More idiocy from protestors

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Torga_DW**

Jihadin wrote:
I'm on Vox server now in Everquest Frazz. I can pass over 50K in plat to whatever toon you make

I thought the system couldn't handle levels above 100? I've been lied to by a corporation once again.

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:
Yet if the majority are not curbing the stupidity then the perception of whole is they are condoning it

And if they are showing up to an event where the flyer/pamphlet for the event has racist tones, they are indeed supporting the stupidity.

**Chongara**

Ouze wrote:
curran12 wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?

Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.

The cameras do not store the data locally, nor should they. "I shot a guy, and then oops, I lost the camera" would ensue otherwise.

As a IT professional, I assure you, networked storage is incredibly cheap.

So far as who pays for it, the same people who paid for the police officer's gun, uniform, cruiser, etc. Kind of a weird question HSM.

Storage is cheap, but.. it's not trivially cheap. At least when it comes to huge amounts you'd need to store the staggering mountain of data it would generate. Looking at how much data the cameras generate per hour, amazon storage rates and doing some really crappy napkin math with big assumptions about how long cops would be on duty, I came to about $1,000 per year, per cop to keep their video on file with a 1-year roll over period for deleting old data.

I'm making an assumption here that departments wouldn't be starting up their own data centers along with the IT personnel to run them, as this is a huge upfront cost and I imagine not a huge savings over time either.

This is probably the kind of cost something like the NYPD could manage but I'm wondering how smaller departments with tighter budgets and less bargaining power would fair. Seems like they'd need to get some help from the state or federal level, to be honest.

I curious what kind of figures you were assuming, particularly since you're probably a bit more familiar with these kind of logistics than I am.

**whembly**

In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds

).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:
Ouze wrote:
curran12 wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Sooo, who is going to pay for all the body cams and the servers to store all that footage?

Cameras like that, and those that monitor other professions (truck drivers, for example) do not simply store tens of thousands of hours of footage, right? At most, they purge and refresh on a semi-daily basis.

The cameras do not store the data locally, nor should they. "I shot a guy, and then oops, I lost the camera" would ensue otherwise.

As a IT professional, I assure you, networked storage is incredibly cheap.

So far as who pays for it, the same people who paid for the police officer's gun, uniform, cruiser, etc. Kind of a weird question HSM.

Storage is cheap, but.. it's not trivially cheap. At least when it comes to huge amounts you'd need to store the staggering mountain of data it would generate. Looking at how much data the cameras generate per hour, amazon storage rates and doing some really crappy napkin math with big assumptions about how long cops would be on duty, I came to about $1,000 per year, per cop to keep their video on file with a 1-year roll over period for deleting old data.

I'm making an assumption here that departments wouldn't be starting up their own data centers along with the IT personnel to run them, as this is a huge upfront cost and I imagine not a huge savings over time either.

This is probably the kind of cost something like the NYPD could manage but I'm wondering how smaller departments with tighter budgets and less bargaining power would fair. Seems like they'd need to get some help from the state or federal level, to be honest.

I curious what kind of figures you were assuming, particularly since you're probably a bit more familiar with these kind of logistics than I am.

You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is).
The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

**Chongara**

Frazzled wrote:

You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is).
The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.

This seems like such a trivially small period, it feels like in many cases the cameras would be little more than symbolic gesture. This is especially true if the data is actually being stored locally, in the camera.

Any really meaningful accountability measure would have to live long enough for complaints to actually surface outside an immediate media frenzy, and it'd have to be stored in some capacity that is out of the officer and his direct supervisors immediate control.

Maybe 1-year is overkill, but I can't imagine anything with a lifetime measured in days being anything more than placebo. Though maybe a placebo would be useful. Something that gives the officers the impression they're being watched, even if the chances of it being relevant to anything that doesn't spark an immediate media frenzy is pretty low. Even gakky people behave better when they think they're being watched.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:

*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.

SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.

Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.

Seems very reasonable, and should help counteract some of the tension between the general population and police

**whembly**

CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.

If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.

Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You wouldn't have to. Keep it for 72 hours. If there's an incdent the data is kept, otherwise its written over (or whatever the correct term is).
The current body cams keep data for 24 hours IIRC.

This seems like such a trivially small period, it feels like in many cases the cameras would be little more than symbolic gesture. This is especially true if the data is actually being stored locally, in the camera.

Any really meaningful accountability measure would have to live long enough for complaints to actually surface outside an immediate media frenzy, and it'd have to be stored in some capacity that is out of the officer and his direct supervisors immediate control.

Maybe 1-year is overkill, but I can't imagine anything with a lifetime measured in days being anything more than placebo. Though maybe a placebo would be useful. Something that gives the officers the impression they're being watched, even if the chances of it being relevant to anything that doesn't spark an immediate media frenzy is pretty low. Even gakky people behave better when they think they're being watched.

Well a shooting will have occurred and they can hold the data. If the relevant powers don't know a shooting has occurred, they've got bigger problems than data storage.

**Sigvatr**

Albatross wrote:

Nonsense. Recognising and acknowledging race is not racist. The assumed superiority of one's racial position relative to another's is racist.

So you do agree that assuming moral superiority over another race is racist? Glad we finally got that sorted out.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.

If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.

Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".

i think thats exactly how it works actually.

**Chongara**

Frazzled wrote:

Well a shooting will have occurred and they can hold the data. If the relevant powers don't know a shooting has occurred, they've got bigger problems than data storage.

The issue as was covered earlier up thread is that until something stirs the public the "relevant powers" are the officer in question and his immediate supervisors. These are the individuals with the least motivation to treat something as relevant incident and the most motivation to let things slide off the radar. Departments don't have to account for anything in a meaningful fashion. They set their own rules for what's appropriate, how to deal with things that aren't, and they don't have to report to anyone outside the department.

Unless a standard approach is adopted that leaves the data long enough for external scrutiny to come around it's too vulnerable to simple apathy or bias, never mind anything would that would qualify as real attempts at obfuscation.

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.

If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.

Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".

I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Frazzled wrote:
And let's face it, the current situation is not going to change until the more comfortable middle class get with the program. And it's not just about stopping cops from killing people; the african-american community needs to fix the problems that cause those deaths too.

Just when I was going to disagree about those establishments being middle clash, you had to pop in something I agree with. Curses! foiled again!

And in that new found spirit of togetherness I just realized.

What they really need to do is have a flash mob at town hall, all doing the thriller dance with "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" that would be awesome.

As long as they first check that it doesn't clash with war veteran medal awards ceremonies.

**Frazzled**

Hey if you have a whole troop of people doing the Thriller Dance at a ceremony, thats a ceremony that got bumped to Level AWESOME

**whembly**

CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.

If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.

Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".

I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.

I don't think it's possible to have an effective wireless transfer mechanism...

The technologies does exist (see iPhone/Androids)... but it probably isn't practical.

Again... dashboard cams do exist in practice today. I wonder what's the police protocol in that? (off to search google)

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
I suggested earlier download at end of shift. That does not address the problem some have voiced about the cop being able to break/lose the data before it is downloaded. There seemed to be a desire to NOT store it on the device to avoid all these evil pigs killing innocents just because that is what these unaccountable cops seem to do, and then claiming their camera got broken and lost the data.

That is exactly what some cops would do, yes, and it's pretty foolish to pretend otherwise.

**stanman**

In an act of solidarity I wore a Black Lives Matter t-shirt to a Churches Chicken and tried to get some people organized and did a one man die in chanting hands up don't shoot. They apparently disliked it and I got several drinks and orders of food thrown at me and was told in no uncertain terms to GTFO backed with threats of physical violence. Given the overall reaction I didn't dare suggest rallying for black only places like the brunch protesters. With a cause that's supposed to be promoting colorblindness and racial equality wtf was up with that treatment?

**Chongara**

whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
In "IT infrastructure" environment... space is dirt cheep. (not the solid state kinds ).

I think the state would need to be involved to leverage existing infrastructure and economy of scale... but, it's certainly doable. Probably within the current budgets as well.

Maybe in big urban centers. Try running video over RF in austere environments like many of our rural areas and even many suburban areas. And then you need to take into account frequency ownership/deconfliction for the bands best suited to carry video over RF. In many places first responder voice and low data volume is already difficult to fit in and run across the air.

I wouldn't even try it wirelessly. Just have 'em stored on the device and downloaded at the end of the shift.

If it's found that the officer don't follow this procedure, then they should be reprimanded and possibly face criminal charges.

Keep in mind... they have this today on the dashboard cams. Same technologies, but made "wearable".

I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly. Disciplinary action maybe, but we shouldn't be treating simple screw-ups like potential acts of bad faith. Most cops on are the level after all it's more likely a lost camera is just a lost camera.

I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.

At any rate far more Americans live in urban areas than rural ones. Rural areas present all kinds of special challenges for any public service. I'm not sure universal applicability should be a primary driver in policy development. Wireless transmission would work for areas where 80% or more of Americans live, let the policies that would work there work there. Exempt those working in the boonies and have separate policies that work as best as we can get for them.

**Ouze**

Chongara wrote:
I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.

Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ouze wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.

Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.

Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?

I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.

If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.

**Relapse**

PhantomViper wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.

Fact remains that, in this brunch case, the method of protest is pretty much the same.

So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Because the protests in the civil rights era were being held in places where segregation happened so they actually had a purpose and meaning.

These "protests" on the other hand are just pointless and seem to be designed solely to annoy people eating late breakfasts...

Or disrupt a medal ceremony for hundred year old veterans. That man, with his bearing, seriously had more power than the idiots who were there to wreck his day.

**curran12**

Chongara wrote:

I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.

Would you mind explaining this one a bit more for me? I find myself on the fence concerning how harshly camera use should be enforced. On the one hand, I believe that if you're going to be a cop, you should be expected to be held to the absolutely highest standards and that if you mess up with the biggest check on your behavior, you should be strictly held responsible. But on the other hand, I also work with people for whom technology is not an easy thing, so I can very much see this as creating a huge learning gap.

**Jihadin**

What about the privacy of those individuals who are in the background of the video. Do you fine the individual "jay Walking" across the city street or some other minor law infringement. Might as well add camera's all over so there are multiple video's of an altercation, a facial recognition system data base to identify wanted criminals etc etc etc

Have to think beyond video evidence of an altercation. Flick a cigarette butt into the street watching a arrest and a week later receive a fine for littering

**Asherian Command**

Jihadin wrote:
What about the privacy of those individuals who are in the background of the video. Do you fine the individual "jay Walking" across the city street or some other minor law infringement. Might as well add camera's all over so there are multiple video's of an altercation, a facial recognition system data base to identify wanted criminals etc etc etc

Have to think beyond video evidence of an altercation. Flick a cigarette butt into the street watching a arrest and a week later receive a fine for littering

Ummm Who cares about jaywalkers.

I jaywalk everyday infront of a police station infact the police do it themselves. I watched two officers jaywalking across a street.

**Jihadin**

Think of the sudden cash revenues from getting all those silly fines when the facial recognition system kicks in.
Win Win for
town
county
city
district
state

**CptJake**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.

Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.

Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?

I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.

If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.

Just in case you are not aware, every LE agency I know of, from my county sheriff's office and up, automatically investigate each shooting and automatically place the cop involved on suspension (generally with pay) until the investigation is done. I am sure out of the many many LE agencies in the US there are exceptions to this, but I suspect there are not all that many.

And again, local LE is not a federal issue, a one size fits all federally mandated solution should not be what we are going for here.

**Grey Templar**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Chongara wrote:
I don't like the idea of officers facing criminal charges for failing to manage their cameras correctly.

Yeah, I think that was maybe a bridge too far.

Sounds okay to me. If they can't manage a camera right then why can they be trusted with a car and a gun?

I think the download at the end of shift is the best way.

If they're involved in a shooting they will be immediately taken off shift and the data downloaded along with an immediate inquiry into the shooting beginning. If the data from their camera shows any signs of tampering (such as having been turned off or whatever) then they are put under immediate internal affairs investigation and suspended without pay until the investigation is complete. If the internal affairs investigation says they're clean then they are still suspended until the shooting inquiry is over but they will receive pay.

I'm sure most departments do all that anyway.

If an officer shoots someone they get pulled from active duty till an investigation is done.

**Jihadin**

Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.