OK its been awhile.

**moving-target** · 12-06-14, 02:28 PM

maybe once they served a purpose but now its just over done it serves nothing like everyday you get douche bag high school kids walking out of class cause they dont like the food in the cafetiere people just want to bitch and moan and make sure everyone sees it

**dex71** · 12-06-14, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

I agree with what you say about the cameras but one thing you're not taking into account is the storage costs. When I was working with local law enforcement here in SC, the data retention policy for these camera's had a cost that was 10x the cost of the cameras themselves. You figure the average stop takes about 15 minutes, you're looking at 1.5gb per stop, per officer. You multiply that by the amount of officers, account for retention and now you're looking at data storage arrays that are well over 100k. This doesn't even bring up the fact that these body cams are easily tampered with.

Minneapolis figured out how to store dashcam vid, so one would think that a chest cam wouldn't be too tough to figure out. Maybe it doesn't fire-up until the officer is 10 feet from his squad (where the dash cam would take care of the video/audio.

And if the NSA is storing e-mails and phone confabs they must have some storage available to them. Maybe the local departments fund enough to store a years worth of data, then have a yearly upload to a national data base of some sort where the cost per Gb might be a bit lower. Hold on to it for a few years, and dump what isn't needed.

I'm no IT whiz, but it seems to me that since we are already storing stuff up here in GC, adding an additional camera to the system shouldn't be too tough.

**deathgodusmc** · 12-06-14, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Wasn't the choking an illegal technique the NYPD doesn't allow? Wasn't that death declared a homicide by the coroner?

Sent from my SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Yup. Homicide is normal on a dc whenever the death is not a natural one. It simply means he died of external causes basically.

**salty99** · 12-06-14, 04:24 PM

All things considered, I have been thoroughly impressed with the way Dallas PD has been responding to the protests. Sometime last week, a couple hundred protesters walked up to the interstate and laid down across the road like ass-hats. That literally accomplishes nothing except asking to be either run over or arrested. I can't find the original article I read, but it seems like for the most part Dallas PD has their heads on straight as far as the psychological element of protest containment goes. Keep the tear-gas and pepper ball guns out of sight of the protesters, don't be provoked into escalation, plain-clothed officers in the mix, patrol cars to block off certain areas. These seem like basic things, but it does a lot to keep things from escalating. Escalation is the last thing you want in a protest like this.

Dallas hasn't had the best of luck in the past with handling protests and they appear to have learned their lessons.

Amid deadly-force protests, Dallas police try to enforce law without touching off violence | Dallas Morning News
Protesters arrested after marching onto I-35

**AetheLove** · 12-07-14, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Now moving on to these protesters. Am i the only one that when you see the blocking roads thinks how retarded are you if you're just to gain support by pissing everyone else off and that i would be pushing my truck thru those stupid fuckers?

Originally Posted by dex71

The protests are getting ridiculous.

The protests are ridiculous, and for any number of reasons.

But what else ya gonna do? "I was late because a lot of people couldn't find any other way to express their outrage at obvious injustice and corrupt authority" seems like the sort of thing you'll get over pretty quickly.

I think cameras on cops is a great idea except for that it's stupid. I'm not trying to put down the "moar cameras!" people, because in any specific situation where there is some doubt about what happened it's almost always better to have more info.

But the problem doesn't seem to be lack of info. When there is ambiguity, it's easy to blame a lack of info. But we've seen lots of cases - Eric Garner's homicide is the most recent example - where that's not the problem. How much more info do you need to get an indictment? Not a conviction - an indictment! "Maybe a crime occurred, and we should start the legal process."

Have you looked at the statistics for how often grand juries don't indict? Has anyone not yet heard the ham sandwich quip?

If more cameras are the solution, then why are so many third parties harassed and (illegally) arrested for shooting video when police are around? Because the police are not in control of that video.

Cameras give us video. Video is sexy. Video is scary. Video plays directly to our deepest biases and worst fears.

Cameras on cops mean we only get - literally - the cop's perspective. They will be in charge of framing, or obscuring.

What have we learned over these past decades? How much evidence, particularly video evidence, goes 'missing' when having that happen is convenient for the people in charge of keeping it?

What we need are cops and prosecutors we can trust. Cameras - at best - do almost nothing to help that. I would argue they make that situation worse.

[also, we're going to put a video camera on every cop? that's a lot of money up-front. that's also a lot of video. that's a lot of money in ongoing administration and maintenance. where is that money coming from? it's damned sure not coming from the pile of money used to buy combat weapons and APCs for peace officers.]

Æ

**Warprosper** · 12-07-14, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by dex71

Minneapolis figured out how to store dashcam vid, so one would think that a chest cam wouldn't be too tough to figure out. Maybe it doesn't fire-up until the officer is 10 feet from his squad (where the dash cam would take care of the video/audio.

And if the NSA is storing e-mails and phone confabs they must have some storage available to them. Maybe the local departments fund enough to store a years worth of data, then have a yearly upload to a national data base of some sort where the cost per Gb might be a bit lower. Hold on to it for a few years, and dump what isn't needed.

I'm no IT whiz, but it seems to me that since we are already storing stuff up here in GC, adding an additional camera to the system shouldn't be too tough.

It's not that it's hard to figure out, it's just more expensive than people think. Your typical dash cam setup requires more than 5tb on the backend with roughly 90 days retention. A system like this takes quite a bit of money, and the storage/maintenance costs are the brunt of it.

**deathgodusmc** · 12-08-14, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

The protests are ridiculous, and for any number of reasons.

But what else ya gonna do? "I was late because a lot of people couldn't find any other way to express their outrage at obvious injustice and corrupt authority" seems like the sort of thing you'll get over pretty quickly.

I think cameras on cops is a great idea except for that it's stupid. I'm not trying to put down the "moar cameras!" people, because in any specific situation where there is some doubt about what happened it's almost always better to have more info.

But the problem doesn't seem to be lack of info. When there is ambiguity, it's easy to blame a lack of info. But we've seen lots of cases - Eric Garner's homicide is the most recent example - where that's not the problem. How much more info do you need to get an indictment? Not a conviction - an indictment! "Maybe a crime occurred, and we should start the legal process."

Have you looked at the statistics for how often grand juries don't indict? Has anyone not yet heard the ham sandwich quip?

If more cameras are the solution, then why are so many third parties harassed and (illegally) arrested for shooting video when police are around? Because the police are not in control of that video.

Cameras give us video. Video is sexy. Video is scary. Video plays directly to our deepest biases and worst fears.

Cameras on cops mean we only get - literally - the cop's perspective. They will be in charge of framing, or obscuring.

What have we learned over these past decades? How much evidence, particularly video evidence, goes 'missing' when having that happen is convenient for the people in charge of keeping it?

What we need are cops and prosecutors we can trust. Cameras - at best - do almost nothing to help that. I would argue they make that situation worse.

[also, we're going to put a video camera on every cop? that's a lot of money up-front. that's also a lot of video. that's a lot of money in ongoing administration and maintenance. where is that money coming from? it's damned sure not coming from the pile of money used to buy combat weapons and APCs for peace officers.]

Æ

But part of the problem is lack of info. Look at the brown case. How much video have we seen of what took place and not just after it? Look at the garner case. We have plenty of up front but nothing after it. Should have been enough but then we run into one messed up legal system. Its designed to protect the guilty to begin with. Add the party has a badge and its almost unheard of for them to get a guilty verdict. It happens every once in a great while but we all know they "take care of each other" to the point justice is hardly ever seen. But it appears we agree on this point most likely because its pretty obvious to see whats going on.

I agree on what would happen if they are allowed to tamper with the info being stored. Honestly though you have to start somewhere and unfortunately we dont get to chose who gets to stay on the payroll at any office. If we did the problem would have been resolved by now. Of course i cant argue against needing honest people filling those positions but you get what you pay for. I know this is going to piss a few off around here but the bulk filling those positions were never the pick of the liter. We have a few that do it for the same reason i joined the Corps. Service, pride, and someone has to be willing to do what needs to be done.

That being said thats not why most of them are there. Maybe more started the job the other and lost their way but most of the ones i know did it because it pays decent and good benefits. Of course the pay is decent when your previous job was around minimum wage and once you have the job its almost impossible to get fired. Most of them aren't worth the check their collecting and i know around here the ones i went to school with fit the old joke about getting beat up in high school and they are power tripping.

**deathgodusmc** · 12-08-14, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

It's not that it's hard to figure out, it's just more expensive than people think. Your typical dash cam setup requires more than 5tb on the backend with roughly 90 days retention. A system like this takes quite a bit of money, and the storage/maintenance costs are the brunt of it.

As you noted they already have a system in place. Doubling that system is pretty easy. What i would like to see is the someone outside the system being responsible ie only password to access the files on those cameras and drives/servers. All he does is download and store until deletion dates. No viewing. In fact it wouldn't be that hard to make it to where he has no capabilty to view the material. When an instance comes up that they need the data it gets uploaded to a drive and sent out. He has no reason to be able to view the material so why give it to him? If it gets deleted at that point it was done by a lawyer. It easier to do then people think and im not an "IT" guy.

**AetheLove** · 12-08-14, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

As you noted they already have a system in place. Doubling that system is pretty easy. What i would like to see is the someone outside the system being responsible ie only password to access the files on those cameras and drives/servers. All he does is download and store until deletion dates. No viewing. In fact it wouldn't be that hard to make it to where he has no capabilty to view the material. When an instance comes up that they need the data it gets uploaded to a drive and sent out. He has no reason to be able to view the material so why give it to him? If it gets deleted at that point it was done by a lawyer. It easier to do then people think and im not an "IT" guy.

"It's easier to do than people think" is true if we're talking about the technical side. Commodity hardware already exists. There are already systems that do similar stuff. The back-end storage and retrieval technology is mature.

I would guess that there are some technical hurdles. Power and local storage would be non-trivial. You'd also keep running into those classic engineering tradeoffs that come down to; "A, B, and C - choose two." There are lots of examples to offer, but my posts are generally too long and none of them are really my point.

"It's easier to do than people think" is probably not true if we're talking about the cost side. In my experience, data storage and retrieval have only small scale advantages. That is: doubling your volume won't quite double your costs, but it's close. I couldn't even begin to guess what happens to administrative costs. This isn't like expanding Pinterest where you just cut a larger check to Amazon. On top of all the technical and librarian work, there is a legal aspect as well. This isn't the same as storing selfies in some cloud-based hopper - it's only similar. Also; this isn't Google, or Facebook, or Amazon who treat 'storage' as a single fungible commodity. These are hundreds (thousands?) of separate police departments. If they do it separately there is no cost advantage. If they contract out to a large provider, the cost advantages go to the provider. It's expensive. There is no way to get around that.

My concerns are on the social side. You'd like to see someone outside the system be responsible? You'd like to make sure the keepers can't also be viewers? You'd like to think that 'password access' solves the problem of who can or can't see stuff? Me too! I'd love to see those. I want desperately to believe. But it never - ever - works out that way. Cops (and NSA guys) routinely abuse their data access privileges. They look up shit even when it is explicitly illegal to do so. They stalk women. They gather information on people they want to intimidate.

I think it's wrong for people to have their every move and action recorded and stored out of their control. The surveillance society is bad. I also think that applies to police officers. I don't want them to have to be aware that everything they do is being recorded and stored and made available to lawyers and prosecutors and departmental nit-pickers. It starts to turn them into performers. I think it's bad for cops to feel like they are special - separating them for special treatment and special punishment makes them less and less a part of the community they serve. It turns them into a protected class that uses their position to institutionalize their special treatment and eliminate special scrutiny and punishment.

In many places that's already happened. Those are the places where bad shit goes on and where we wish there was video to confirm (or reject) the accusations. But those are also the places where the police will make sure they can manipulate any new system that's put into place.

Æ

**Warprosper** · 12-08-14, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

"It's easier to do than people think" is true if we're talking about the technical side. Commodity hardware already exists. There are already systems that do similar stuff. The back-end storage and retrieval technology is mature.

I would guess that there are some technical hurdles. Power and local storage would be non-trivial. You'd also keep running into those classic engineering tradeoffs that come down to; "A, B, and C - choose two." There are lots of examples to offer, but my posts are generally too long and none of them are really my point.

"It's easier to do than people think" is probably not true if we're talking about the cost side. In my experience, data storage and retrieval have only small scale advantages. That is: doubling your volume won't quite double your costs, but it's close. I couldn't even begin to guess what happens to administrative costs. This isn't like expanding Pinterest where you just cut a larger check to Amazon. On top of all the technical and librarian work, there is a legal aspect as well. This isn't the same as storing selfies in some cloud-based hopper - it's only similar. Also; this isn't Google, or Facebook, or Amazon who treat 'storage' as a single fungible commodity. These are hundreds (thousands?) of separate police departments. If they do it separately there is no cost advantage. If they contract out to a large provider, the cost advantages go to the provider. It's expensive. There is no way to get around that.

My concerns are on the social side. You'd like to see someone outside the system be responsible? You'd like to make sure the keepers can't also be viewers? You'd like to think that 'password access' solves the problem of who can or can't see stuff? Me too! I'd love to see those. I want desperately to believe. But it never - ever - works out that way. Cops (and NSA guys) routinely abuse their data access privileges. They look up shit even when it is explicitly illegal to do so. They stalk women. They gather information on people they want to intimidate.

I think it's wrong for people to have their every move and action recorded and stored out of their control. The surveillance society is bad. I also think that applies to police officers. I don't want them to have to be aware that everything they do is being recorded and stored and made available to lawyers and prosecutors and departmental nit-pickers. It starts to turn them into performers. I think it's bad for cops to feel like they are special - separating them for special treatment and special punishment makes them less and less a part of the community they serve. It turns them into a protected class that uses their position to institutionalize their special treatment and eliminate special scrutiny and punishment.

In many places that's already happened. Those are the places where bad shit goes on and where we wish there was video to confirm (or reject) the accusations. But those are also the places where the police will make sure they can manipulate any new system that's put into place.

Æ

I agree.