to invest the time in doing so unless under mandate.
One should look at the objectives and see if the technology meets those objectives without infringing on individual rights. Some here look at the technology, derive the laudable benefits and forget about the likely abuses.
I watched the live broadcast but not the shortened version I referenced. I should do the latter to see if I am still as uncomfortable as I was after the live broadcast. and see what they chose to edit out. How do I know it is an edited version? Because Smith said that was what was to be made available when he referenced the online version during his live broadcast.
I lead a quiet and mostly uneventful life. I enjoyed the class I took as the only civilian among 16 LEOs. I liked their company and I think they liked mine as more than one asked to have friends attend CC courses I teach should I decide to do that. Forum discussions are the extent of my excursions on the wild side. Therefore, I don't think my concerns are as a consequence of my living too close to the edge as someone suggested in one of the forums where I posted this item.
More to come if I have the energy. Leaving shortly on trip to Richmond to visit grandchildren and celebrate the oldest's birthday.
Jay Cunningham
03-12-09, 04:37
have to agree with fruitjacket on that one. video is 53 minutes long and the two responses by the mod are 16 minutes long, and he said he watched the video. If an opinion is based on viewing partial evidence, then the opinion isn't valid.
respect is earned, not granted by fiat.
Everybody will show the proper respect to the moderators on this website - period.
Jay Cunningham
03-12-09, 04:42
+1 lets not have the heavy handed modding TOS is famous for.
The reason that the 3 day ban for fruitjacket was EARNED was because his infraction points were combined with other recent infraction points. Warnings and Infractions are formalized through an automated system which keeps moderation objective. Didn't know that piece of the puzzle, did you?
If anyone else would like to make a comment regarding moderation of the website, please go through the proper channels, i.e. pm site staff or post in the Site Suggestions/Comments thread.
John_Wayne777
03-12-09, 11:42
Yesterday I watched a web cast by Rick Smith, CEO of Taser on their sister company's AXON product. Scared the hell out of me. After the scary big-brother technology he presented, he goes on to tell the audience that the time is short to get going so that they can use stimulus package money. And they are set up to help departments to apply for and justify these investments.
Watch and worry: TASER (http://www.taserpromo.com/evidence-com/)
I'm not seeing a cause for concern there. It's like a dashcam that's actually on the officer instead of in the cruiser. NOTE: I did not watch the video as the machine I'm on right now is incapable of seeing vids. I just looked at the ad at the link.
As far as stimulus money goes...yes, it sucks, but that's how business is done these days. Few (if any) local PD's are going to have the scratch to invest in technology like this. Federal grant money would be the most likely source of funding for such acquisitions, stimulus or not.
HowardCohodas
03-12-09, 12:29
I'm not seeing a cause for concern there. It's like a dashcam that's actually on the officer instead of in the cruiser. NOTE: I did not watch the video as the machine I'm on right now is incapable of seeing vids. I just looked at the ad at the link.
As far as stimulus money goes...yes, it sucks, but that's how business is done these days. Few (if any) local PD's are going to have the scratch to invest in technology like this. Federal grant money would be the most likely source of funding for such acquisitions, stimulus or not.
Post #24 in this thread contains some expansion on my concerns here. https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=328070&postcount=24
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.