It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Police to use "Head-cams".

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

UK Police to use "Head-cams".


www.dailymail.co.uk

Police officers in the UK are to be given head-mouted video cameras to film incidents and arrests, the footage of which can then be used in evidence.

According to the guidelines officers are to wear a sign and to announce: "I am video recording you."

The cameras should not be used in general patrolling unless it is part of a specific operation, such as public order duties. Recordings not to be used in evidence should be deleted within 31 day
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
business.timesonline.co.uk
www.devon-cornwall.police.uk
police.homeoffice.gov.uk

[edit on 12/7/2007 by nerbot]




posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Whatever next..........

The thing that stands out to me is the pricetag for these "nifty" little gadgets..£1,700. WOW!

I just don't understand it? After going to the web-site for these "Archos AV 500s" and doing some quick calculations, I am stumped.

Archos web-site

These prices are in euros:

Archos AV 500.........................................600
Head-cam ...............................................150
"Super" battery pack................................150
Case........................................................40
USB cables...............................................30
Audio/video cables....................................20
I'll even add some unforseen accessories..100

Grand total ...........................................1090

So..in UK pounds, that's about ...............£740

That leaves around £1000 unaccounted for? Am I missing something here or am I to assume that "setting up" this scheme is to cost more than the equipment. Where does it go?

I think they are going to save a small fortune in the time it takes to prosecute and make a bundle from the extra fines etc that will go hand in hand with those prosecutions. A win win situation for the "Cops". I imagine they'll plough it into MORE surveillance and profiteering.

All comments welcome. Grrrrrrr!

Visit dailymail.co.uk for the full article

[edit on 12/7/2007 by nerbot]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I dunno, but I like the idea, it gives an extra layer of accountability. If every officer had a camera literally looking over his shoulder that transmits data to a central location and when a complaint about certain officers are made they can just check the relevant surveillance to determine the truth. No more Citizens word vs. Cops word in Cities that take up this new technology. I hope the price tag comes down though.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by sardion2000]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I agree with Sardion about having the video to reference to back up what ever the cop or the citizen says.
About the price though. Up until now I thought it was only the U.S. government that spent way more then they had to for there merchandise. I suspect some supplier paid off some government official to purchase his products at what ever price he sets. If you can find information on that it would make a very enlightening thread.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
Whatever next..........

I think they are going to save a small fortune in the time it takes to prosecute and make a bundle from the extra fines etc


And let's not forget when they sell the video rights to TV shows like "Cops" in the USA and "Police 10 Seven" in New Zealand...lots and lots of money to be made!

As for extra "accountability" I doubt it...they will never allow another Rodney King incident to get out in the public view. Any "unsavoury" footage i am sure will be mysteriously lost, or excuses like "we had a flat battery...or the camera wasn't working on that day etc...etc..."

Police forces around the world are now just part of the corporate machine - just there to make money...and be accountable only to their greedy keepers.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   


Any "unsavoury" footage i am sure will be mysteriously lost, or excuses like "we had a flat battery...or the camera wasn't working on that day etc...etc..."


Sorry I dont buy that for a minute. Maybe a corrupt cop's partner will help cover him up, but not a dispatcher, surveilance monitor etc etc. All cops are not bad, and the ones that are typically have their day.

I have actually pondered how we could get a system lie this in the ststes. Given all the squad cars have surveillance in them, but I always thought maybe a shoulder mounted camera or something to that nature could be equipped for accountability sakes.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
According to a policeman interviewed for a NEWS24 story, the head-cams will drastically increase succesful prosecutions of domestic assault cases. Too often the results of the assault are gone by the time the case goes to trial, and sometimes even when taking photographs at the station, it is done too late to show the damage caused. With the head-cams the evidence is recorded from the moment the victim is first seen by police. It should also encourage more women to press charges.

If even one more bas*%$d wife-beater does a stretch at her Majesty's pleasure then it will be worthwhile, in my view. I can't really see where civil liberties come into the equation.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
The cops I've talked to have said that they absolutely love the cameras in the squad cars. Makes them feel a lot more secure, and it adds a lot of accountability. So we know that the squad car cameras were a win/win situation, I'm betting that the headcams could be a good idea in a few years.

The principle is good now, it's just that I'd wait until they come at a better price before I'd equip the local police with it. Still a good idea though.

[edit on 7/12/2007 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Nerbot... it's tax payers money so the price is bumped up for maximum profit by the suppliers. The procurement folks responsible for signing the supply contract probably have no idea of the actual cost of putting together such a system. Working in the security industry I can put together a similar system a helluva lot cheaper then the one they are getting. In fact, so could any member of the public.
I've thought before now about rigging up a small system in my car so the next time a police vehicle cuts me up I get it on film and send it to the county chief


It's also worth mentioning that the police, so keen to film themselves arresting people, often view filming of themselves as unacceptable behaviour.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
According to a policeman interviewed for a NEWS24 story, the head-cams will drastically increase succesful prosecutions of domestic assault cases. Too often the results of the assault are gone by the time the case goes to trial, and sometimes even when taking photographs at the station, it is done too late to show the damage caused. With the head-cams the evidence is recorded from the moment the victim is first seen by police. It should also encourage more women to press charges.

If even one more bas*%$d wife-beater does a stretch at her Majesty's pleasure then it will be worthwhile, in my view. I can't really see where civil liberties come into the equation.


That would be a grand thing but the article did say this



The cameras should not be used in general patrolling unless it is part of a specific operation, such as public order duties.


I assume though that although the first officers on the scene would be unlikely to have a head-cam, someone would be sent out from the station once it has been confirmed as a domestic abuse case.

I saw a head-cam on an episode of The Bill last week (yeah I know - sad!) after there was a spot of trouble in a pub, and I remember thinking at the time, "Now that's a good idea!"



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I really do think that this is a fantastic idea. It will help the Police out in so many ways. Where I live is not a particularly nice city (Liverpool, UK) and if the Police were wearing head cams for certain duties, such as football matches, drugs raids, or even patrolling 'certain; areas where antisocial behaviour is rife, it would really bring benefits (and not of the social security type) to the people.
As others have mentioned, the accountability aspect of them is also very good. We had what we term the 'Slater Street Incident' in Liverpool a few years back, and if the Police had have been wearing headcams, I truly believe that this abuse of power would not have occured.
Therefore, for once, I say bring it on. Fantastic news.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I wonder will they turn them of the cameras while they are looking at all the little kiddies, paedos.

It seems that the english have at this time, lead the way in the police state agenda.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I wonder when the first case against an officer will be be dropped because the video footage has been "lost" or there was a camera malfunction



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I like this idea.

Here in the US we do something similar in many departments. In some department each car has a camera on the dashboard that is activated everytime the officer/deputy/trooper turns on the lights and sirens and thus they can record traffic stops and what not. It helps alot in shootings and it can help in cases of complaints against an officer. Many officers also wear little microphones on their uniforms to record conversations.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Though I think the added layer of accountability is a good thing, the unreasonably high price smacks of corruption and kickbacks...I wonder what the political connections are of the manufacturer.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Though I think the added layer of accountability is a good thing, the unreasonably high price smacks of corruption and kickbacks...I wonder what the political connections are of the manufacturer.

Very true; we recently purchased a new security camera system for our county jail here. 100 cameras apparently cost close to $2,000,000 ... oh and that does not include installation of the cameras, just the purchase price.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Reminds me of that scene In "The 4th of July" film at Area 51 where the chap says, "You dont think that hammer really costs $5000 do you" or words to that effect.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
How Long before everyone is required to have cams in their cars for "insurance" purposes.

Or everyone is to have a Home Cam setup for crime detourance or Home Insurance low rates.

The Future is In our cyber eyes. And with great programs around the world they will be able to edit a video of Osama Being caught, or Air Traffic controling the 9/11 attacks, or even ( so and So ) doing "whatever".

I trust these cams like I trust the credit card companies. Like I'd trust a 18-month old watching a Python.


Just wait these "niffty" lil deals will turn into a cornerstone for civil rights volations. I was told here in the states, any video images or voice recordings that were obtained thru non-warranted means ( Ie, I take a image still of a man breaking into my house on security cam, and catch his voice, that its not allowed in court as evidence.)

But Police cams im sure will be aBLE TO BY-PASS THAT.

No thanks, *cough* ( Police state, Police state ) *end cough*


[edit on 13-7-2007 by Tranceopticalinclined]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
When i first read this the other day i thought this is a great idea, as most police officers have to write everything down, this is a way of them recording everything that happened. After a couple days, it suddenly hit me what this is all about, anyone caught on the police camera can recorded and stored on that individual even if they haven't been involved in that crime. It starts getting murky from here, its a massive dish out on tax money if you voted lib dem they would take that tax from petrol.

The UK is turning into a socialist shambles and anyone with a bit of brains could be a dictator here due to the amount of goverment knowledge of the general public. This maybe a different topic but the UK have got the silly idea of making the polluters (general public) pay instead of the people who make the pollution happen pay instead, by making them change there actions. The more i think about it the more we live in a dictatorship, goverment never listens to the people and BBC gives out propaganda, what alternative to we have ITV and Sky (Fox). The best films ive seen on this subject is this : -




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Thanks for all the interesting comments people.

I have to wonder about this working both ways...if a member of the public has a problem with an officer who has a headcam and was recording an incident, how likely is it that the same footage would get used to support the "suspect" if the problem led to a complaint.

Also, I ask the usual questions....will they really only keep the recordings for 31 days?

How do we know some officers won't use these "players" to watch movies or record just about anything they see fit, for personal use or just a "suspicious" event?


And with all the creative "tools" available, is it not possible, in extreme cases, to have a hoax video made to set someone up?

I realise that in most cases these cams will be used properly and will benefit police and public most of the time. There will no doubt be many reports in the media of how wonderful they are, but eventually there has to be an exeption.

Regarding the pricetag..someone, somewhere is making a nice packet out of this and once they are more accepted, they will be laughing all the way to the bank.

So....early days....so glad I'm not in the UK anymore.

Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join