• Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The cameras worked by constantly recording even before the “record” button was pressed, periodically deleting any footage that hadn’t been intentionally recorded. Once the “record” button was pressed by the officer, it would capture the 30 seconds before the button had been pressed, thanks to this method of constantly being on standby.

    But it was a hard concept for cops to understand. They weren’t being properly trained on the fact that their own cameras didn’t start recording once they pressed record. Hitting that button saved the 30 seconds prior as well, a neat feature that really bit them in the ass.

    Maybe bodycams should randomly record even when the RECORD button isn’t pressed by an officer; and the pre-record time should be random from say 2 minutes to 30 seconds before. And the recording should stop a random 30-60 seconds AFTER they hit ‘STOP’. So they never know when they’re being recorded. If they’re not pulling illegal shit, they shouldn’t have any problem with that, right?

    In fact, with storage capabilities nowadays, bodycams should ALWAYS be recording, period. Gotta go to the bathroom? Too damn bad. You’re a public servant. Trust the auditors to redact that if it comes to a court subpoena. You signed up for it. Extraordinary powers come with extraordinary sacrifices.

    Jeebus Chripes. No wonder so many people say ACAB.

    • moakley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I think we just need to revise the laws to say that a cop’s testimony doesn’t have any more weight than anyone else’s testimony unless it’s backed up by their bodycam.

      Taking cops at their word made sense when we didn’t have this technology. It doesn’t make sense anymore.

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I keep getting left off jury duty by honestly answering the question about whether I would give less weight to a cops testimony because they’re a cop.

        I suppose if there’s ever a civil jury trial that doesn’t involve a police testimony, I might serve in a jury.

        A bit of a shame because I don’t mind being on a jury. I’m not trying to get out of it. I’m just being honest.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I would even go a step further and say that cops’ testimony should not even be accepted if they don’t have bodycam footage to back it up. When you have a camera that’s able to verify anything you need it to, the absence of that verification should be viewed through the lens that you specifically did not want whatever was happening during that time to be recorded.

    • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      When we fly we are forced to let some stranger see our junk with the full body scanner

      Gotta make sure no one is smuggling a full sized tube of tooth paste up their ass

      Seems reasonable given that

      • KristellA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Hobesrly with the angles of the body cams I doubt anything would be visible. 100% be audible though.

    • SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Make the record button a pause button. Let it stop for five minutes if you’re not moving. Once you walk away, it automatically resumes, independent of time. If you pressed pause while not in front of the shitter, you’re investigated.

    • NewDark@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      People say ACAB because police are class traitors. They violently protect and serve the interest of capital.

    • forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 hours ago

      They absolutely should always be recording - and frequently backing up data to a server outside their control. Although it probably needs to have judicial oversight for access to days files?

      But yeah, what’s the damn point if it’s controlled by the very people the technology is intended to provide oversight for?

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      The company that sells the cameras and the police buying them don’t want that. The guy who owns the company that makes most body cams advertises that the cameras don’t record more accurately than the human eye. This enables cops to show a blurry 16fps 720p video and go “it looked like he was pulling out a gun”.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That might indeed be the result sometimes :). Doesn’t matter. Since the US seems OK with Amazon making their drivers pee in a bottle and docking them points for gazing away while driving, why not make police submit to full recording like this?