Free bodycams for all police...

[kage69]

In a rare act of corporate generosity, Taser has decided to offer free body cams to all police, nationwide. It is only for a year, but I can't help but applaud Taser (or, Axon now actually) for doing this. They can afford it, while frankly I don't feel police can't afford not to have body cams. I feel the excuses against adoption are pathetic, and hopefully this helps shoot down the feeble bullshit of cops who do not want cams.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eras-cloud-storage-to-all-us-cops-for-a-year/

"Only 20 percent [of cops] have a camera,” Rick Smith, the company’s CEO, told Ars. “Eighty percent are going out with a gun and no camera. We only need 20- to 30-percent conversion to make it profitable,” he added. “We expect 80 percent to become customers.”

There is a business motivation here, sure, but if the result is more oversight in an area that desperately needs it I am all for it. Cams help protect both officers and people who interact with them. They should be as mandatory as Kevlar IMO.

What say you AT?

 

[dank69]

They should be mandatory but it doesn't matter because police protect each other even when they are mass murderers and rapists so we are all second class citizens to them. Even with police caught on video doing awful things way more than half go free to rape and pillage another day.

 

[The Merg]

I agree that they should have them, but there are definitely things that need to be worked out with regards to storage costs and privacy before they are instituted. Just throwing a camera on a cop and sending them out the door is not the solution we want.

- Merg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vi edit]

Cameras are cheap. Enterprise level storage to process and archive that isn't.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I agree that they should have them, but there are definitely things that need to be worked out with regards to storage costs and privacy before they are instituted. Just throwing a camera on a cop and sending them out the door is not the solution we want.

As someone who is forced to pay for cops salaries, retirement, and legal fees/defense/judgements, I think this sounds like a fantastic solution. Who is this "we" that doesn't want this solution?

 

[mizzou]

As someone who is forced to pay for cops salaries, retirement, and legal fees/defense/judgements, I think this sounds like a fantastic solution. Who is this "we" that doesn't want this solution?

taxpayers

they have to be hesitant before jumping into something that's a string attached to a bowling ball

 

[momeNt]

Just like how HP could give away printers and just charge you for the ink. Taser is going to give away body cameras and charge for the infrastructure to support their use.

 

[piasabird]

Web Cams are so cheap that every car should have one.

 

[pauldun170]

It is only for a year

Straight from a drug dealers playbook.
You have precincts that haven't bought into cams because "reasons".
Give them free ones to get them over whatever "reasons" they give.
Once they become hooked and the localities begin to have expectations that cams should "always be there" and that Tazer cams are the way to go because that what they are used too... then that's when you pop them with the contract and lock out competitors.

Call me an old skeptic but this isn't generosity.
This is about business and securing a lock on the market.

 

[kage69]

Cameras are cheap. Enterprise level storage to process and archive that isn't.

Agreed, but with only about 20% of cops having them I feel this is a step in the right direction.

I would presume storage fees (something else these departments should get a break on IMO) are a lot lower than the costs associated with lengthy investigations, legal proceedings, wrongful death settlements, etc.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

In a rare act of corporate generosity, Taser has decided to offer free body cams to all police, nationwide. It is only for a year, but I can't help but applaud Taser (or, Axon now actually) for doing this. They can afford it, while frankly I don't feel police can't afford not to have body cams. I feel the excuses against adoption are pathetic, and hopefully this helps shoot down the feeble bullshit of cops who do not want cams.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eras-cloud-storage-to-all-us-cops-for-a-year/

"Only 20 percent [of cops] have a camera,” Rick Smith, the company’s CEO, told Ars. “Eighty percent are going out with a gun and no camera. We only need 20- to 30-percent conversion to make it profitable,” he added. “We expect 80 percent to become customers.”

There is a business motivation here, sure, but if the result is more oversight in an area that desperately needs it I am all for it. Cams help protect both officers and people who interact with them. They should be as mandatory as Kevlar IMO.

What say you AT?

As others have said, this isn't entirely as generous as it seems if there's a nice, fat, juicy support contract that comes along after that year is up. Having said that, I imagine their prices are competitive regardless and they're trying to form something akin to a standard (monopoly?) when it comes to the body cam systems. Since it's all gonna be on the taxpayer dime anyhow, I don't have a specific issue with this. I also don't have an issue with paying increased taxes to support it, since it'll likely lower costs overall over time, as well as solve a lot of the uh, law enforcement related 'issues' we've had lately.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Straight from a drug dealers playbook.
You have precincts that haven't bought into cams because "reasons".
Give them free ones to get them over whatever "reasons" they give.
Once they become hooked and the localities begin to have expectations that cams should "always be there" and that Tazer cams are the way to go because that what they are used too... then that's when you pop them with the contract and lock out competitors.

Call me an old skeptic but this isn't generosity.
This is about business and securing a lock on the market.

The difference is that drug addicts are hooked because of a chemical dependence that overrides rational behavior, whereas any "addiction" to bodycams is better described as a realization that the cost of owning one is less than the cost of not owning one.

I agree that this is a business move and not charity, but so what? It's still a win-win.

 

[OutHouse]

The difference is that drug addicts are hooked because of a chemical dependence that overrides rational behavior, whereas any "addiction" to bodycams is better described as a realization that the cost of owning one is less than the cost of not owning one.

I agree that this is a business move and not charity, but so what? It's still a win-win.

until the hunnymoon is over and the department gets stuck with a monthly bill of 50K.

 

[The Merg]

That is going to be one of the biggest issues with this: cost.

Small departments won't have the budget to support the on-going costs for retention and maintenance of the system and large departments will have to try to overcome the huge additional cost of the retention and maintenance from having so many users of the system.

One department near me has had the maintenance issue with just their in-car video systems. Originally, they had VHS systems, for which the quality of the video was just awful. They then moved to a digital system using the same cameras though. At this point, if a camera fails, they can't get parts for it from the manufacturer. They are literally resorting to ordering parts via eBay.

- Merg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ackmed]

Do you think that body cams themselves are the bulk of the cost or the huge media price? I would welcome body cams to all. I would encourage you however to educate yourself on the cost of the data and upkeep of having body cams. And who would be paying for it.

They should be mandatory but it doesn't matter because police protect each other even when they are mass murderers and rapists so we are all second class citizens to them. Even with police caught on video doing awful things way more than half go free to rape and pillage another day.

Another fine, untruthful, ignorant and factually wrong post from another resident racist who claims all white people are awful. Funny that if someone said that about blacks they'd be banned. But when we have admins who are bias, that's what we get. A truthful comment which will probably get me in trouble, and not the guy who said something so racist.

 

[dank69]

Do you think that body cams themselves are the bulk of the cost or the huge media price? I would welcome body cams to all. I would encourage you however to educate yourself on the cost of the data and upkeep of having body cams. And who would be paying for it.



Another fine, untruthful, ignorant and factually wrong post from another resident racist who claims all white people are awful. Funny that if someone said that about blacks they'd be banned. But when we have admins who are bias, that's what we get. A truthful comment which will probably get me in trouble, and not the guy who said something so racist.

Never forget, you are the victim.

 

[Double Trouble]

In a rare act of corporate generosity, Taser has decided to offer free body cams to all police, nationwide. It is only for a year, but I can't help but applaud Taser (or, Axon now actually) for doing this. They can afford it, while frankly I don't feel police can't afford not to have body cams. I feel the excuses against adoption are pathetic, and hopefully this helps shoot down the feeble bullshit of cops who do not want cams.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...eras-cloud-storage-to-all-us-cops-for-a-year/

"Only 20 percent [of cops] have a camera,” Rick Smith, the company’s CEO, told Ars. “Eighty percent are going out with a gun and no camera. We only need 20- to 30-percent conversion to make it profitable,” he added. “We expect 80 percent to become customers.”

There is a business motivation here, sure, but if the result is more oversight in an area that desperately needs it I am all for it. Cams help protect both officers and people who interact with them. They should be as mandatory as Kevlar IMO.

What say you AT?

There was no corporate generosity at all. This is a clever business move. Offer the cameras for free, then after a year convert a certain percentage over to actual sales. Then also cash in on all the storage and indexing stuff etc, it's going to generate big bucks for Axon.

I'm all for cameras for all officers by the way, it's better for everyone involved. They do need to work out some privacy issues as far as what is recorded and what happens to that video going forward and such.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

That is going to be one of the biggest issues with this: cost.

Small departments won't have the budget to support the on-going costs for retention and maintenance of the system and large departments will have to try to overcome the huge additional cost of the retention and maintenance from having so many users of the system.

One department near me has had the maintenance issue with just their in-car video systems. Originally, they had VHS systems, for which the quality of the video was just awful. They then moved to a digital system using the same cameras though. At this point, if a camera fails, they can't get parts for it from the manufacturer. They are literally resorting to ordering parts via eBay.

- Merg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think Axom has thought about the cost and I'd be surprised if they didn't have low and high cost solutions to offer. Why give away free gear and storage for a year to a department that couldn't possibly become a customer? It just doesn't make business sense. Either way, every department in America should take up the FREE one year offer. When they realize how much $ they save per year from bullshit lawsuits, settlements, legal defense costs, and wasted time, I can foresee them signing the contract for year 2 and beyond. It could potentially save a lot of money. If not, then don't renew. What is there to lose?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

taxpayers

they have to be hesitant before jumping into something that's a string attached to a bowling ball

Why would taxpayers have a problem with LITERALLY FREE? As a taxpayer, I welcome the chance to reduce legal and financial liability against my city's PD. Fewer BS lawsuits, easier convictions, and lowered chances of rogue cops wrongfully hurting people without fear of consequence. Win-win-win. All the way around. Unless you are a rogue cop who wants to wrongfully harm people and get away with it. Oh...

 

[The Merg]

I think Axom has thought about the cost and I'd be surprised if they didn't have low and high cost solutions to offer. Why give away free gear and storage for a year to a department that couldn't possibly become a customer? It just doesn't make business sense. Either way, every department in America should take up the FREE one year offer. When they realize how much $ they save per year from bullshit lawsuits, settlements, legal defense costs, and wasted time, I can foresee them signing the contract for year 2 and beyond. It could potentially save a lot of money. If not, then don't renew. What is there to lose?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. And while, I agree that getting stuff for free for a year is better than nothing, that brings up the other aspect that comes along with having bodycams: privacy and policy.

It's not as simple as give them the bodycam, strap it on, and there you go. There are plenty of issues regarding privacy that come from using the bodycams as well as the when they shall be used as opposed to when they should be used. And specifying shall vs should in a policy is a big difference when it comes to holding people accountable for a violation of policy.

For example, say the policy says that officers shall turn on the camera whenever they have contact with a citizen. While on the surface that sounds good and feasible, let's look at the situation that an officer is driving by and sees a crime in progress. The officer jumps out of their cruiser and starts chasing the criminal. One of the farthest things from their mind is going to be turning on their bodycam. They are going to be trying to radio in the situation, determine any kind of officer safety issues that could come up (is the subject armed or dangerous), and continue chase the subject. Hitting a record button is not an immediate concern at that time. So, once the event is over and it is seen that the officer did not turn on their bodycam, they would be in violation of the department policy. The policy said "shall" so there is no exception. Does that officer really deserve to be punished in a situation like that? That is one of the main concerns that officers have regarding department policies with regards to bodycams in that they are not so rigid that it would not be possible for officers to be able to follow them.

As I also mentioned, there are definitely privacy concerns that come up on both the citizen and police side. On the citizen side, can a citizen request that the police not record them? If an incident occurs in someone's house, can that person refuse to allow the police in if the police want to record? What about when dealing with sex crime victims or children? Should the cameras be running the entire time the officer is working? What videos would be allowed to be viewed under Freedom of Information Act requests? These are all questions that even the ACLU has raised as being points of contention. There is also the privacy for the officer, which I know and realize would be somewhat limited, however, it is still an issue. If the camera is to be on at all times, how can the officer have a private conversation during the day? What if they end up talking with their doctor about a medical issue? Can they not have a private conversation with their family? What if they need to use the bathroom? Do they not have the ability to use the facilities in private? That also leads back to citizen privacy as now you have a camera running while the officer is in a bathroom, which could be a public restroom.

These are all questions that need to be answered before a department can institute the use of bodycams, else it will lead to even more lawsuits and issues down the road.

- Merg