Seattle Cops Could Wear Cameras By Next Year


I am 7 of 9. Resistance is futile.

I wonder if you can strap these things on your waist or leg and use them for a cock cam.
Let's just get Robocop.
There really is little downside to this from the public perspective that I can see (correct me if wrong) and I am definitely normally in the "less CCTV" camp. This protects both the public and the cops, but there has to be an enforceable (read: with penalty) way to make the cops use it as required.
"head cameras were dangerous for the officer and its cords could result in strangulation" If our police force is in danger of being strangled by their headphone cords, we need to seriously redesign our hiring standards.
Seattle has huge budget crisis that will result in police officers being laid off, and yet they are looking at spending 600k on gadgets?!

I'll take two extra cops working Belltown & Pioneer Square instead.
How about ... I don't fucking want to be videotaped and stored for later playback by anyone, any time? What the fuck is wrong with you people that you think you're giving up a a little privacy for more security? You're fucking brainwashed corporate idiots. CAMERAS EVERYWHERE IN THE UK DIDN'T LOWER CRIME RATES.
@6 these sorts of cameras aren't about lowering crime rates.
everyone will wear them in the near future.
Why don't they just buy cell phones like the rest of us?

They talk on them while driving often enough ...
Why is the city entertaining a proposal from Taser? Aren't they from Arizona? Aren't we not doing business there now?
@10 good point, wagina.

The data from the UK doesn't really translate to over here. Police there usually don't carry guns or very many of the vaguely militaristic accoutrements our cops do over here. And they tend to be a lot less aggro (not sure if this is due to the significantly lower number of handguns available or what). All of which means interactions between police and everyday folks are less likely to lead to misconduct in the form of excessive force. Though verbal and other types of misconduct may still happen.
So if these cameras can easily be turned off, whats to stop a police officer from turning it off before he does anything illegal? Don't be surprised if the footage always seems to side with the officers, and any incriminating actions always go unrecorded.
$10,000 per camera seems ridiculously expensive. I can walk into a Best Buy right now and purchase a compact web cam for less than $60. Add a USB cord, a flash-drive recording device and battery pack to last through an 8 hour shift, and the total cost should come to no more than $500 each.


I suppose that's true, but if the camera isn't on, it would just make it all that much easier for civilians to claim it was deliberately turned off for the very reason you cite. The camera's are just as much insurance for the cops as they are for citizens, so I would think the police would have good incentive to keep them running during interactions with the public.
The cost probably includes the download system/network for cataloging storing and archiving all the video in a way that is searchable and easily accessible, which is not a trivial task if it's going to be useful. The camera is just the beginning of the chain, so I really doubt the cameras are the entire cost.
Though I think these are a great tool that will hold both civilians and police officers accountable, I question whether this is wise considering the fact that the Mayor imposed a hiring freeze delaying the employment of 20 new officers. Seattles violent crime has been steadily rising (if you doubt me, check out the FBI's UCR Part I and Part II crimes), the police department needs more bodies a bit more than it needs the cameras at this time.
I assume I'm not the only guy who looks down when I pee, right?

I had considered that, but even including the hard & software and a couple of techs to babysit it, that still seems like an excessive cost.