Home | About | Donate

Body-Cam Company Has Financial Ties to Police Chiefs


#1

Body-Cam Company Has Financial Ties to Police Chiefs

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

Taser International, which manufactures and sells police tools like stun guns and body cameras, has financial ties to police chiefs whose departments have purchased the devices, raising concerns about conflicts of interest between the company and the law enforcement agencies.


#2

i'd be interested to know why anyone believes that placing cameras everywhere is a good thing, will have positive democratic results, will improve governmental and corporate accountability, etc.

Instead of being used - inevitably - by centralized power, to further the ends of centralized power, and to centralize power even further.

It seems blaringly obvious to me.


#3

Humanity is allowing technology to further enslave and corrupt it. Losing touch with its soul, humanity--chained to the capitalistic "ethos"--is now relying on "innovation" to save the day. What we need resides within, but innovation just creates a whir of distractions further detaching us from our inner beings and thoughts. This process has been played out for millennia, facilitated largely by the exploitation of new frontiers through outright slave or at least very marginalized labor. Climate change, pollution, overpopulation and other scourges on us and our home are indicators that the frontier is now really just a mirage. It may seem to exist for the potential cattle rancher or palm-oil producer eyeing the tropical rainforest, but it is long gone for humanity in toto. "Civilizations" are not known for contracting to avoid chaos. Our arrogance in the attempt at innovation of technological relief sans an accompanying rewrite of our values will be noted by the survivors, should there be any.


#4

I dont know about having cameras everywhere. I leave that for other posters.

Having cameras on police has the potential to be a good thing, if it provides an incorruptable witness for the public, because knowing that they are on camera should force police to observe the law. I would be willing to sacrifice privacy caused by these recordings providing the following conditions are met :-

  1. The cameras must be always on.
  2. There must be severe penalties for police who remove, cover, or otherwise disable the camera prior to, or during a confrontation. (There is a case in far north queensland australia where the police station was fitted with cameras. The cameras were turned off, a prisoner was beaten to death, and the cameras were turned back on. The police officers were found not guilty. That sort of thing cannot be allowed.)
  3. Like the black box in an airplane, the contents need to be tamper proof. Encryption could solve that problem.
  4. The department that holds the video coverage should not be the police department involved, but a govenrment body specifically entusted for this task. If police are state run, then a federal body would be appropriate.
  5. Wherever practical the video should be automatically uploaded to the said body in real time.
  6. The body entrusted with the video coverage must release video coverage privately whenever a citizen or a police officer claims a valid interest, and released publicly whenever a journalist claims a valid interest. Guidelines about privacy concerns and what consititutes a valid interest need to be public, fair, clearly and unambiguously stated, and they need to be observed.

Clearly, cameras issued to police without conditions do not even help.