It's time to put cameras on NZ Police

Forums › Off topic › It's time to put cameras on NZ Police

1 | 2 | 3

1701 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1615715 22-Aug-2016 12:35

I support the use of body cameras by Police, I believe it will protect officers from unsubstantiated allegations of misbehaviour but also protect the public from officers who do misbehave.

As other have said, buying and operating the cameras will be relatively inexpensive, but managing the enormous volumes of data - all of it potentially evidential and therefore requiring a 100% tamperproof custody trail - would be very expensive.
Working on about 6000 'front-line' police implies about 1200 or so on duty at any time, let's say each camera would generate 100GB per day of footage (mostly of the dashboard of a Police car, very dull) that's 120TB per day, 43Exabytes per annum of Write-Once Read Hardly Ever data. And of course we need a dual-redundant geographically distributed storage solution - I wouldn't mind the sales commission on contract for that!

On the other hand, I remember reading an article about the adoption of body cameras by an English County Police Force, and that it (somewhat unexpectedly) resulted in the number of defended hearings for minor offences dropping to one-third of the previous level. Apparently, once the arrested person and their lawyer looked at the video coverage, the offender rather often put their hands up and pleaded guilty, no more court time wasted with "he said / she said" testimony.
So potentially a big saving in Vote Justice, and a big extra spending in Vote Police.

[fix speling musteaks]

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1615721 22-Aug-2016 12:46

Cameras are okay as long as they do not physically hinder them or make them second guess their decision making in critical situations based on what the PR or press outcomes maybe.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1615725 22-Aug-2016 12:52

PolicyGuy:

As other have said, buying and operating the cameras will be relatively inexpensive, but managing the enormous volumes of data - all of it potentially evidential and therefore requiring a 100% tamperproof custody trail - would be very expensive.
Working on about 6000 'front-line' police implies about 1200 or so on duty at any time, let's say each camera would generate 100GB per day of footage (mostly of the dashboard of a Police car, very dull) that's 120TB per day, 43Exabytes per annum of Write-Once Read Hardly Ever data. And of course we need a dual-redundant geographically distributed storage solution - I wouldn't mind the sales commission on contract for that!

Whilst that would be the 100% perfect solution, the 1% cost solution would give 90% of the results.... just keep recording and overwriting stuff on an 12-hour battery+storage life camera. When an actual incident happens (e.g. a shooting), swap cameras and extract the evidence from the recorded-on one. On occasions you'll lose some evidence. But the cheap-and-incomplete solution could be done right now, whereas the all-singing, all-dancing one would take years. And *all* the evidence until it was done would be lost.

There's no reason why the 1% solution couldn't over time be extended to an 5% solution (at the end of each shift, data is extracted wirelessly from the cameras and saved on a PC), a 10% solution (and backed up locally), 25% solution (off-site storage), 50% solution (tamper-proof), 75% solution (long-term storage), or 100%.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1616141 23-Aug-2016 08:30

Her story certainly changed from the first days from 'He didnt even have a gun' to 'he went to get a gun and picked it up' - 'I saw it but I didnt see it'
Sorry, but her credibility and the credibility of the media reporting it is low.
I certainly agree that body camera would be an option, but cant always tell the true story in a fast evolving situation. Like mentioned above, it would more than likely assist Police to convict people faster when their drunken tale of woe unravels on the big screen.

Too many experts rely on their extensive training watching CSI and other TV programs to make informed comments and investigation is best left to people with all the facts,

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1616163 23-Aug-2016 09:04

SpookyAwol:

Her story certainly changed from the first days from 'He didnt even have a gun' to 'he went to get a gun and picked it up' - 'I saw it but I didnt see it'
Sorry, but her credibility and the credibility of the media reporting it is low.
I certainly agree that body camera would be an option, but cant always tell the true story in a fast evolving situation. Like mentioned above, it would more than likely assist Police to convict people faster when their drunken tale of woe unravels on the big screen.

Too many experts rely on their extensive training watching CSI and other TV programs to make informed comments and investigation is best left to people with all the facts,

The story from the person working next door did change - he was consistent in saying that the police did not clearly identify themselves before breaking down the door, rushing in, and shooting within seconds. So there is reasonable cause to believe that the deceased may have believed he was under attack from unknown assailants - if so, then reaching for a weapon is an understandable action.

Whether the police actions in this case were reasonable or not, we can never know - it's different people saying different things about what happened on the day. But a man is dead, and there should be more transparency/clarity about the events that led to his killing. For example, in this instance, cameras would have shown whether the police clearly identified themselves to the occupants before entering the property.

Should all police have cameras fitted? Maybe not. But in the situation where you have police deliberately arming themselves with high-power assault weapons, before heading out to a possible armed confrontation, it should be compulsory.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1616177 23-Aug-2016 09:30

Ive never had AOS kick down my door, never been on meth, never had a sawn off shotgun in my possession, never been the victim of an unreported home invasion.
I guess Im also not qualified to know what the victim was thinking.
I do think that he was none of the above, he wouldnt have been in that situation.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1616184 23-Aug-2016 09:41

SpookyAwol:

Too many experts rely on their extensive training watching CSI and other TV programs to make informed comments and investigation is best left to people with all the facts,

All the facts?

There are no facts!

Just they said, she said, he said.

That is why police should be fitted with cameras.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616185 23-Aug-2016 09:43

PolicyGuy:
On the other hand, I remember reading an article about the adoption of body cameras by an English County Police Force, and that it (somewhat unexpectedly) resulted in the number of defended hearings for minor offences dropping to one-third of the previous level. Apparently, once the arrested person and their lawyer looked at the video coverage, the offender rather often put their hands up and pleaded guilty, no more court time wasted with "he said / she said" testimony.
So potentially a big saving in Vote Justice, and a big extra spending in Vote Police.

I'm absolutely in favour of body cameras and in-car cameras. The above is a huge plus, and the cost savings would also flow on into police work through less time required preparing files, witness related work, attending court etc.

The first person point of view could be invaluable, not only in cases like the one which prompted this thread but all sorts of others as well as general IPCA complaints.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1616186 23-Aug-2016 09:44

dafman:

All the facts?

There are no facts!

Just they said, she said, he said.

That is why police should be fitted with cameras.

Correct, there are no facts it is under investigation.
We are all passing judgement on a one sided media account. The facts will come out as a result of a full and thorough investigation

MikeAqua

7767 posts

Uber Geek

#1616188 23-Aug-2016 09:46

PolicyGuy:

managing the enormous volumes of data - all of it potentially evidential and therefore requiring a 100% tamperproof custody trail - would be very expensive.
Working on about 6000 'front-line' police implies about 1200 or so on duty at any time, let's say each camera would generate 100GB per day of footage (mostly of the dashboard of a Police car, very dull) that's 120TB per day, 43Exabytes per annum of Write-Once Read Hardly Ever data. And of course we need a dual-redundant geographically distributed storage solution - I wouldn't mind the sales commission on contract for that!

Wouldn't you simply keep the pertinent data? I.e. when an arrest is made, or an officer is threatened or attacked, or an officer has to use force, the camera is downloaded. Otherwise the camera will reset or whatever at end of shift. There would be plenty of ways to use technology distinguish pertinent or non-pertinent data - e.g. time stamp, GPS, accelerometers etc etc.

The police obtain and have custody of video and audio evidence now. This is just more of the same.

There will be some fringe privacy issues to be debated. For example if an officer has to enter someone's back yard without warning and accidentally films them inflagranti in the hot tub - what happens to that footage?

Mike

airdale

11 posts

Geek

#1616189 23-Aug-2016 09:47

I have had the unplesant experience of having the AOS invade my home, albeit many years ago when I was flatting in Newtown. Woken in the early hours of the morning with a gun pointed at my head, dragged out of bed by the leg and on to the floor where I was handcuffed and shouted at a lot. Took the clowns a very long ten minutes to owrk out that not only had they got the wrong person, they had got the wrong house in the wrong street. Even for me back then, having come from a military background and no stranger to firearms, it was one hell of a frightening experience. No apology from the cops, they just left an pretended it never happened.

Coming forward in history, my next experience with the AOS was when they tried to raid the house next door in Kapiti. Had just got home after a week of working away and it was just past midnight when I was awakened from a deep sleep to the sound of a loud speaker announcing it was the AOS and everyone come out of the house. By the time I got up and my wits about me I realised they were next door. Cop turns up at my door pointing a sidearm at me and I tell him the house next door is empty and has been so for weeks. Nonetheless they sit outside for the next two and a half hours yelling through their loud hailer for the occupants to come out and keeping the entire neighbourhood awake and frightened. Some time around three in the morning they decide to break the door down and find that indeed the hosue is empty. Pack up their gear and disapear like nothing has ever happened and then try and tell the public and media that it was a planned training exercise!

The problem I have with the current discussion is that we only know what the media have chosen to tell us and the days of journalisim with integrity are long gone from this country.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1616194 23-Aug-2016 09:55

MikeAqua:

Wouldn't you simply keep the pertinent data? I.e. when an arrest is made, or an officer is threatened or attacked, or an officer has to use force, the camera is downloaded. Otherwise the camera will reset or whatever at end of shift. There would be plenty of ways to use technology distinguish pertinent or non-pertinent data - e.g. time stamp, GPS, accelerometers etc etc.

The police obtain and have custody of video and audio evidence now. This is just more of the same.

There will be some fringe privacy issues to be debated. For example if an officer has to enter someone's back yard without warning and accidentally films them inflagranti in the hot tub - what happens to that footage?

What if nothing did happen and the irrelevant footage was deleted?

A week later a false claim is made and there is no archived footage.

All data becomes pertinent

airdale:

The problem I have with the current discussion is that we only know what the media have chosen to tell us and the days of journalisim with integrity are long gone from this country.

Amen.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1616195 23-Aug-2016 09:57

airdale:

I have had the unplesant experience of having the AOS invade my home, albeit many years ago when I was flatting in Newtown. Woken in the early hours of the morning with a gun pointed at my head, dragged out of bed by the leg and on to the floor where I was handcuffed and shouted at a lot. Took the clowns a very long ten minutes to owrk out that not only had they got the wrong person, they had got the wrong house in the wrong street. Even for me back then, having come from a military background and no stranger to firearms, it was one hell of a frightening experience. No apology from the cops, they just left an pretended it never happened.

Coming forward in history, my next experience with the AOS was when they tried to raid the house next door in Kapiti. Had just got home after a week of working away and it was just past midnight when I was awakened from a deep sleep to the sound of a loud speaker announcing it was the AOS and everyone come out of the house. By the time I got up and my wits about me I realised they were next door. Cop turns up at my door pointing a sidearm at me and I tell him the house next door is empty and has been so for weeks. Nonetheless they sit outside for the next two and a half hours yelling through their loud hailer for the occupants to come out and keeping the entire neighbourhood awake and frightened. Some time around three in the morning they decide to break the door down and find that indeed the hosue is empty. Pack up their gear and disapear like nothing has ever happened and then try and tell the public and media that it was a planned training exercise!

The problem I have with the current discussion is that we only know what the media have chosen to tell us and the days of journalisim with integrity are long gone from this country.

What would you prefer the police to go in guns blazing straight away, or go in unarmed straight away and risk being killed? Waiting and ensuring the place is secure for entry is prudent and if the safety of all concerned means that once in a blue moon someone has a few hours sleep interrupted then so be it.

bcourtney

652 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1616211 23-Aug-2016 10:38

PolicyGuy:

I support the use of body cameras by Police, I believe it will protect officers from unsubstantiated allegations of misbehaviour but also protect the public from officers who do misbehave.

As other have said, buying and operating the cameras will be relatively inexpensive, but managing the enormous volumes of data - all of it potentially evidential and therefore requiring a 100% tamperproof custody trail - would be very expensive.
Working on about 6000 'front-line' police implies about 1200 or so on duty at any time, let's say each camera would generate 100GB per day of footage (mostly of the dashboard of a Police car, very dull) that's 120TB per day, 43Exabytes per annum of Write-Once Read Hardly Ever data. And of course we need a dual-redundant geographically distributed storage solution - I wouldn't mind the sales commission on contract for that!

On the other hand, I remember reading an article about the adoption of body cameras by an English County Police Force, and that it (somewhat unexpectedly) resulted in the number of defended hearings for minor offences dropping to one-third of the previous level. Apparently, once the arrested person and their lawyer looked at the video coverage, the offender rather often put their hands up and pleaded guilty, no more court time wasted with "he said / she said" testimony.
So potentially a big saving in Vote Justice, and a big extra spending in Vote Police.

[fix speling musteaks]

The cameras generate 2.4GB per hour (H.265). While sitting in a police car (or at a donut shop) the cameras would not be set to record so wouldn't be recording all day. The footage can be marked as evidential or non-evidential in the system and have different retention settings assigned accordingly.

I'm not privy to any discussions NZ Police have had around deploying the system but I know the delays involved in deploying the system for another organisation with were more to do with ensuring the usage policies were generated that adhered to any applicable privacy laws etc. Several prisons have the system in place and from what I understand they didn't have to worry so much about the issues around recording in public places etc (for obvious reasons).

I seem to remember a report a while back that gave very good initial feedback of the system in place at prisons and the main positive was the deterrent factor that the cameras provided to help reduce inmate attacks on guards.

dafman

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1616232 23-Aug-2016 11:02

SpookyAwol:

dafman:

All the facts?

There are no facts!

Just they said, she said, he said.

That is why police should be fitted with cameras.

Correct, there are no facts it is under investigation.
We are all passing judgement on a one sided media account. The facts will come out as a result of a full and thorough investigation

There are no facts that can come out from an investigation. There are only the testimonies of the police and witnesses at the scene. Testimonies by their very nature are fallible, therefore, can never be fact.

ie. The police testimonies may be wrong, either deliberately or unintentionally. And the witness testimonies may be wrong, either deliberately or unintentionally.

And because you cannot ascertain facts from testimonies alone, that's why we need cameras on armed police!

1 | 2 | 3