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.
Rialto, CA- The Rialto Police Department, over the past year, has been experimenting with equipping body cameras to the 70 officers on its force. The initial results show a promising solution to the excessive use of force by officers.
The police chief in Rialto, Tony Farrar, is on record as stating, “ I think we’ve opened some eyes in the law enforcement world. We’ve shown the potential.”
When those in a position of authority are watched they are less likely to abuse that authority. Chief Farrar says, “That’s just human nature. As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better.” In addition it also helps protect officers from false accusations of excessive use of force.
Chief Farrar is providing a new paradigm for policing, taking a proactive approach rather than making excuses for his officers and toeing the line. To his credit he has a master’s degree from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, from which stemmed the idea to utilize cameras.
The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that this program could be an effective and efficient model for nationwide police reform. If you would like to see a similar program implemented in your area, get in touch with your mayor/city council/county board and demand cameras on officers in your local jurisdiction.
LAPD officer Jim Stover is one of about 30 officers testing out three new different types of cameras, ranging in price from $400 to $800. The cameras are worn on belts, collars and sunglasses.
"I don't mind the technology, it makes everything a lot easier, especially for court," said Stover. "There's nothing that actually solidifies a case more than the video."
"The officers will know they're being videotaped, the general public will know they're being videotaped," said Englander. "Officers have to assume they're being videotaped all the time anyway, but they're never sure. Now they're gonna know for sure that they're on camera, they're on tape, it's going to be stored, they can't delete it, they can't edit it, and their supervisors can look at it at a moment's notice."
speculativeoptimist
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
My pleasure LSH! I bet any tampering with or losing the camera will be an infraction, and the cost will probably serve to increase responsibility.
which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, from any public gathering or venue they deem “sensitive”, and “protected from externalities.”
speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
Liars on all sides for sure, this will be a change in police/citizen relationships. Heck it may even encourage an outreach of kindness and bring back that 'serve' part of protect and serve. I am surprised this has taken this long to be implemented, but is major step in the right direction.
which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, from any public gathering or venue they deem “sensitive”, and “protected from externalities.”
Apple patented the means to transmit an encoded signal to all wireless devices, commanding them to disable recording functions.
Those policies would be activated by GPS, and WiFi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence ("geofence") around a building or a “sensitive area” to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video.
Apple may implement the technology, but it would not be Apple's decision to activate the “feature” – it would be down governments, businesses and network owners to set such policies, analyzes ZDNet technology website.
The company’s listed “sensitive” venues so far include mostly meetings, the presentation of movies, religious ceremonies, weddings, funerals, academic lectures, and test-taking environments.
speculativeoptimist
reply to post by GMan420
I bet insurance liability savings will be an influence from the top. The reduction of complaints/lawsuits weighs very heavy in these decisions from the department heads.edit on 11-3-2014 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)