Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Mar 20, 2014
I am not understanding something. The 40 hour buffer includes video but not audio?? Technically, 40 hours of audio require much less storage than video. So, either there is some non-technical issue at play, I am misreading, or something.
I had the same thought Dennis. Video data is orders of magnitude larger than audio, why not store audio as well? It would be an incremental increase in data size, I would think.
The next step in video recording systems for cars is for ordinary citizens to have them. In the event of an accident, the logs could be reviewed to find out what happened and who was at fault. If you were following another vehicle that had an incident you would have the option of allowing your video to be used in the investigation.
If course, if you are cheating on your spouse, and your spouse can review the captured data, you might not like this very much. But then, if you have the "Find Friends" function on your iPhone turned on so that your spouse can know where you are, then you already have a small, uhhh, traceability issue.
Back to the cops using cameras, I saw an article recently about the use of wearable cameras that an officer can attach to his uniform, and how the use of these things has shown its value in disproving claims of police abuse, probably saving the departments tons of legal fees. I like those cameras to provide this same type of coverage for the officer when he is not in or near the car.
Question about those cameras: Are they also night vision or IR sensitive? Or do the police count on always having enough light to record good video?
IOs this the kind of system where the data can be easily "Lost" in case there is a question on the behavior of the officer? IMO these should be backed up regularly to secured servers with highly limited access. These are not only tools for the police, but also tools for citizens to use in case of questionable behaviors by police.
Also, Police should never be allowed to interview or question people on the road if they are out of view of these cameras. I support them so we can keep an eye on EVERYONE.
Big brother chipping away at our freedoms in the
name of our safety. If they had their way, it
would be illegal for us to film them and legal
for them to film us. Remember, we don't get to
review their footage, only the other way around.
I want my neighborhood to be as safe as the next
guy. I'm not against the police. There is a
balance between government safety and our freedoms.
- Lady Liberty
Now, finally, we will have a method for tracking and recording teenage bicyclists running stop signs and avoiding the need for police to chase down the offenders, tackling them, and threating to use their Taser weapons to assure compliance. Yep, surely no room for abuse by police using this technology.
What else can be done on the back-end with all of this video? License plate scanning? Facial recognition? With a simple change to the UV filter a digital camera can be modified to see through clothing (look it up). 1984 is being rolled out incrementally. Do the frogs feel the temperature rising?
@Ahem, if the UV filter story was true, we'd all be getting sunburns in the darnedest places.
I'd rather they spent money on wearable cameras for every officer. Those cameras have been proven to improve police practices.
These vehicle cameras are $10,892 each.
Great Idea, and hope it works well.
How long before they run the images through Facial Recognition and then on to the current area of reading moods/stress-levels and emotional states? That way they can justify shooting/tasing someone before the person-of-interest actually "acts"? You know that is where this is leading...oh, and voice stress analysis for telling if you are telling the truth.
The police state is an amazing evolution of the U.S. NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING A POLICE STATE...ask those in Nazi Germany or the U.S.S.R. It is the price you pay for freedom. :)
@Dennis and @JustMe, the point of the 40 hour buffer not capturing audio is so that an officer's casual conversation with co-workers during a meal break, a cell phone conversation with his wife and kids to check in before they go to bed, an off-key sing along with a song on the radio, or other non-work related conversations or audio that take place during an officer's personal breaks won't be recorded. That way the officers don't have to worry about their private conversations, when they're on allotted personal breaks at the station, being scrutinized by their supervisors or potentially embarrassing audio like singing with the radio or going to the bathroom being played in front of a jury or the media. Officers already know to keep their personal conversations to a minimum when the audio is recording during the normal video recordings.
@A Cop, Makes sense. I suspected there was a reason. A possible improvement I could think of is that audio be turned on (including, say, 60 seconds retroactively) on certain key trigger events such as gunshot sounds, vehicle crash, sirens or lights engaged, high speed, etc. One officer privacy preserving way to do this is have a button the officer punches to engage audio recording. The retroactive feature has officer privacy downsides but shortly after a trigger event such as above, I expect casual conversation has ended.
@Dennis, we use one of this company's systems at the PD I work at and it's set up to work with the following triggers to start recording: pressing the record button on the camera, pressing the record button on the officer's body mic, activating the lightbar, activating the siren, exceeding a pre-set speed (80mph on ours), and tripping the accelerometer (from an impact/crash). All of those will record the preceding 60 seconds of buffered video only, and then full video and audio recording begins from the time of that trigger until it's manually stopped.
To me, the key sentence was, "The department, Perron said, is now in the final stages of drafting policies for how these cameras should be used".
I feel confidant that somebody in the PD will be following this forum, so it might be the perfect place for you and me to voice our suggestions, in additions to our concerns, on how this new system is used.
For example, I don't see how having something recording the conversations in the police car would damper normal officer conversations.
How about it; let's have some constructive suggestions. We'll all be better off for it.
@A Cop: I think both of us are saying pretty much the same thing about when the recording should/does turn on. We have the same 1 minute prior period of saving previous data. The only difference I see is whether audio is recorded in the 1 minute prior to triggering.
I am sure both of us can see where recording prior audio is beneficial or a liability. It is easy for me to see the benefits because I do not have to suffer the liabilities. The only ones who see the liabilities are the cops in the car.
OK. I can live with removing the liabilities in order to make this system's use more acceptable to the cops in the car.
Thanks for the explanations.
The trend to eliminate ALL human rights marches on.
I can speak from experience that the police are only agents
of a very corrupt and out of control system, this same
government system we protested in the 1960's. Many of you
people apparently were not around then? If you really believe that
this type of technology will only be used for "good"
you are naive and have totally been brainwashed! Why not just lock up
everybody who does not look or behave just like you? The State of California is sure trying that. This would be a clean totalitarian society acceptable to bigots and capitalist oppressors then! Not happy yet?
@Edgarpoet: Surprise! Those who grew up in the sixties are in charge now!
Most digital cameras can be modified to see through clothing by removing the UV filter. This works especially well with synthetic clothing that is a little moist from perspiration.
Your scientific reasoning is flawed. Look it up? Naw... it's a lot easier to just make something up.
Digital cameras come with IR filters, not UV filters. UV filters are purchased separately to reduce haze in daylight photos. The IR blocker is built-in because CMOS or CCD sensors see almost twice the spectrum as human eyes, and the IR part won't focus well and doesn't translate to a color we are used to. Infrared is usually rendered in green on cameras where the IR filter can be rotated out for greater sensitivity in low-light situations. There may be some thin clothing materials that are somewhat transparent to infrared light, but nothing like soft x-ray backscatter viewers at airports. Can't wait to see those on police cars, but I suppose Google will test them on streetview first.
Most digital cameras do not have an IR or UV filter. They have hot mirror filters and low pass filters... if you want to "see through clothing" you ADD an IR filter, not remove it. (after you take out the hot mirror filter)
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Barron Park
- Charleston Gardens
- Charleston Meadows
- College Terrace
- Community Center
- Crescent Park
- Downtown North
- Duveneck/St. Francis
- Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
- Esther Clark Park
- Evergreen Park
- Greater Miranda
- Green Acres
- Greendell/Walnut Grove
- Leland Manor/Garland Drive
- Meadow Park
- Monroe Park
- Old Palo Alto
- Palo Alto Hills
- Palo Alto Orchards
- Palo Verde
- South of Midtown
- St. Claire Gardens
- The Greenhouse
- Triple El
- University South
- Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
- Addison School
- Barron Park School
- Duveneck School
- Egan Middle School (Los Altos)
- El Carmelo School
- Escondido School
- Fairmeadow School
- Gunn High School
- Hoover School
- JLS Middle School
- Jordan Middle School
- Juana Briones School
- Nixon School
- Ohlone School
- Palo Alto High School
- Palo Verde School
- Santa Rita (Los Altos)
- Terman Middle School
- Walter Hays School
- another community
- Another Palo Alto neighborhood
- East Palo Alto
- Los Altos
- Los Altos Hills
- Menlo Park
- Mountain View
- Portola Valley
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 2,715 views
Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,870 views
Don't fund the rape culture at my alma mater
By Jessica T | 26 comments | 1,759 views
Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 10 comments | 1,018 views
Mothers, daughters, books, and boxes
By Sally Torbey | 4 comments | 743 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2014 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.