Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One?

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the depends-when-it's-conveniently-turned-off dept.

Crime 192

Nerval's Lobster writes "Earlier this week, news reports leaked that the NYPD is evaluating whether to give its officers Google Glass for investigations and patrols. Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians, suggested that the NYPD must have purchased the units on its own initiative, rather than partner with the company. Some pundits and many civil libertarians hate the idea of law enforcement wearing Google Glass or other electronics that can send a constant stream of video and audio to a government (or even third-party) server. But at the same time, wearing Google Glass could also compel cops (and other law-enforcement personnel) to be on their best behavior at all times, particularly when it comes to use of force; the prospect of instantly available video detailing every aspect of an officer's shift could prove a powerful incentive to behave in a courteous and professional manner. But that's a very broad assumption; the reality—if cops really do start wearing Google Glass and other video-equipped electronics in large numbers—will likely end up determined by lots and lots of lawsuits and court-actions, many of them stemming from real-world incidents. Do you think cops should have Google Glass and other wearable electronics? And if so, what sort of regulations could be put in place to ensure that such technology isn't abused by the powers that be?"

cancel ×

192 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've got a n9okai Lumia 1020 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198209)

And your new design still runs horribly on this phone; Despite it being the latest designer phone!

Is it a bad idea? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198247)

Yes. Yes it is a bad idea. Yet orders of magnitude better than Beta.

Fuck Beta.

Re:Is it a bad idea? (0, Troll)

linuxci (3530) | about 6 months ago | (#46198329)

Yes. Yes it is a bad idea. Yet orders of magnitude better than Beta.

Fuck Beta.

Fuck Beta?

I've tried fuckbeta.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] - I recommend that as the starting point on /., makes the logs send a message.

Re:Is it a bad idea? (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#46198375)

Sometimes, a Cop dies.

See, there's some justice in the universe.

Re:Is it a bad idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198687)

Your obviously trolling, but I'll bite. Your comment is ignorant and sickening.

Why do you H8. . . (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46199163)

Communities of Practice?

I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198237)

and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46198259)

and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!

I've got news for you: Whether a phone is a designer phone or not has zero effect on how well or how badly it renders a web page. What matters is the hardware and software inside the device.

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198407)

Jesus Christ, are you stupid? It is one of the more popular phones on the market, and there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon. GP is noting that they obviously haven't tested for it. Normally you wouldn't need to test for every platform, but these ass clowns have obviously decided to disregard every convention in web development in favor of "OOH SHINY".

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46198517)

Jesus Christ, are you stupid? It is one of the more popular phones on the market, and there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon.

I can understand people having the occasional toke, even if I don't personally care for it, but I draw the line at people injecting stuff directly into their veins.

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199077)

It is one of the more popular phones on the market,

Hahhhahhahhha! Yes, Mr Microsofft evangelist, SURE it is...

there is a slim, albeit nonzero chance, that WP8 will actually become very popular very soon.

I've been given a Nokia 625 by one of my empoyers to use while I'm consulting to them. It runs WP8.1, and having used it for a month now, I can confidently state W8.x will NEVER become popular. If the telcos weren't handing them out cheaper than dumbphones (free, on our standard business plan), they'd be in landfill by now. In fact, based on experience, if there were ANY mobile browser that could possibly make Beta worse, it'd be WP8's.

So stop trying to flog your nasty product here. It's worse than Beta, and you SMM sockpuppets have ALREADY depopulated Slashdot with your incessant and inappropriate product placements.

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (1)

tibman (623933) | about 6 months ago | (#46199123)

It seems to be the camera that has made it popular, not the operating system. What happens when android ships on something with over 40mp?

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (2)

linuxci (3530) | about 6 months ago | (#46198411)

and this site design still runs horribly on this phone despite it being the latest designer phone!

Everything runs badly on a Windows Phone®

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 6 months ago | (#46198525)

No, the built in processor can detect how "hip" you are and clocks the CPU according to your hip factor.

See this video for more technical details on this amazing Microsoft invention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re:I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199557)

I've got a Nokia lumia 1020 and this site design still runs horribly

Which part of "Microsoft product" did you not understand?

Anything it sees may be used against you (5, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 6 months ago | (#46198241)

and anything it sees that's in your favor, they can just discard.

That's how it works currently when it comes to other kinds of evidence, no reason to think Glass data will be any different.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (4, Interesting)

DoninIN (115418) | about 6 months ago | (#46198295)

I'm a bit paranoid when it comes to this sort of abuse by those in power. If the data is streamed back to "police Hq" then there is a layer of oversight there to reduce the abuse, it's not about whether or not the deputy who decided he didn't like the look of you decides to ignore or delete this information, it requires a larger conspiracy by those who are supposed to responsible and accountable, and those who didn't make some mistake or abuse their power to begin with, so it's not unlike dashcams for policemans hats. Also seeing this article with the XKCD extension that replace Google Glass with Virtual Boy made me smile.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (5, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 6 months ago | (#46198297)

They don't need to discard it. Very few officers have ever been charged with murder while on duty regardless of whether or not there's video evidence and/or tons of witnesses.

Even if you, say, bash an innocent homeless man's face in, tase him repeatedly as he screams for help, and pile six officers on him until he suffocates.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (3, Insightful)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 6 months ago | (#46198351)

Or they could just ignore the public and do whatever the fuck they want like they currently do.

Remember that only INDIVIDUALS get punished when they don't line up with policy and then get paraded about as the system working well.

I still laugh when the plebs suggest that they can have a say in how anything in america goes does.

They will or will not use this as they please and there is not a fucking thing you can do about it.

Be a nice bovine and go back to being farmed for your productivity and wages like a good little citizen.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (2)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 6 months ago | (#46199389)

You can mod it down but it does not make it any less true.

Regardless how much cud you have to chew.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199455)

I like how you have +2 troll.
If I had mod points I'd mod you up.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (2)

bondsbw (888959) | about 6 months ago | (#46198653)

It would be difficult for a cop to wear Google Glass while getting away with forcing others not to use it.

Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199241)

They cannot force it or face big time lawyers hungry for money. It happens.

I'd say Great Idea (4, Insightful)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about 6 months ago | (#46198243)

This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 6 months ago | (#46198289)

As Spy Handler suggested, the bar would only be raised as high as the chief of police's scruples. Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 6 months ago | (#46199103)

Fortunately, centralizing corruption means there's only one head that needs to roll in order to fix a rotten department.

Sadly, no. Some bad cops get paid in money and some get paid in the security and convenience of doing nothing about it. It's the culture - the spirit - of the organization itself that becomes corrupt. Simply replacing some personnel won't purge it; you have to destroy the organization by moving the less-corrupt members into other, healthy departments in a dispersed manner, and keeping an eye on them until they're assimilated into the new culture.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198331)

The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video [digitaltrends.com] .

Re:I'd say Great Idea (4, Funny)

linuxci (3530) | about 6 months ago | (#46198421)

The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video [digitaltrends.com] .

Don't most NY cops only have a 30 minute working time followed by a 2 hour donut break. They can use that time to charge the batteries.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

tftp (111690) | about 6 months ago | (#46198507)

The summary must be wrong because Google glass has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video.

And, of course, there is no way to connect GG to a much larger battery that hangs on the policeman's belt, alongside with his Taser, his firearm, and a ton of other stuff?

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

bluFox (612877) | about 6 months ago | (#46198693)

What you don't get, is if this succeeds, what is to prevent our employers from insisting that each of us wear it while we work? If your argument is that we will somehow restrict it to cops, what differentiates cops from other government employees (facing similar flak - either for not working full time, or inefficiency and such) Is raising the bar on cops worth it to lose this freedom? You may want to read this short story which has such a thing as its premise. http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]

Re:I'd say Great Idea (2)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about 6 months ago | (#46198807)

Errr... A) being police, they are rightfully held to a much higher standard of accountability (how many teachers pack iron and have the latitude to use said iron?) B) being public employees, have arguably less rights in this area than other workers and C) the old slippery-slope argument rears its head yet again. :-)

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 months ago | (#46198823)

Most people are not in a position where they can legally take someones life, so I don't think this is really a slippery slope. Maybe make it a policy that the video can only be accessed if the officer is being investigated for wrongdoing.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

rgmoore (133276) | about 6 months ago | (#46198715)

As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

Only as long as the records are as readily available to people outside the police force as to the police themselves. If the police are free to produce recordings only when they find it convenient, they are useless for holding the police accountable.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about 6 months ago | (#46198783)

You are absolutely correct, sir! However, that - I would submit - is a separate issue not just related to GG. Fixing every facet of a problem is key, but so is having the tools and monitoring capability in place. Without that, it's back to the old "he said, he said..."

Re:I'd say Great Idea (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 6 months ago | (#46199207)

Even when the recordings are available on Youtube, the officers are pretty much safe. In many cases, they are suspended *with* pay and keep their jobs or are assigned desk jobs for a while.

FACIAL RECOGNITION, not Video Recording. (5, Insightful)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 6 months ago | (#46198811)

Google glass for cops is not about video recording. Even if it starts there, it's not about that. It's about facial recognition.

Every cop being able to know, looking at a person, who that person is, where they work, where they live, whether there are any warrants, what their facebook page says, what political party they are... almost anything big data can generate.

This is one of the single biggest threats to individual freedoms we have ever seen.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#46199331)

A lot of cops already have dash cams they ostensibly don't control. Google Glass would be easier to hack.

Really, I think the main new thing that would be introduced by cops wearing Google Glass is there'd be a lot of down-the-blouse cleavage shots circulating within the department - thanks to the traffic cops.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (3, Insightful)

fafalone (633739) | about 6 months ago | (#46199407)

Just like dashcams right? Instead I think we'll just see 4 Google Glass fail at the same time instead of 4 dash cams failing at the same time, at the exact time abuse is alleged to have occurred.

Re:I'd say Great Idea (2)

Thangodin (177516) | about 6 months ago | (#46199421)

Agreed. Where cops are required to wear surveillance gear, they are on their best behavior, because the video is available in court--this has already been demonstrated in the EU. And that's not up to the chief of police. Your lawyer can demand it. And Google glass feeds to the Google servers, not the police station. Ultimately, the cops don't own it, so they can't just delete or edit what they don't like, they can only modify their copy, which is not the master, which your lawyer can request. So they will be very careful to make sure that nothing incriminating appears in the feeds.

This is surveillance of the cops as well as citizens--souveillance, not just surveillance. Read Contrary Brin to find out what souveilance is. All the conspiracy theorist here need to take their tin foil hats off for a moment and try to understand what this really means.

Re:I'd say Great Idea: You'd be Wrong (1)

icebike (68054) | about 6 months ago | (#46199573)

This would absolutely raise the bar of performance for a lot of cops. As the summary says, knowing that you're being monitored all of the time would keep the cops on their best behavior.

The summary is pretty much wrong.
Just because they are wearing it does not mean its recording.
In fact you really don't have enough storage or bandwidth to record an 8 hour shift.

There are body-cams especially designed to record police encounters for a full shift, but Google Glass is not one of them.
So lets put all that nonsense of monitoring the cop away.

The facial recognition capabilities are something to worry about in the future, but I doubt this is available in real time, at least not real time enough for police work. The best it could do would be to ship an image of face off to some computer farm in the sky for matching, with results coming back some minutes or hours later.

In fact the ability to take pictures and have maps (hud) would probably be the most beneficial thing it would have to offer, just like it does
for everybody else.

Here's the deal (5, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | about 6 months ago | (#46198245)

Just got my glass last week, and the way I see it (pun!), it is ok for the cops as long as it is ok for the public at large too.

But it won't be. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199251)

Cops hate to be recorded. They will find a way to punish you for wearing a glass while dealing with them.
And they will undoubtedly delete whatever portions of their recordings don't show them in a favorable light. A few minor deletions can totally shift context, and hence the meaning, of anything anyone says.

Despite all of these objections, however, I am for it. In the real world, that which can be observed can be recorded. Using the law to resist this is futile, and harmful.

Just some thoughts (2)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 months ago | (#46198257)

Google, which is sensitive to accusations that it works hand-in-hand with governments or law-enforcement agencies to monitor civilians

I DO NOT MIND if google helps police agencies investigate crimes better by making google glass some type of Minority Report style computer (sans the whole crime prediction thing aspect of the movie).

I DO MIND if they build government backdoors to my data.

Not really hard, completely seperate things. But google is trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs.

Re:Just some thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198709)

Hello NSA troll.

Re:Just some thoughts (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 months ago | (#46198871)

How does editorializing by the author of this piece equate to Google trying to bamboozle the public with nonsequiturs?

Horrible Idea (1)

jhujoe (579368) | about 6 months ago | (#46198269)

Yes, it's a horrible idea. End of argument.

also: fuck beta (0)

jhujoe (579368) | about 6 months ago | (#46198301)

fb

Re:Horrible Idea (-1, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | about 6 months ago | (#46198509)

you're a horrible idea, too bad its too late for your parents to change their mind

Judging Performance (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198277)

My concern would not be that it would compel officers to be on their best behavior at all times, that is something I'd generally look at as a perk. Instead I'd be worried about how we would then judge cops job performance. This could very well remove the cops ability to ignore trivial and insignificant breaches of law that go on around them, as well as giving people a pass. With cops performance already often judged by the frequency of their tickets this could just open a new opportunity to diminish their role as protectors of the people.

Re: Judging Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198435)

Or worse, lower the publics standards of a punishable action.

Re:Judging Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198523)

If it's against the law, they shouldn't be ignoring it / giving a pass. Selective persecution is a bad thing. If it shouldn't be against the law, aim to change the law instead.

Re:Judging Performance (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 6 months ago | (#46198553)

Shouldnt the law be equally applied? It shouldn't be at the whim of an officer to decide if something is punishable.

If it's trivial and insignificant, then it shouldn't be illegal. If it is not trivial, then the cop should have to follow up on it. The alternative (what we have now) is that many trivial and insignificant things are illegal and cops can follow up on them at their own whim.

Unlikely because.. (2)

SinisterRainbow (2572075) | about 6 months ago | (#46199499)

... we already have plenty of cop shows that give us a general idea how officers let others off.. Further, I doubt it will be public record except later, or at hearings, and there will always be exceptions - like maybe detectives, or people who work contacts..

OK Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198281)

Record a video.

Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. (5, Insightful)

jcochran (309950) | about 6 months ago | (#46198291)

I don't see a problem with the police using Google Glass provided that if they do, the use is non discretionary and that the unedited video is provided in full upon demand by the public or accused. After all, we don't want the police turning off their glass if they're about to do something questionable. And we don't want anything that's in the favor of the accused to be discarded because it's "not relevant"

Re:Don't see a problem if some conditions are met. (1)

Pikoro (844299) | about 6 months ago | (#46199349)

Along the same lines, how about the "metadata" is put up on a public website immediately. For example, as soon as one of the police cameras start recording, there would be a log entry on a public website which would show activation time, officer who activated the camera, and termination time, plus a checksum for the newly completed video. That way, when evidence is needed, we can tell if the video has been edited/altered, and there is also a public record of who and when the camera was used. Then the officer can't simply say "we weren't recording during the altercation" or whatnot. You would also be able to see if the camera was activated while approaching someone, then switched off for 5 minutes, and then reactivated and now there is a guy bleeding on the ground. Any arrest made without a complete record, could be tossed out.

Depends (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46198303)

If they are just wandering around recording everything they see, its bad. If they are going to limit to recording 'interactions' then its not much worse than dash cams.

require them to retain video (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#46198317)

and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

Re:require them to retain video (1)

Nkwe (604125) | about 6 months ago | (#46198371)

and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.

And if for some reason the video gets "lost" or "corrupted", require that none of the video for a week before and a week after the "lost" video can not be used as evidence.

Re:require them to retain video (3, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#46199013)

I don't see that going through the court.

That said, maybe the real solution is for everyone to have cameras running on them all the time.

We've been amused of late by motorists in Russia sharing their dash cams with youtube. Apparently that's a thing in Russia... dash cams. Maybe as we push into the 21st century there is an increasing need for pedestrians to have recording devices on their persons at all times in the event of police harassment.

Re:require them to retain video (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 6 months ago | (#46199119)

As I understand it, dashcams in Russia are common because the video is used against the uninsured drivers who do hit and runs. The only way to prove damages is to catch the accident as it happens.

Panopticon (4, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 6 months ago | (#46198365)

Every single person on the government payroll should wear one, and the video and audio live streamed on the internet.

Any gaps in the record are presumptive evidence for employee malfeasance, and public innocence..

Re:Panopticon (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46198399)

Every single person on the government payroll should wear one...

Well, maybe just those who write and enforce the rules... And as long as we can record them with our own cameras, I see no problem.

Re:Panopticon (3, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 6 months ago | (#46198405)

And if they have nothing to hide, they should have no objection!

Re:Panopticon (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 6 months ago | (#46198677)

That is far more people than you might think.

Every college student on a project that lives on a government grant?
Every public school teacher in the classroom?
Your garbageman that happens to look into your back yard?

Re:Panopticon (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 6 months ago | (#46198773)

ALL of them, except my garbageman, who is part of the free-enterprise system in my part of the world.

Good idea (5, Informative)

twnth (575721) | about 6 months ago | (#46198409)

Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

Re:Good idea (5, Insightful)

ugen (93902) | about 6 months ago | (#46198657)

I am a "white guy with a job" too, about as law-abiding as anyone can get without becoming a monk - yet I absolutely do not trust police. My (albeit limited) personal experience with police, as well as what I see happening in general, suggests that by a large margin they are no less dishonest, selfish and brutal than general population. However, where general population is held in check by external factors, police have additional "special rights", whether by actual law or by precedent, that make them that much more dangerous.

May be up there in Canada things are different, but this was my experience in every location in US I lived in.

That said, I think cameras of any kind on police would be a good thing in most cases, though I suspect they will quickly learn to cope by having batteries run out just in time, or suspects need to be strip-searched every time, which *obviously* would require camera to be turned off for privacy reasons (and, don't you know it, naked suspect is probably more cooperative anyway).

Re:Good idea (1)

GerryGilmore (663905) | about 6 months ago | (#46198847)

Personally, I've had great and horrible experiences with cops. One locked me up just because I was freak (hippie to you outsiders!) and he was pissed about something. Another literally risked his life to save mine. On balance, I do trust the police as a group. Despite the first extreme episode I mentioned, I've found them to be professional, polite, dedicated, sorely underpaid and - considering the crap they have to deal with - resolutely patient.

Re:Good idea (1)

dasunt (249686) | about 6 months ago | (#46198703)

I'm for this if it becomes a regular habit to the point that if there isn't a recording, the case is almost certainly to be dismissed.

If we can ensure that, then google glass should reduce bad cops and increase the number of good cops. If we can't, then it's just another tool for abuse.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198799)

What, you mean Canada doesn't also operate under systematic wage-slavery, doesn't contribute to the same capitalistic stripmining of the planet the masses have no say in to stop and otherwise doesn't participate in the globalized indentured servitude that produces are cheap consumer products? Wait, you must be confused about what it means to be 'free' because you're truly sheltered.

It depends (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 6 months ago | (#46198849)

Even up here in the land of the actually free, police are starting to wear cameras (http://globalnews.ca/news/1093386/canadian-police-forces-looking-to-arm-officers-with-cameras/)

In my opinion, a camera on a cop is nothing more than an accurate, verifiable eye witness. It won't see or hear anything the officer won't already see and hear. Much better than an officer's memory and notebook.

Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

Maybe it's because I'm a white guy with a job. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian. But as a rule, I trust cops. Sure you get the odd bad cop, or a good cop making a mistake or having a bad day, but that happens with all people. Giving the cops a tool that provides information that might help reduce mistakes, and provides evidence both for and against them, to me is a good thing.

It depends on the department. Different departments have different cultures, and there are a lot of good cops, or cops who are good when dealing with a particular person or issue. (Like responding to certain issues of a white guy with a job.) But there are also a lot of bad cops who will beat the crap out of you because they want to--I've heard specifically of problems in L.A. and Nevada, for example.

Re:Good idea (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 6 months ago | (#46199475)

Using google glasses... good. It won't provide any more information than the officer already has access to, or that can't be mined off a conventional camera's video. It may just provide the info quicker, when the officer needs it.

The timely arrival of information can interfere with the correct application of decisions. Suppose a cop sees a minor infraction, like crossing the street 50m away from a pedestrian crossing. The choice to go and give that person a ticket or let it go is a function of the traffic conditions, ie how dangerous this behaviour is at the time. It shouldn't be about *who* the person is. Now suppose the glasses come up with a bunch of internet accusations against the jaywalker about beating his wife. So the cop decides to go talk to the guy and give him a ticket anyway.

By giving agents *more* information than necessary, it makes it harder or impossible for them to make correct decisions. It's not unlike hiring decisions, say. If every resume has race, religion, and age right next to the name, that's going to influence decisions for the worse. It's extra information, but it should *not* be available to the decision maker.

Re:Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199485)

-1 Naive.
You seem awfully confident that it will actually help, instead of just happen to not be working properly whenever a cop is accused of being in the wrong, like dashcams and microphones. All cops are bad cops. Even if you ignore the whole issue of "just following orders" as an excuse to ruin people's lives over victimless crimes, any cop that's been on the force for more than a month has seen one of those 'bad cops' and not reported him. Covering up for another cops illegal behavior makes you a bad cop and an untrustworthy person. FWIW, I'm a clean cut employed white guy too.

Ghost town (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198437)

Wow... this place became a ghost town. What happened?

Always recording . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198469)

and always delivering webcam feed to publicly available streaming site? Then yes.

Otherwise, no.

Re: Always recording . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199021)

Awesome Idea!

RE:ghost town (1)

Gaby de Wilde (2588537) | about 6 months ago | (#46198473)

The reply buttons dont work today. They are testing the new slashdot without replies.

Wow.. beta.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198491)

Wow... I got on Slashdot, saw I was on the beta, clicked Slashdot Classic. Clicked to read the comments on this story, as the comments are the reason I come here, and was redirected to the comment section, on beta... Why? I can't even see the comments as it requires javascript to be enabled! So.. I go to the bottom, click on Slashdot Classic, I am redirected to Slashdot home page on classic. I click on the comments of this story, I am redirected to the comment section, on beta... Why!

it is good (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 6 months ago | (#46198493)

especially if they are live streaming to the internet where anyone can watch it, that way if the police are guilty of brutality the evidence will be obvious, and on the other side of the coin if the officer is doing his job properly the evidence will be there to clear the officer of any misconduct

Not too late... (0)

Anachragnome (1008495) | about 6 months ago | (#46198541)

When the cops are all wearing them, they no longer need us to wear them.

Edward Snowden seriously fucked up their roll-out schedule--GoogleGlass was meant for us--so now they focus on getting it in place on the people that control us. They are running out of time because of people using websites like Slashdot, sharing information and raising public awareness. Even without Slashdot, YOU can still do the same. Seriously, folks--do you really think they are killing Slashdot on accident? Sheer stupidity? They are killing Slashdot to silence us.

US5722418
+
US5644363
+
GoogleGlass
+
Acceptance
=
????

If history is any sort of an indicator, any rights we sell today, our children must buy back with blood tomorrow

It should be required (1)

fred911 (83970) | about 6 months ago | (#46198579)

for use in an arraignment at the minimum. A sworn affidavit and the video evidence. it makes any look of impropriety or bias, out of the question. Why on earth would anyone that wants fair and impartial justice oppose this? Especially considering the question of incarcerating someone who's not yet found guilty?

Sure (3, Insightful)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#46198585)

...as long as the citizens can keep on recording on theirs. Fair's fair.

Predictions for public statements from PD (3, Interesting)

b1tbkt (756288) | about 6 months ago | (#46198641)

"I'm sorry, we can't release the officer's Glass-cam video at this time, as it's part of an ongoing investigation."

"Due to the overwhelming amount of video collected by our officers, we can only retain video streams for n days. Since the incident in question occurred (n+1) days ago, there's simply nothing that can be done to retrieve that data."

"Our department's forensic computer investigation unit has confirmed that the officer's Glass-cam was malfunctioning on that day and all attempts to recover video from the incident have proven unsuccessful."

obviously. (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 6 months ago | (#46198691)

cops should obviously be recording and recorded at all times. this will make sure that they are not abusing their power. we live in an age where we should expect everything we do in public to be visible on the internet eventually. i dont see any issue with cops being able to record everything they see in public. at least if every cop has video, fewer criminals will get away with crime due to ridiculous reasons.

I have Glass, and... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46198697)

They don't stay on very well. The weight of them makes them fly off if you turn your head really quickly. Give em to cops and they'll break in the line of duty in a day.

Glass is not rugged enough for this usage yet (3, Insightful)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46198725)

But I think that cops should be REQUIRED to use wearable recording devices when in the field. It's a natural, personal extension of the dashcams that are already standard. In fact, absence of a recorded interaction after an arrest should be considered suspicion of evidence tampering.

No difference (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 6 months ago | (#46198729)

'Glass, or just a head or shoulder mounted camera. Just yesterday, I saw a cop in my local grocery store with a shoulder mounted camera.

What the difference between that and 'ooohh shiny Google Glass'?

Re:No difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199641)

"dashcams" can only passively record. glass on the other hand can display information in a hud-like manner...combine this with facial recognition capabilities .....and access to the criminal records database.....

"Why so many 'malfunctions"? (1)

presspass (1770650) | about 6 months ago | (#46198761)

I think Google will hate this since there will be massive reports from the cops that the Google Glass malfunctioned.

Cops are like guns... (1)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46198885)

..they can be used for good and bad...but usually bad.

Related: Stross ended a trilogy early (1)

Fencepost (107992) | about 6 months ago | (#46199029)

As Charlie Stross put it in his announcement [antipope.org] , ""Halting State" wasn't intended to be predictive when I started writing it in 2006."

/. readers may be more familiar with the second book, or at least with the reference in its title: "Rule 34." The main character in that uses a descendant of Google Glass-like technology.

Maybe with a DOS like gui (1)

Z80a (971949) | about 6 months ago | (#46199127)

That prints out their prime directives onscreen using the ol good green text?

Hmm... Where have I seen this before? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 months ago | (#46199151)

Ah yes, Cop Space augmented reality in the book Rule 34. Hopefully, the future won't be like the rest if that novel - though even that would be better than /. Beta.

Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199167)

If cops keeping tabs on their Facebook instead of watching traffic is any indication, I say give them more distractions and keep them off our backs.

There's video and then there's smart video (1)

MrEdofCourse (2670081) | about 6 months ago | (#46199219)

I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence), and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

However, there are all kinds of issues with Google Glass and other smart video processing being used, not only by cops, but by individuals as well.

So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

Re:There's video and then there's smart video (1)

Whibla (210729) | about 6 months ago | (#46199435)

So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

You say this like it's a bad thing. I can't help but think that actual person specific data is a better reason to stop an individual, and subject them to a more detailed scrutiny, than the police basing their decision on race, clothing worn, policeman's intuition, or whatever reason takes their fancy at the time. Once we have granted the police the right to stop and search, giving them the ability to focus on those more likely to be breaking the law is a good thing, surely?

Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to mugshots.com, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

I have to say, public records are public records. If the public were not meant to be able to access this data it wouldn't be public. While I'm sure there will be individuals, some of whom won't even be on those lists you mentioned or ashamed of what the web remembers of them, who will object to this instant access on principle I'm struggling to see exactly what that principle is.

I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence),...

I tend to agree. I would hope, however, that any video they do record is both timestamped and watermarked in some way, so as to provide some level of trust in the veracity of any footage.

...and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

And this I emphatically agree with. The occasions when certain police officers have forbidden members of the public from filming them, and even removed cameras from them, is just wrong. There is no justification, and any excuse is generally couched in terms of an appeal to authority. That authority does not exist.

awful idea (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 6 months ago | (#46199285)

"Compel cops"

The idea that this will ever be used in benefit of citizens is laughable. With all of the facial recognition and data aggregation apps coming down the pipe, this is just an easy-button to turn the benign into "probable cause".

Fortunately, I don't think wearing Shemaghs is illegal in NYC, though it may be when the PC PPansies start pissing themselves when everyman walking down the street "looks like a terrorist".

Not if it can do facial recognition. (1)

thedarb (181754) | about 6 months ago | (#46199571)

If they can walk down the sidewalk and instantly categorize everyone around them, no thank you.

These two scenarios would suck, but stay out of trouble and this won't happen:
"Hey you! You have unpaid tickets!" Pounce.
"Hey you! You have a warrant 5 states away for blah!" Pounce.

But, it could also label people by beliefs and behaviors:
Glass says, "Known Muslim" Or "Known Christian" Or Democrat, or union member, or 1/2 black even though they don't look it. Or 'Arrested 12 years ago.'

The risk of them choosing people to abuse goes up the more they know about those people.

So no. Camera, fine. But HUD and immediate detailed info on every face it sees? Hello no.

As long as a third party getts all the data before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46199645)

The cops and have no way to delete anything ever for at least 50 years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>