The San Jose police department is rolling out body cams to its police force. The San Jose police force employees approximately 900 officers.
The cameras are Axon Body 2 cameras, manufactured by Taser International.
Here are the specs:
- HD video with low-light video,
- Dual audio channels (for audio pickup performance),
- Battery for 12 hour shifts,
- Wi-fi video offload,
- Wireless activation,
- Playback of video to a mobile app (Axon View),
- Ruggedized unit (6 ft drop tested),
- Encryption of video,
- 64GB of storage for up to 70 hours of record time,
- Magnetic mount, and
- $400 unit cost.
The technology looks impressive, and the price seems very approachable.
Visualizing real-world usage patterns
Before we get into the more important question about the management of the data, let’s consider the technical aspects of the usage. Here’s some questions.
- How many cameras are needed for a force the size of San Jose?
- Should officers be required to carry a camera at all times?
- Should the department discipline officers who are not wearing the cameras when protocol calls for it?
- Will the officers be assigned specific cameras, or will they regularly turn-in and exchange the units?
- How will the department keep track of which officer is using which camera? Does this matter?
- How will the cameras be recharged?
- The camera recording is controlled by the officers. What are the best guidelines for when to record?
- Are cameras also going to be mounted on police vehicles?
- What is the procedure if a camera is lost?
Now that the San Jose police force has publicly announced the body-camera initiative, the success of the program will be not so much in the cost of the units, but more so in the training, process, and implementation of the program.
What the public will not want to hear is that a controversial police confrontation was not recorded due to the fact that:
a) the officers forgot to carry their cameras,
b) the officers’ cameras were out of battery,
c) the officers involved were not required to carry cameras, or
d) the officers were not issued cameras.
How to manage the data
Ok, now to the more controversial question of data management. Here are some questions.
- Which confrontations should be recorded?
- How and when should the videos be released to the public?
- How much raw footage should be released to the public?
- How long should the video footage be available to the public and in what format?
From the San Jose Mercury News report, it seems that the officers will need to press a record button (a large one) in order to begin recording an incident. What was not explained in the article is to what discretion an officer has to record or not record an event. By giving the officer control over the recording decision, there will be public scrutiny when a controversial incident does not have video footage.
In the case where their is video footage, but there is a long delay, a highly manipulated clip, or the video is suppressed, there will be critics who will question the lack of transparency. These are hard questions. Police departments should take caution before they set formal processes on how and when to release footage. As much as the public wants transparency and trust with law enforcement, we also need to be concerned about the moral and privacy of officers. Imagine at work if we were being monitored under video surveillance and that this video footage could be released to management or directly to the public. Would that be a friendly work environment?
Video for internal training
Let’s consider the NFL as a case study. Football players are constantly video recorded during game and practice. On a regular basis, at least once a week during the regular season, the coaches and players will review footage to understand what is being done well, and where there is room for improvement. Police departments, if they don’t already, may want to setup weekly meeting where they can review interesting clips from the week, and use these meetings to exchange knowledge from more experienced officers to newer officers.
Who controls the editing process?
There could be some very embarrassing footage that could damage the reputation of officers and the department. How can a police department balance the need to protect their officers from public humiliation, while still providing transparency to the public?
Raw footage can lose the context of the situation. A properly handled incident may not look right without the proper framing. A police department may want to invest in a team to markup video and add commentary to control the messaging as they release these videos. Again to the NFL, the department could create a miniature ESPN SportsCenter video team to take the clips and provide the necessary break-down of the incidents.
Highlights, not just fumbles
We are rarely shown video footage of a heroic police incident. Why? There are plenty of times that police are positively serving the public.
The police could create a weekly “top 10” highlights of police doing exceptional work. Officers would be motivated to make the highlight reel, and the public could get to know the names and actions of these everyday heroes.
As we have seen in recent days, a police department who has lost the trust of the community become embattled and cannot function to its full potential.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_30124734/san-jose-police-roll-out-first-wave-body
