There was an ‘incident’ in the USA where a police camera documented police officers planting evidence. They had forgotten something about their police camera:
apparently, these cameras always keep the last thirty seconds, and when activated, keep that plus further footage. Thus the officer thought he was controlling when recording started, but inadvertently captured the previous thirty seconds as well.
Unfortunately, it appears to this blogger that police frequently get off either very lightly or scot-free. The Forcillo case in Toronto is going back on appeal.
Here’s what I think the rules should be for police cameras:
- always on.
- always streamed to cloud storage which is audited daily for no gaps.
- always available to all parties in cases of possible police action being questionable.
- always directly identifiable as to what officer is wearing the source of footage.
In an ideal world, all officers appearing on police camera would be automatically identified. Chip implant? Facial recognition? Permanent log of who was where?
Police forces will scream that this puts them at a disadvantage. I beg to disagree:
- Police are armed, can make arrests, have a lot of discretionary power.
- Full disclosure of police actions will create, eventually, public trust.
- Officers who cannot earn public trust should not be armed nor badged.
Comments, anyone? Anyone willing to put their real eMail and make a real comment here?
That’s today’s dumb question.