RE: Real-time surveillance of the police

[crawford@scruznet.com (Michael D. Crawford)]

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:

> Michael also argued that it might be more easily sold to private
> security firms for legal liability reasons.  This argument is
> even more persuasive for police officers.  Cities routinely pay
> astronomical settlements, or fight expensive law suits, arising
> out of alleged incidents of police misconduct.  Frivolous
> lawsuits would be quickly thrown out of court.  Rogue cops would
> be identified and thrown off the force.  Works for me.

Works for me, too, and one would think that it would work for cities, but
experience shows that individual cops can rack up millions of dollars in
legal settlement costs and still remain on the force.  I heard some figure
- this is quite vague, but hey, it's midnight - that a small handfull of
cops in San Francisco had cost the City tens of millions, with individual
cops repeatedly causing lawsuits, without getting fired.

Why?  Police unions.  Settling out of court without assigning blame.  City
politics.  Mayors that are former police chiefs.  A clueless populace.
Promises to do better next time.

Now, I heartily agree with you that the police should be more closely
monitored, and certainly cities have ample reason to avail themselves of
this, but most cities do not even avail themselves of citizen police review
commissions, because of the resistance the police have to it.  In Santa
Cruz, a proposal to allow an independent citizen panel to review police
internal affairs investigations faced threats of lawsuits from the police
union, and took _years_ to adopt.  The commission we got has considerably
less authority than was originally proposed.  This is in a city reknowned
throughout the nation for its leftist politics.  If the People's Republic
of Santa Cruz couldn't get a review board with real authority implemented,
I doubt you'll convince the LAPD to put radio beacons on their thumping
arms.

Much as I think they should.

Sandy continues:

> Even with all these arguments in favor of wiring, I have a
> sneaking suspicion the cops will not want it.  Why?  Though few
> police would admit it publicly, my conjecture ...

Well, my knowledge is that at least one cop wouldn't go for it - the cop we
caught jacking off to a magazine of ill repute, parked in his patrol car on
Yerba Buena Island in San Francisco Bay.  Those rhythmic wrist-movements
would show an unmistakable frequency signature back at home base.

He sure drove off quick.  Didn't even say hello.

I say,

> Yes, that's right - keep surveillance cameras going on _yourself_. If
> you're not doing anything illegal, you've got nothing to fear from taping
> everything you do.

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) replies:

> This scenario is a likely way that "position escrow" will evolve, from
> a voluntary escrowing (incl. timestamping, etc.). "Those with nothing
> to hide" will agree to escrow their movements...this will exculpate
> them in suspected crimes, etc. A slippery slope.

I reflected on this a bit, and decided that if one were to implement
"personal surveillance", a decent solution would be to encrypt the tapes.
Use DAT tape instead of a VCR, and save MPEG's or QuickTime movies that
have been encrypted with IDEA.

The idea here is protection _from_ the police, to demonstrate that an
officer misbehaved in the vicinity of my car, rather than to provide a
record for use by the government.  Needless to say, I wouldn't advertise
that I actually had such a thing until I pulled the tapes out in a
deposition, or sent them, decrypted, to the TV news.  Again, I'm not saying
such surveillance should be imposed, supplied or encouraged by the
authorities, but that one might find some benefit in installing it oneself.

Cheerio,

Michael D. Crawford
crawford@scruznet.com     <- Please note change of address.
crawford@maxwell.ucsc.edu <- Finger me here for PGP Public Key.