It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Step Forward for Law Enforcement, and Even Some on ATS will be Happy!

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

The DVR recorder uses its own stamp,watermarking and format for the digital file. Any format change off of a 1st gen recording would stick out. Unless you could replicate the specs exactly, digital editing without detection becomes extremely difficult. .

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Demoncreeper]

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by DomhainGràdh

No problem whatsoever. We're all allowed to do a little ranting every now and then. As far as the camera thing goes, it's a great idea. Although I can see a lot of officers hating it. It's sure to keep a lot of officers on their toes. In my own agency, about a year back we had an officer suspended after a complaint from a prominent official that he had received a citation. When internal affairs reviewed the tape they found that the officer skipped a step in the "seven-step violator contact method"(the officer forgot to verbally identify the agency he was with). No rudeness on the officers part, he just forgot a certain step. The citation was pulled and the officer given a day suspension. Nothing is perfect, and sometimes even good officers get their butts reamed by the system. But if a camera is what it takes for progress to be made and for officers to be held accountable then ultimately it's all worth it. I can see how people would find both pros and cons for the camera, it all depends on how a person wants to look at it. I personally am in favor of it. If an officer isn't doing anything wrong, then he has nothing to worry about. As someone else mentioned, since everything is going digital now, the likelihood of someone tampering with any digital video footage is very slim.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by rcwj1975

About 9,500 people nationally were killed by police during the years 1980 to 2005–an average of nearly one fatal shooting per day.

It says 12,000 are killed in the U.S. annually by gun shot so the cops do about 1/36th of the killing.

Doctors are the third largest cause of death in the U.S. btw -- wrong prescription -- of course they get paid a lot more so it makes sense.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by drew hempel]

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by drew hempel

About 9,500 people nationally were killed by police during the years 1980 to 2005–an average of nearly one fatal shooting per day.

It says 12,000 are killed in the U.S. annually by gun shot so the cops do about 1/36th of the killing.

Doctors are the third largest cause of death in the U.S. btw -- wrong prescription -- of course they get paid a lot more so it makes sense.

Ok and your point is? I read the racially biased (source) article and noticed one thing. It mentions NOTHING about what caused the shootings, why their were guns involved, etc, etc, etc....basically meaning this stat shows nothing more than we as LEO's were involved in 9,500 shootings. Is your assumtion that all of these shootings were murder and not legitiment?

Since you want to talk numbers by the way, here is one for you. You numbers say that from 1980 to 2005..thats 25 years, we as cops got into 9,500 shootings. Here is the 2008 stat for murder in the US..just ONE YEAR: 16, multiply that by 25 years and even drop the average to 15,000 per year, and that equals 375,000 murders. So you can throw numbers around all day, but your more likely to get killed by your fellow man then the officer you wanna talk ---- about.

ADD: Sorry here is the crime stat source.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by rcwj1975]

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by rcwj1975

"I have no idea what happened to you guys that day as I was not there. It sounds like there is MUCH more to this story then you will obviously share. As I said in another thread to you, I am a veteran as are MANY LEO's, so why would we say anything to you on a day to celebrate our service? Again, tell the whole story UNEDITED!"

There is no whole story? When I was in University I joined a group of Vets who were not getting fair treatment. For me the first kick in the teeth was my old union job, which I was entitled to, did not rehire me. The Union would not back me. When going to Uni our GI Bill pay check was delayed for four months and longer making going to school almost impossible. I was not the only Vet this happened to.

I saw a group of people in my Uni Student Hall wanting to protest looking for people like me. I joined them! Simple as that! I have published one march’s pictures on Ugies posting last year of Leos all around us. I watched many of my friend’s cameras broken or taken away.

All we did was march on the sidewalk with our protest signs and chanted our slogans. After Uni I received a good job, expense account and a company car but in Calif. being a veteran is something not worth admitting to outside your friends. It is different today but if we loose this war I fear the same will happen. When I found getting a job with another company higher up the food chain as it were, my military service was not helping me but actually hurting me. One man told me from the interview panel downstairs after the interview that if he were me he would drop my service on my CV and filled the time with travel experience! After 6 years in this job I left America. Simple!

Never served 1 minute in jail, never had handcuffs or questioned outside a couple of speeding tickets that cleared whilst in Uni. To be hired by a NY based company in Ca demonstrates no wrong doing by my part. My company car was a mid size costing $18,230 (very early 80's). This demonstrates one has a good driving record and no arrest record! My only encounters with Leos were in protest marches and a few tickets while in the service travelling across the States on motorways.

My boarding ticket tells me someone kept an account on our protest marches. While living here in the UK far from London I imported specialized computer equipment from Huntsville Al. I had to have a special White House Lic to do this in 1987. I did not have hassles flying in those days. The hassles started when I flew to SeaTac as my mother was ill. The day I arrive was when Seattle was under protest by an angry mob doing damage and things we did not do in our protest marches or dreamt of doing. The date was Nov 30th 1999. I was questioned for 30 minutes and started getting angry but I won't show bad attitude but did ask for my interviewers supervisor. He proudly said he did not have any supervisor at this location. He was dress in a nice suit. The people who were meeting me at the airport were very concerned, as all the people from London have left customs area. I was eventually released. This was the first of many encounters since.

Sorry for being off topic but you asked for the entire story. My service record is clear of any wrongdoing as I have a good conduct with oak leaf. I drove in the last couple of years for high-ranking officers. However I did protested very loudly and was recorded many times by the press at these protest marches. I don't believe you have done this. Being in the south you probably got your old job back with promotions. I know when I was at Bragg I hitch in uniform and always received rides. When at FT Gordon I found the south very friendly. In those days the Bay Area of Ca was not veteran friendly. Many anti war people I encountered doing casual work. Their right to be so. I just go so tired of defending my service as I was not drafted and served by choice. If you had my experiences I wonder how you would feel. Some of our boys were pulled out of the protest and driven away and taught a lesson. My experience with Leos and secret documentation has scared me for life.

I do have a plane ticket if you are interested with the "SSSS" stamped on it.

Don't know what more you want to hear but I have never been charged or arrested and worse case is travelling 65 in a 55 on a motorway. The only people who saw what we did was on the news for 3 minutes, people who were at the parade but the Leos were everywhere with their movie cameras.

Question how do you account for my ticket stamp? I now travel with my medals so that the officers at the airport can see I am not the dirty rat they think I am while they are searching and questioning me why I am travelling. I never felt my country owed me anything except for my GI Bill which 4 months delay payment each year made going to school a challenge, I thought I earned that benefit along with freedom of speech.

I don't mind Leos filming the bad guys, the criminals, gunmen, crack and drug dealers but not protesters who are marching. I never considered myself a bad guy but I suffer because of Leos taking notes on fellow protesters and me at Veterans Day marches and school rallies. This is why you and I disagree on the other thread regarding secret messages. I hope you are man enough to say the truth that you put it on the customer’s copy of the ticket.

I just wish I could have my day in court to understand what I did so bad to have these marks on my plane ticket. Ms Wolf explains in her book that many protesters have suffered my fate. Even journalist! I am not the only Vet as you suggested and there are far more soldiers with more awards. I only did what I had to do at the time for my fellow soldiers and myself safety.

I am sure many IVATW are having secret documentation written about them only now it is done on computers in real time. I can only account that the age of PC being everywhere that started to effect my international travelling in 1999 to present. Before 1999 I had no problems.

The delay of GI Bill payments, 59 days in a VA hospital instead of a couple of days because of an intern’s mistake (I almost lost my left foot) and my job in high school was refused when presenting my Union Withdrawal Card with the job back promise on the back which I fully qualified were my reason for protesting!

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by richierich

There are books on this and I'm not about to read you one.

Is Your Use Commercial or Informational?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive test that tells you whether your intended use is informational or commercial. Below are summaries of cases that straddle the border between informational and commercial uses. Cases with similar facts may seem to have different results often because a judge has broad discretion in making a determination.

Informational use. A photo of football player Joe Namath was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and later used in advertisements to sell subscriptions to Sports Illustrated. No permission was required because the initial use of the photo was editorial and the subscription ads were "merely incidental," indicating the nature of the magazine contents. (Namath v. Sports Illustrated, 371 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1975).)

Informational use. The National Enquirer and USA Today held telephone survey polls about the musical group New Kids on the Block. Use of the names and images of the group in connection with the newspapers' profit-making 900 numbers did not require permission because it was primarily for purposes of "news gathering and dissemination. " (New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).)

Informational use. Public domain film clips of Fred Astaire were used as a prologue to an instructional dance video. The use of the Astaire name was permitted in the prologue based on the informational content of the video. (Astaire v. Best Film & Video Corp. , 136 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998).)

Informational use. A film company acquired the rights to re-release 1950s films featuring actress Betty Page and commissioned drawings of Ms. Page to promote the films. Ms. Page sued to prevent the use of her image and name to promote the films. A court permitted the use because the advertising was incidental to the re-release and was "newsworthy" due to the reemergence of the two 1950s movies. (Page v. Something Weird Video, 960 F. Supp. 1438 (C.D. Ca. 1996).)

Informational use. Following a Superbowl victory, a San Jose newspaper sold posters of quarterback Joe Montana. Mr. Montana sued but, in a surprising ruling, a court permitted the use, claiming it was newsworthy because of the "relatively contemporaneous " publication of the posters with the news event. (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, 34 Cal.App.4th 790 (1995).)

Commercial use. During the NCAA tournament broadcast, an ad for Oldsmobile featured a voice asking who held the record for being voted the most outstanding player of the tournament. The answer printed onscreen "Lew Alcindor, UCLA, '67,'68,'69." (The basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was previously known as Lew Alcindor.) The ad stated that Oldsmobile was the winner of a Consumer's Digest award three years in a row and ended with the statement "A Definite First Round Pick." Abdul-Jabbar sued, claiming that his name was used without permission. The court decided in his favor, ruling that although the advertisement provided information, the overall effect was commercial and required permission. ( Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996).)

Commercial use. Los Angeles Magazine contained a fashion article which featured a digitally modified photograph combining Dustin Hoffman's head with a photograph of a male model's body in a gown and woman's shoes. The text stated: "Dustin Hoffman isn't a drag in a butter-colored silk gown by Richard Tyler and Ralph Lauren heels. " Although the photo was used in an informational article, the overall effect of the use was commercial, promoting the specific designers. ( Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 33 F. Supp.2d 867 (C.D. Ca. 1999).)

Commercial use. A photo of Cher was featured in Forum Magazine and was later used in advertisements for subscriptions to the magazine. Beneath Cher's photo in the advertisements was a caption implying Cher's endorsement of the magazine. The implied endorsement created a commercial use of the name and distinguished this use from the case involving Joe Namath, above. ( Cher v. Forum Inter. Ltd., 692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982).)

Websites: Informational or Commercial?
Can a website be informational if its primary purpose is to promote a business?
Websites raise many of the issues in the borderline cases in the previous section. Several factors are weighed to determine whether the use of a name or image on a website is commercial or informational:

If the use of the name or image at the website relates to a newsworthy event, the use is more likely to be informational.
The more website space devoted to selling, the less likely the use is informational.

The longer the person's name or image remains at the site, the use is less likely to be informational.
The more separation between the informational content and the sponsorship of the site and related advertisements, the more likely the use is informational.

Free Speech May Obviate Need for Release

A person's name or image can be used for commercial purposes without permission if the commercial use qualifies as free speech. This generally occurs when the use is categorized as a parody.

For example, a company sold trading cards featuring caricatures of major league baseball players. Text on the cards ridiculing player salaries and egos included a statement: "Cardtoons baseball is a parody and is NOT licensed by Major League Baseball Properties or Major League Baseball Players Association." A federal court permitted the use of player's names and caricatured images as free speech. (Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assn., 838 F. Supp. 1501 (N.D. Okla. 1993).)

However, individuals wary of litigation should weigh the consequences and costs of a lawsuit before claiming a free speech right to use an individual's name or image.
Disclaimers !
To have any legal effect, a disclaimer must be in close proximity to the person's image or name and as prominent as the name or image. It must also disclaim any sponsorship, endorsement or association with the product or service involved. Because of the legally tenuous value of disclaimers, it is generally not wise to rely on them for protection.
Chang v. Virgin Mobile USA, is a real good one to read.
What should you bear in mind when photographing people?
There is no general legal requirement to obtain someone’s authorization to take his or her photograph. However, there are situations where photography can infringe on important social interests such as national security, protection of children, right of privacy, etc. Most of these situations are strictly controlled by national laws and regulations. Irrespective of the legalities, there are also some things a photographer should not photograph for ethical reasons. Certain photographs of people may amount to exploiting the persons concerned or misrepresenting the truth. If you, as a photographer, know the law and one’s legal rights, you will also be in a better position to find solutions that minimize your legal risks.
Often, you may be free to take a photograph of a person, but the way the image is used may give the person shown in the photograph a right to take legal action.
While copyright is a federally protected right under the United States Copyright Act, with statutorily described fair use defenses against charges of copyright infringement, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Note also that while fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to claims of violation of privacy or publicity rights. Privacy and publicity rights are the subject of state laws. While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by operation mindcrime

can your logic be applied to 9/11 and aleged UFO videos too ?

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:14 PM
I haven't read all six pages of this thread, so if this has been brought up previously, I apologize.

In the video from the O.P. it says this is a fully fuctional shoulder mic.

It appears the the camera would not be facing the officers line of sight unless manually faced that direction.

I was curious as to where the audio/images were stored, as well.

I see now.
A record on/off switch for video,
An audio on/off switch,

Look at that, a "reset" button.
I assume that clears the devices memory?

The video refers to this as "The indisputable witness that backs you up".

I'm pretty sure that statement is directed at individual LEO's, and nobody else.
I appreciate your attempt here, but I see this as being more harmful than helpful to relations.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:21 PM
reply to post by Oaktree

We are in George Orwell 1984 world albeit a bit later than he thought because people did not care or allowed this to happen. Why do you not want the public to know when the cameras are becoming so common place.

Maybe the Leos job will be easier as jerks might not be so jerky if they knew the cameras were on them.

I may not have protested back in the 70's had I knew what the Leo's cameras would do to me in later life.

Will you be happy to have a camera in your home?

When is enough enough?

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

All that for fill space with useless material that has ZERO BEARING on the FACT thatm people in public are open to being filmed....NO ONE said anything about commercial use, but how could papparazzi make a living if celebrities were not fair game? NO ONE has a right to deny another to loo at anything they want in public, or photograph it, and nothing in all that crap you posted has anything to do with waste time obfuscating hoping that the real point will be lost in all the garbage and you slip away without having to admit your logic is beyond reason...didn't work.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by rcwj1975

I think this is a VERY good step, unless there is the ability to selectively shut it off.

Kind of reminds me of that video...


Click here for working link


[edit on 3/6/2010 by v3_exceed]

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:48 PM
reply to post by defcon5

Actually it has a record on and off button. All the cop has to do is not turn it on. The same thing they use to do with dash cams. On early versions the cam was only on when the red and blues were on. A lot of cops would pull you then kill the lights. Now it is as simple as not pressing the button.

"Oops sarge I got caught in the moment and forget to hit record."

It is a step in the right direction though. I hope more police departments will pick them up.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by richierich

Pennsylvania common law allows four separate civil actions for torts falling under the umbrella of invasion of privacy. These civil actions are: (1) intrusion upon seclusion, (2) appropriation of name or likeness, (3) publicity given to private life, and (4) publicity placing a person in a false light. An individual who succeeds in proving any of these claims may be entitled to an award of compensatory damages, and if the misconduct is willful and outrageous, punitive damages as well.

Yes you are correct, I'm wasting my time because you want to hold onto your position and do not understand, so here's my state, read number 2, it's very clear, without much wording at all.
It's different state by state, would you want me to post all 50 states for you?
If you go to the original post of mine, and then to the follow up post, you'll see that I question the legality of it and say that your "blanket" description doesnt fit, and it doesnt.
It benefits YOU to do your own leg work on this matter.
Connetticut has some of the strictest conditions.
So go have a look, look into your state, it's not all black and white like you believe.
Have a beer and freakin relax a bit, stop biting at my head.

add: and yes, I mentioned commercial use, it will be used.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by KANE OG
No Wikipedia entries for this device or it's company. I'd like to know more before i comment further.

Then you MAY wanna go to the companies actual website provided on page one. Just a suggestion...

And I MAY want an independent source, NOT the company's website. Of course they're going to tout their own system.... just like you are.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by SpacePunkActually, the system as I envision it could be worn by anybody, mounted in a vehicle with data capture (speed, direction, time, etc...), used in real time by commanders for safety, and rescue operations.

At one time I considered all the video surveillance to be a bad thing, but have embraced that the only counter is to have everything, and everybody wired up for their own safety, and protection from those that would alter or change events for their own gain.

If everyone had some recording device in real time streamed wirelessly to a 3rd party, the cops would remove it the moment before they plant evidence on you or something. When you are searched or arrested you'll probably be asked if you have any recording devices and asked to remove them/turn them off.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:34 PM
Look, the cop has his mind set. Period.

He is supposed to protect and serve. Period.

What he does is write tickets and make arrests according to his quota. Period.

He is charged with making money for his department, and his city/county/state. Period.

There is no sense in arguing with him. Period.

He is always right, just like during a traffic stop. Period.

Now move along.

I am not "anti-police" btw, I am anti-BS. Get it?

He posts on ATS for his own enjoyment and entertainment, not to enlighten anyone. He's shown it in his other threads and he's showing it now.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by richierich

Celebrities are fair game because they allready sell their image for financial gain. They have a severely diminished expectation for privacy. As long as the photo does not make it appear that the celebrity is endorsing a product it is fair game.

It doesn't apply to a normal person because they do not sell their image for financial gain. So if you want to use it for commercial gain you need a release form. I learned that the hard way shooting music videos.

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by dazbog
Not sure how I am going to write the required two sentences. I see it as a win win.

For the most part, I would agree with you. I have only one reservation. With the Patriot Act (& it's subsequent spinoff amendments), the practice of allowing the President alone to decide whether to use Courts or Military Commissions & quite a few other such "regulations" enacted, this problem will someday pop up: Even if the officer who records a particular arrest & acted correctly (morally, ethically & officially), but such recording also contains evidence that would lead to high-level officials being put on the spot too...Evidence such as would implicate general corruption in the government, for example...Would not such officials seek to destroy or suppress that evidence? Of course, by this time, what actually happens to the recording would be out of the hands of the Officer who recorded it in the first place, but it could still be viable evidence being suppressed simply for the reason of reinforcing someone else's personal security in a high-level position.

How would the public react to something of this nature? How could a jury (charged with the duty to judge both facts & law in every case) render a lawful verdict if the Officer's recording has been edited (An edited video constitutes Incomplete Facts)? It's already well-known how far high-level officials can & would go to in order to avoid removal from office & arrest/trial. It seems that, several times per day & in various publications, there's something shady newly revealed from high levels. Of course, the on-the-scene Officer who made the recording still has his testimony, but that can be easily thrown out of a courtroom if the recording itself is missing (or edited) & doesn't confirm his testimony...Then the Officer could face sanctions on his own position, defamation of character & outright removal from his office too (& indicted under charges)! All of this would be as a direct result originating from higher officials wanting to cover up evidence of their own crimes!

On the face of it, individual recordings being made by Officers on-the-scene is a good idea. Several Officers' recordings can collaborate & verify each other, thus making it harder to "cover up" such "sideline evidence," but it could still be done.

While it must be admitted that corrupt LE Officers are few & far between, they do exist & these are the ones who are least likely to start recording anything shady they do either...

In short, my only reservations to this new practice revolves around a couple of simple questions: Would Officers be able to control when or if they record any particular event? How would the actual physical security procedures on the recordings themselves be guaranteed against corruption, unlawful editing & the physical integrity of the recording medium?

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by KANE OG
Look, the cop has his mind set. Period.

I do? How so? I brought this to you so ATS members can see LE is TRYING to do things to bring the public into our world even more so we can hold accountable those who do wrong.

He is supposed to protect and serve. Period.

True..don't think that is being argued here

What he does is write tickets and make arrests according to his quota. Period.

Wrong...and please if your not smart enough to DISASSOCIATE one NYPD thread to the rest of American Departments, thats on you. 9 years of LE experiance and never been ordered to meet any quota.

He is charged with making money for his department, and his city/county/state. Period.

STUPID...and WRONG. My paycheck doesn't reflect it, so why would I go bust my a@@ and other people's to make someone else rich? Sure, let me go write 50 tickets tomorrow so good ol Sonny Perdue can buy his new yacht...give me a break.

There is no sense in arguing with him. Period.

TRUE when you bring this kind of argument.

He is always right, just like during a traffic stop. Period.

Nope, I life would be awesome if I was never wrong...then of course I do something that reminds me, I am just human...DARNIT!

Now move along.

K Bye...

He posts on ATS for his own enjoyment and entertainment, not to enlighten anyone. He's shown it in his other threads and he's showing it now.

Interesting, since MANY people here have learned quite a bit from me. Now of course you can't blame them for not getting emotional and being mature about debates and each others point of view...cause we all know once you lose your temper you say things you shouldn't, but more importantly you DON'T read thoroughly, or care about the actual topic. Instead you fly off the handle and speak with just emotion.

Guess that wiki post really pissed you off...and you say we cops can't handle people using their freedom of speech...

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:09 PM
Yall I am going to say this once.

Lay off him... He is one of the cool ones...k

Your gonna learn the hard way you have to take each man one at a time and not via organization.

I do start my intro with the law on this site the same way. He is the only one I have dealt with who has passed.


A wise poster would be asking this one ways he knew around the law. Say any little things that would improve there odds in dealing with them.

This I suppose about the new tech on the mikes they are getting mt question is when are the LEO's gonna be forced to wear digital spy gear so there is no questions.

Now here is a thought though, I suggest a more constructive post when dealing with this little piggie
(at OP)

What should be done when the equipment is broken or turned off. Should the officer be held liable for all claims made during this off periods?

I also hae a person question not related to the thread.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in