By 2020, different police departments in Pakistan were either planning to or has already started using body cams in a bid to maintain accountability. The Islamabad Capital City Police Department was the first to use body cams in field and had plans to acquire and equip more body cams for police officials manning the different checkpoints around the city as well as those police officials who go for snap checkings.[130]

This led the Home Office to publish a report stating that "evidence gathering using this equipment has the potential radically to enhance the police performance at the scene of a wide range of incidents".[70] In the same report, the Home Office concluded that body worn camera system used in Devon and Cornwall had "the ability to significantly improve the quality of the evidence provided by police officers at incidents". However, mostly due to the limitations of the then available technology, it was also recommended that police forces should await the completion of successful trials and projects to re-evaluate the technology before investing in cameras. By July 2007, the Home Office was beginning to encourage the emerging industry and published another document entitled "Guidance for the Police use of Body Worn Cameras". The report was based on the first national pilot of BWV conducted in Plymouth. Tony McNulty MP, Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism and Police wrote a foreword that held BWV in a promising light: "The use of body-worn video has the potential to improve significantly the quality of evidence provided by police officers…video recording from the scene of an incident will capture compelling evidence…that could never be captured in written statements." Despite being hailed as a tool to enhance the quality of evidence, the focus was beginning to shift away from exclusively benefiting prosecutions. The Home Office highlighted that BWV also had the significant potential to "prevent and deter crime". In addition, the final report on the National Pilot for BWV announced that complaints against the officers wearing the cameras had been reduced to zero and time spent on paperwork had been reduced by 22.4%, which led to a 9.2% increase in officer time spent on patrol ("50 minutes of a 9-hour shift").

Investigations have shown that although in many states the usage of body worn cameras is mandatory, there are instances where some officers have failed to adhere to the law.[16] From 2015 until 2017, there have been nationally recognized scenarios of fatal shootings in San Francisco, Alabama, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles in which the officer was wearing a body camera, but did not activate it during the incident.[17] The Los Angeles Police Department is one of the first to publicly discuss solutions as to how they will try to fix this problem. Small reminders such as stickers in the station and cars are meant to remind officers to use this technology. In addition, Los Angeles Police Department is testing new technology that would activate the cameras at the same time as the officer turns on their emergency lights. The LAPD has also been working with the body camera manufacturer it uses, Taser International, to increase a buffer that saves video from 30 seconds before and after the camera is turned on and off.[17]

This is a bad idea waiting to happen, lets not let it be so and pleeease think before you jump into new tech. Think before you type and try not to type while emotional or drunk or exhausted or hungry. Get some rest If this still seems like a good idea to micro-tag, I could recommend a set of community college courses starting with forensics, investigation, logic and critical thinking (especially being critical about your own thinking) after that if you still feel the same way about it, I’d recommend that you may need to give up your keyboards, retire from computing or publishing and get immediately into a field where your less likely to end up selling out your own family for security theater.

The constitution doesn’t say anything about (in alphabetical order): abortion, automobiles, aviation, computers, cryptography software, e-mail, gay sex, general purpose computing, heterosexual sex, the internet, radios, telephones, televisions, etc.

Following a successful six month pilot scheme, the Dubai Police Force decided to adopt BWV technology in 2015. Speaking to the media at the time, Gen Al Muzeina flagged-up the value of footage from these cameras. He said that this evidence could, potentially, be used where there are objections to traffic offences or a failure by officers to meet acceptable standards.[137] The Abu Dhabi Police also confirmed in the same year that – following two years of trials – it would be rolling out BWV cameras to patrol officers.[138]

These devices are manufactured on a production line which means that their design will have been to reduce the cost of manufacture. Which in all probabilty means the mechanics have “slop” which in turn means the “anti-tamper” features are probably not that wonderful.

They could mix unique DNA sequences in the gunpowder or (better) the primers. Then the gun, the user, the bullet and the general area where it was fired would be tagged. Of course micro tagging with DNA is patented too, but, that patent must be running out soon.

Detailed information is available on the use of body cameras in five Länder. In State of Hesse, the police were the first force in Germany to use body cams in May 2013. According to official registrations, the resistance (Widerstand) to police decreased from 40 to 25 and only one of the policemen wearing a body camera was wounded, compared to nine colleagues without camera.[102] Following the pilot, the number of body cams acquired went up from the original 13 to 72 in total, also meant for other areas in Hesse.[103][104] The success of the pilot inspired many other German cities and the Federal Police to start using body cameras as well. Police services from Hungary, Switzerland, and Austria were interested as well and asked the German police for information.[103]

The concluding sections of the report on the Paisley and Aberdeen project turned the attention to the digital, back-end solutions for BWV. Now that the benefits of using body cameras are being realized, the implications on the digital infrastructure are being called into question. The report suggested providing "robust central IT support" to establish the processes behind information gathering and monitoring.

While making a gun eject the same tiny little flakes has not been suggested (Because that would have to be in the bullets, which doesn’t really work well. It only works for Tasers because only TASER makes their cartridges, and you can’t change them out yourself(1), so TASER knows what cartridge every Taser has.), what has been suggest is what is called microstamping.

The cartridges on a Taser International device are filled with about 100 microtags, like the paper circles that you find after you punch holes in paper, but much smaller. Each one has the serial number of the cartridge. They are ejected when the device is fired, and because of their size and number it is very difficult to retrieve them all from a scene. The cartridge is tied to the scene and the purchaser to the cartridge by this chain of evidence.

Discreetbody Camera

Of course, there are and will always be truly “professional” criminals who will know about these “anti-felon” measures and how to avoid them or even take advantage of them. But I would guess that, on balance, these features make us all safer, even if not by a big margin.

If you want to get technical, it says nothing about guns either, just bear arms (which I’m guessing refers to the forelegs). Either way, there would be nothing in the constitution preventing requirements that guns stamp cartridge cases with an identifier either. It’s still a half measure, however, as guns/ammo can be modified/hand-loaded or simply stolen so as to render them useless.

The confetti would likely be banned on safety grounds (like at weddings) because it could get into someone’s eye and cause a nasty law-suit.

These kind of crimes of data theft and ID fixation happen everyday attacks on Banks and retailers and account management system are cracked quite frequently by session fixation. What worse is that when the theft of credit cards has occurred, the affected company gets away with offering a year of credit monitoring when they should be offering a lifetime of credit monitoring. The consequence of a stolen credit card is that you call your Bank and your not liable for any transactions. The consequence for theft of your tagged bullets would be hundreds of thousands individually in lawyers and investigators to prove you didn’t murder some one and that you’ve been framed. Good luck with that!

#2 is not an issue with ‘microstamping’, it’s an issue with the lack of the law everywhere. You can’t say ‘The problem with this law is that is not in force everywhere’ as a reason for not having the law. That’s completely absurd.

In 2019, a team of researchers published the most comprehensive overview to date of the impact of BWCs. They based their overview on seventy empirical studies, most from U.S. jurisdictions (74%). The study reports on officer behavior, officer perceptions, citizen behavior, citizen perceptions, police investigations, and police organizations.[44] Subsequent analysis of the research affirms their mixed findings about BWCs' effectiveness and draws attention to how the design of many evaluations fails to account for local contextual considerations or citizen perspectives, particularly among groups that disproportionately experience police violence.[45]

And yet, those things are immensely useful to solving crimes, especially as the vast majority of unsolved gun crimes are caused by people without high levels of skill of knowledge.

At least 32 [52][53][54] studies focused on officer attitudes about cameras. First of all, the authors describe the methodological challenges of many of these studies. Despite those issues and despite mixed findings, one consistent theme is that once officers start using cameras, they feel positive or become more positive about BWCs.

@anura There are other issues with the microstamping thing: 1) they are on easily replaced parts, that don’t require a licensed dealer 2) it would only be effective with legal firearms, recently purchased in the state of California 3) the technology is patented and 4) it only works with semi-automatics, not revolvers.

Karachi Police was planning to induct body cams for its officials as the city sees more violence in the shape of street crimes than any other city in Pakistan. Apart from the police, Islamabad traffic police and National Highway and Motorway Police too are either planning or have already started using body cams.

One possibility is that a police officer wearing this technology could become a 'roving surveillance camera'.[148] If the bodycams are equipped with biometric facial recognition technology, this could have a major impact on people's everyday lives, depending on the reliability of the technology to prevent false positives (those that are mistaken for a person on a list of suspects, for instance). Furthermore, cameras equipped with facial recognition technology heighten worries over “secret surveillance at a distance”.[149] Information about civilian whereabouts can consistently be tracked if they appear in public and it happens without their knowledge. There are more concerns about the advancement of these facial recognition technologies in body cams and the lack of government regulation over them. Particular concerns have been noted with respect to the use of cameras equipped with facial recognition at public protests. It has been suggested that such camera use may "chill" rights of free speech and association.[150]

In regards to consent there are also the concerns in regards to the bystanders around the scene of the crime, when an officer approaches a crime or a largely crowded scene they are not asking each person there for consent to be recorded. Which can cause an issue for the police department and law enforcement because the officer could be held accountable for not asking for consent and in a case where they are just walking by the scene they are not involved in what is taking place, so there is no need for them to be in the body camera footage.[153]

Reminds me of a short story by P.K. Dick about a robot that frames someone for murder by attaching samples of their hair, clothes, and saliva to the crime scene. Technology has progressed a lot since the early ’60s: what makes you think such frame-ups aren’t already taking place?

No, not a good idea. Really. Figuring out new safe loads for new tagged powders would take a decade and billions and would likely kill more people in accidents than it would solve in murders.

Police officers in Rome have not yet been equipped with bodycams. However, in October 2017, the secretary of the union Sulpl Roma, announced that police officers who ask for them will receive a bodycam before the end of the year 2017. The reason would be two-fold: to modernise the officers' equipment and to settle disputes with drivers who disagree with police, for instance over a fine or the cause of an accident.[116]

Microstamping and other forensic measures have been tried in other states (MD comes to mind), and abandoned when after years – and millions of bucks spent – not one crime was solved by them.

In December 2022, JR-EAST station staff to be equipped with body cameras in order to deal with incidents with passengers.[119][120]

In 2010, 5  years after the first BWV venture, over 40 UK police areas were using body cameras to varying degrees. Grampian Police were one such force that initiated a trial in July 2010 which paved the way for the Paisley and Aberdeen body wore video project in 2011. The project was considered a huge success and it was identified that the benefits saved an estimated minimum of £400,000 per year due to the following:

According to Harlan Yu, executive director from Upturn, police body cameras are best embedded in a broader change in culture and legal framework. In particular, the public's ability to access the body camera footage is currently still an issue which affects usefulness of police body camera's against police brutality.[26][27][28]

But really, what good is knowing the lot number of the powder that produces thousands of bullets per minimum purchase going to do anyone? 1 lb of Bullseye powder makes on the order of 2800 rounds of .38 (most often with hand-cast bullets that look like a splat after they hit – no info on them at all, really, other than the alloy constitution), and commonly, it’s sold in 50 round boxes. Don’t you need a little more specificity than that to be useful? What about the literally millions of lbs of untagged powder sitting around in old reloaders’ shops?

People often say “Well, but then just decrease the powder load…” in response to that. Which unfortunately is as likely to cause explosions as overloading; empty space in the cartridge causes combustion instability.

Some people come here to examine security theater, some just embrace it. Set up a micro-tagging system and here is what happens year one; 1) Criminals use YOUR stolen id and credit card to purchase 5000 rounds then go on a killing spree, guess whos going to jail sucker. With the remainder of the allotment they leave it on the street and give it to Gangs. 2) You just created a new billion dollar illegal market for organized crime. They thank you by establishing overnight methodologies to steal data and then fixate batches of ammo to known bad and good guys from data leaks. You know, like the 100 million CREDIT CARDS that were leaked last month, you think the data on who is associated with what micro-tag ammo session ID cant or wont be leaked stolen and resold as forged to organized crime? 3) You are advocating for a technology that when abused by criminals will make victims of innocents and establish a ladder system for bragging rights for groups of thugs. You should not want this, it would be bad.

Interesting idea… Although, would you really want to unleash that large a scale of randomly engineered genetic code? Is there a chance that one such mutation could actually become competitive?

There’s a good chance most rounds fired by civilians in the U.S. (the bullet is only the projectile, if a bullet is the style of projectile being used) are actually hand loaded by folks in the basement — much cheaper and you’re able to tune your ammunition to your firearms and conditions for maximum accuracy.

In September 2018, Devon and Cornwall Police announced their intention to begin outfitting officers with body worn cameras.[74] The force was the first to trial BWV in the UK in 2005.[69] The project was launched alongside Dorset Police.[75] The cameras will be switched on by officers to record specific incidents including performing arrests, searches, stopping motor vehicles for any reason, and during violent incidents or where domestic abuse or modern slavery are suspected.[76]

While body cameras aim to increase transparency and accountability, they have also sparked debates over privacy and effectiveness. There is concern about the privacy of the people being filmed (suspects, victims, witnesses) but also about that of the officers wearing the cameras or the officers whose actions are recorded by their colleagues.

If the data in your micro-tagging world state gets stolen, the buyers can blackmail and extort your average Joe or Jane to do ANYTHING they want by offering to frame them, by offering to call the cops and placing with planted evidence, our Jane or Joe at the scene of some crime. You had better have a 24×7 eye witness in your micro tagging world who can testify you were otherwise occupied.

Taggants would simply create a black market in hand-loaded ammunition – the sort I make and shoot thousands of rounds a year – practice and shooting competitions. In case you didn’t know, a single lb (smallest size sold, goes to 50 lb sacks) of smokeless makes one heck of a lot of pistol rounds. A “manufacturing lot” of powder might be thousands of pounds.

Felon is a citizen standing up for their rights. Gotta kill that. Fellas: it’s a war, the police are class defenders and you are not on their LIKE list. So draw your conclusions, take names (and share!) and kick ass yourselves.

The SPF mentioned that strict safeguard are in place with video footage to be deleted 31 days after they're shot unless they're needed in an active case.[68] Officers are allowed to deactivate the cameras at their discretion according to the situation, such as cases of encountering sexual assault victims.[68]

All Länder in the country use bodycams, but there are substantial differences in the legal framework. Some have explicitly created a legal basis (Hesse, Hamburg, Saarland, Bremen, Baden-Württemberg), some are still working on it and in the meantime fall back on existing norms (North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony, pilot projects in Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony-Anhalt, Federal Police). Still others have no concrete plans for legal adaptations (Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia).[99]

In the context of recording, the biggest issues arise from whether consent from parties involved is required before starting a recording.[151] The nature of police work has officers interacting with civilians and suspects during their most vulnerable moments,[152] such as those in the hospital, or domestic violence cases. There is also a threat of people not coming forward with tips for fear of being recorded. In terms of the police officer's private contexts, they may forget to turn off cameras in the bathroom or in private conversations. These situations should be considered as the technology is developed further and the use of it is becoming more saturated. In the U.S. federal and individual states have varying statutes regarding consent laws.[152]

Throughout police departments in the United States or even worldwide there is an inconsistency from one police department to the next, some have body cameras while others may not which makes the use of body cameras difficult. Using data from the 2013 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Survey (LEMAS). After the increase in high-profile lethal incidents throughout the United States, more police agencies have mandated that officers have to wear body cameras. According to the research they found that agencies with large operating budgets and agencies with collective bargaining units are less likely to use body cameras in their police force. Body cameras are helpful to have extra eyes at the scene and to see what is happening from another point of view, however if not all police departments are using them then they are not holding officers accountable or helping victims of police brutality show the true story of what happened. Body cameras could be more beneficial and useful if they were mandatory over all police departments.[57]

And if cost is the argument, it needs to be made honestly, not with nonsense about companies that change formulations of powder all the time, and put stuff in them all the time, suddenly and forever being able to do that with a certain thing.

Secondly, perhaps that was a reasonable reason to implement them slowly, but, uh, all this was proposed 18 years ago, and certainly we could have incorporated them by now.

The legal framework has been determined by a law of June 3, 2016, by the national committee on information and freedoms (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés - CNIL). Their opinion is that because of the elevated risks created by surveillance of persons and personal life that could result from the use of these cameras, a specific legal framework was needed. Separate laws have been developed for national police and gendarmerie[93] and for municipal police[94] - the latter being adopted by parliament in 2018.[95] Recordings have to be retained for at least six months.[96] Specific legislation has also been developed for law enforcement in sectors such as rail transportation and regional public transport for Paris. One of the key components of the law in France is that officers are not allowed to review the recordings. However, the bodycams acquired offered this option and would have to be replaced with different type progressively, but not before the end of 2017 - according to the source quoted in the article.[96]

According to a report from 2017 by a working-group, the pilot justified the national roll-out of bodycams in Finland. The report concluded that police officers' safety improved, reduced resistance to the police and better protected police. During the experiment in Helsinki, the report noted, behavior of citizens improved when people see that the situation is being recorded. The introduction could be based on current legislation, but an additional legal framework would be needed regulating recording and storage of recordings. Filming inside homes is not generally allowed. The cameras could be available at the end of 2018, after the necessary training and purchases. The Federation of Police Officers wants provisions to make sure that human errors will not be problematic for officers wearing cameras. The question is whether police can erase recordings when they want to. According to the working group, this is no different from the handling of other police documentation. During the pilot, the recordings were stored for 24 hours and then wiped, unless a criminal offense was recorded. The working group recommended to extend that period to 96 hours.[83]

The black powder and gunpowder taggants alter the burn behavior of the propellant. You can say “well, fine, just modify the amount of powder then” but cartridges are finely balanced, carefully adjusted mechanisms which assume powder behavior that’s been standardized for decades. The results of mistakes or changes which aren’t properly calibrated are explosions and injuries to users, most of whom will be innocent target shooters and police officers training.

On December 1, 2014, President Barack Obama "proposed reimbursing communities half the cost of buying cameras and storing video—a plan that would require Congress to authorize $75 million over three years to help purchase 50,000 recording devices".[11] He also asked Congress for a $263 million package overall to deal with community policing initiatives that would provide a 50 percent federal match for local police departments to purchase body cameras and to store them.[12] With the push from then President Barack Obama to “expand funding and training to law enforcement agencies through community policing initiatives”, the United States Department of Justice announced in May 2015 that they would grant 73 out of the 285 awards requested for a total of 20 million dollars.[13] This allowed for the purchase and distribution of 21,000 cameras to be placed in active duty. A National Institute of Justice report found this in regards to responding police agencies: "In a sample of police departments surveyed in 2013, approximately 75 percent of them reported that they did not use body-worn cameras".[14] A November 2014 survey of police departments serving the 100 most populous cities, Vocativ found that "41 cities use body cams on some of their officers, 25 have plans to implement body cams and 30 cities do not use or plan to use cams at this time".[15]

French law enforcement has been using bodycams - called 'caméra-piéton' or 'pedestrian cameras' in French - regularly since 2013. Prior to implementing this, an early experiment in 2009 did not succeed.[87]

@SchneieronSecurityFan: You could also just claim to do it (and have a large public debate on it). That would probably lead to more home-cooking, which in turn at least weeds out the more stupid/inept/reckless criminals. (Ché claimed that about half of the people who try will blow themselves up in the first month, and the rest has learned proper caution and handling techniques by then and should be considered safe).

Body camera footage has become more visible within the past few years due to media coverage. Whether it be news publications or posts on social media, everyone has access. A common theme presented within the videos is the harsh linguistic and physical approaches used by law enforcement. When talking to police officers, on average the African American community experiences 61% more negative conversations with law enforcement. Understanding verbal discrepancies presented in video footage can help educate and create police-community trust programs.[29] Watching these experiences throughout the media can be disheartening and intimidating to the Black community. For example, a twenty-five-year-old Black school teacher, Kenya Davis, reflects on her feelings towards police violence. A video was released in 2014 of the murder of Laquan McDonald, who was shot and killed by a police officer while his girlfriend was recording. Davis vividly describes what she saw and felt while watching the video. She explains the officer's body language, shaking while he shot McDonald, and McDonald's behavior, he was cooperating and of no threat. The background of the video was filled with his girlfriend's screams. Even though McDonald was not acting aggressive or confrontational, the officer was still scared. She describes feeling disheartened knowing that just being Black triggers fear and violent tendencies in police's minds.[30] There is more than just this one incident of police brutality being filmed. The list continues with George Floyd, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and many more. The overall feeling from the Black communities after watching footage of police brutality varies in negativity and mental health effects. About 60% of African Americans have a negative outlook on police officers while 48% said they felt unsafe and 45% referenced a decrease in mental health.[31]

The Singapore Police Force announced in January 2015 that officers stationed at its Neighbourhood Police Centres will be issued body cameras with those located at Bukit Merah West.[66] Officers stationed at Ang Mo Kio North, Bedok South, Bukit Merah East, Jurong West and Toa Payoh in June 2015 with the entire island covered by June 2016.[66] The Reveal RS3-SX body camera is issued to the SPF.[67]

The criminals stunned a musician as he was leaving a show at church, and drove off with his multimillion-dollar violin. What information could the stun gun company give the police that would be invaluable? Is it as simple as knowing who purchased the weapon, which was dropped at the scene? Or something weirder?

According to Maddow, they just read the code on the confetti and asked the Taser people who the purchaser was. They didn’t have the Taser itself to do any fancy forensics on. They guy apparently had no idea Tasers leave ID at the scene.

The survey is part of a diagnostic carried out in partnership with universities to outline the current scenario of the use of cameras in the country. According to the government, by August 2023, 26 of the Federation units were already using the equipment or preparing to start its use.

In some parts of Germany, some state police services have used body-worn video systems since 2013[97] and the number of states (German: Land or Länder) where police use bodycams has increased ever since.[98] The reason for the introduction of these cameras in Germany has overwhelmingly been to protect police against assaults from suspects. The second reason is the ability to reconstruct events and to use the recording as evidence.[99] A third reason has been the fact that civilians are filming the police and that the police wants to add their own recordings to what they perceive as selective filming by civilians. As Rüdiger Seidenspinner, the president of the union of policemen for the State of Baden-Württemberg, explained: "The reason is simple: our colleagues have had enough in this era of smartphones of being filmed only when they intervene. What caused the intervention, what actions, insults etc. took place does not seem to concern anyone. Furthermore, we will not use the BodyCam in all situations, but only for specific deployments and especially in areas with high levels of crime".[100] According to a representative sample of 1,200 citizens from Germany in 2015, a majority of 71% is in favor of body cameras and 20% is opposed to the technology.[101]

Conservatives are usually ban-happy and won’t pass up a chance to tell people how to live their life, but they have to rely on the support of rural population. There aren’t many farmers and hunters among them today, but the way of thinking is still prevalent and those people tend to see guns as tools and would get pissed if you harassed them for owning one (just like you would get pissed if some government tried to introduce licenses and background checks for laptops). Also, they’re mixed up with market liberals and hardcore libertarians who don’t trust the government in anything as soon as money is involved…

In order to quickly and accurately share the situation at the scene of an incident, Aichi Prefectural Police have introduced a system that automatically transmits video footage of police officers at the scene of an incident to the prefectural police headquarters in real time. This is the first time in Japan that a system capable of automatic filming and distribution has been used, and the prefectural police hope it will lead to the early resolution of incidents and ensure the safety of victims. The system was developed independently by the prefectural police and was introduced in March. Police officers arriving at the scene use a small camera on a mobile phone attached to the right breast. When the officer operates the radio, the camera is automatically activated and starts recording video, and the video and sound are transmitted to headquarters and the relevant department at each police station. According to the prefectural police, the cameras are worn by all police officers working at the 384 police stations in the prefecture. Until now, the situation at the scene of an incident has been communicated verbally over the radio, but from now on, detailed information on the scene of an incident, as well as the physique and clothing of the suspicious person the police officer confronts, can be instantly shared in the form of video images from the moment the radio is used. In radio communication only, it was sometimes time-consuming to ascertain information, as it was necessary to repeatedly confirm the facts between the police officer on the scene and the person in charge of the communication command. The introduction of the system is expected to shorten the time from the moment an incident is detected to the time the police are dispatched to the scene, and the chief of the Communications Command Section of the prefectural police, Mr Defining Sugiyama, said: 'Initial response is extremely important for the early arrest of suspects and the safety of victims. We hope to enhance our response capability and protect the safety of the community by utilising the system".[117]

As the Milwaukee Police and the FBI began to conduct the investigation they reached out to us at TASER in order to identify possible suspects in the case. This was accomplished thanks to our Anti-Felon Identification tags (AFID). The AFID program enforces accountability for each use of a TASER device. This system releases dozens of confetti-sized markers upon discharge of a CEW cartridge. Each AFID contains a serial number that tracks back to the original purchaser of the cartridge. The large number of AFIDs and their small size makes it impractical to clean up. Therefore, law enforcement can pick up one AFID and contact TASER International for a complete trace on the serial number.

There are other issues with the microstamping thing: 1) they are on easily replaced parts, that don’t require a licensed dealer 2) it would only be effective with legal firearms, recently purchased in the state of California 3) the technology is patented and 4) it only works with semi-automatics, not revolvers.

I am a public-interest technologist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. I've been writing about security issues on my blog since 2004, and in my monthly newsletter since 1998. I'm a fellow and lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. This personal website expresses the opinions of none of those organizations.

Except that’s not the reason we don’t have taggants in that stuff. That’s the modern excuse, but was not the reason when they actually were shot down, which was entirely different nonsense about environmental concerns and other random dumbness.

Video content analysis, such as facial recognition or automatic indexing of recordings to simplify search, can help to reduce the time needed to find relevant fragments in recorded data that would otherwise be overwhelming.

The body cameras in France are intended to de-escalate interventions and reassure the security forces. Formally, according to the 2016 law, that was extended in 2018 for use of bodycams by municipal police officers, the goals of the cameras are:

The reason for these features is to protect law enforcement users against brutality claims by providing independent evidence of the actual use made of the device. There’s even a form on Taser.com for requesting expert assistance in analysis of this information.

Criminals are, erm, criminal – they don’t follow the laws. They are savvy enough to buy a perfectly legal file if needed. Or an older gun, there are plenty out there.

The number of body-worn cameras in use by the police of Australia is growing increasingly prevalent in parallel with other countries. The first bodycams or 'cop-cams' were trialed in Western Australia in 2007. Victoria has been trialing body-worn cameras since 2012, and in 2015 the NSW police announced they had invested AU$4 million in rolling out body-worn cameras to frontline police officers. Queensland police have had the cameras in operation for some time, and have already collected 155,000 hours worth of footage. According to research being conducted in 2016 'the use of body-worn cameras has now gathered traction in most Australian states and territories'.[58] Despite the increasing prevalence of the devices, some Australian commentators have expressed privacy concerns.[59]

Bestcivilian body camera

And #1 is one of those imaginary problems. Yes, ‘criminals’ might, indeed, replace their firing pin. Just like they might file off the VIN on a stolen car, or wear gloves to avoid fingerprints.

Information from a stun gun company, an anonymous tip and hours of surveillance paved the way for authorities to find a stolen 300-year-old Stradivarius violin in the attic of a Milwaukee home, police said Thursday.

Based on what is required to modify a replic gun to become one that will fire live rounds, and criminals do the conversion and sell them to other criminals… It begs the question of a “new market” in ID tag less devices opening on the priciple of “demand begets supply”.

This article explores the history and use of police body cameras throughout the United States and across the world. The article also examines the efficacy within the United States in terms of civilian and officer behavior, perception, and legal implications. The article also touches on usage concerns as well as details regarding the manufacturing and supply of the product.

Impact on officer behavior is measured by complaints, use of force reports, arrests/citations or proactive behaviors. A study regarding the impact of police body cameras came to the conclusion that these cameras have a proven link to a decrease in complaints regarding use of excessive force and misconduct of police officers. The University of Las Vegas Nevada’s (UNLV) Center for Crime and Justice Policy and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) carried out this study. The study found that police body cameras could also result in various reduced costs as a result of simplifying the processes from when a complaint is made to when it is addressed. The study, which was funded by the U.S. The Department of Justice, overall found that police body cameras can improve police and community relations, reduce misconduct complaints, use of excessive force by police, and provide significant cost savings in relation to court costs. Conducted with approximately 400 Las Vegas police officers, the study's trial showed that officers wearing cameras had 30% fewer misconduct complaints and 37% fewer incidents with excessive force, compared to smaller or increased rates in the control group. The use of police body cameras also led to an 8% increase in citations and a 6% rise in arrests. Despite annual costs ranging from $828 to $1,097 per officer, the technology apparently saved over $4,000 per officer annually by reducing complaint investigations.[50]

When was the last time an actual crime was committed with a black powder weapon? Haven’t heard in the news about any at all, despite the gun-locks Massachusetts seems to think are needed on old muskets in museums.

The Constitution says nothing about the internet, does freedom of the press not apply? Or does it apply but the Government could impose onerous and overwhelming fees to discourage the use of the internet for free speech?

In any case, the camera itself is just the start of the expenses. Police departments also have to run software and store data for all the cameras which can add up quickly.[157] Other costs include maintenance, training and evaluations. In addition, several indirect costs will be incurred by body cams, for instance, the hours police and others in the criminal justice system spend on managing, reviewing and using the recordings for prosecution or other purposes such as internal reviews, handling of complaints or education. These 'hidden' costs are difficult to quantify, but by looking into total cost of ownership, some indication can be given of the percentage of costs is associated with the body cameras themselves or other expenses:

In 2018, the senate approved plans to experiment with bodycams in fire fighting and in detention centers.[90] Other organisations that use these small wearable cameras are the national organisation for rail transport (SNCF), but also regional public transport for Paris (RATP).[91] In 2019, public transport company Kéolis, introduced body cameras for its security staff on trams and buses in the city of Brest.[92]

With 88% of Americans[140] and 95% of Dutch people[141] supporting body cameras on police officers, there is strong public support for this technology. However, it is important to note that not all civilians are necessarily aware of the presence of bodycams. A study in Milwaukee revealed that awareness of the bodycams was comparatively low in the first year following implementation (36%) but increased after two more years (76%).[142] In that study, respondents were asked whether they thought bodycams would improve relationships between the police and community members: 84 percent (strongly) agreed. An even larger proportion, 87 percent, (strongly) agreed that Body-Worn Cameras would hold Milwaukee police officers accountable for their behaviors. These percentages hardly changed in the three years following introduction, which suggests that opinions such as these are independent of awareness of bodycams. According to findings in criminology, body-worn cameras have been shown to improve citizens reactions to police encounters.[143]

But on the plus side, law enforcement would be able to make arrests more often with more reliable evidence than shoe leather detective work, we wouldn’t want them to have to do a proper investigations as long as some one whos probably bad goes to jail, it would just more effort than we should expect of our law enforcers. Heck we could even get the NSA and FBI to corroborate that the evidence is as good as DNA.

With those four factors, you can calculate expected utility with or without the solution and base your judgment on whether expected utility with your solution is demonstrably higher than without. Doing nothing is always the option against which all others need to be measured first.

So kids, just make sure you use someone else’s taser cartridge or buy one on the black market — that’ll fix that “security” feature.

In 2013 the Home Office released an updated code of practice for surveillance cameras, in which Principle 8 included the use of body cameras, stating: "Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain those standards". 2013 also saw the start of Operation Hyperion, a Hampshire Police initiative on the Isle of Wight that equipped every frontline police officer with a personal issue body worn camera, the biggest project of its kind at the time. Sergeant Steve Goodier oversaw the project and was adamant that the project would drive legislative changes to free up further uses for body worn cameras. He said "I strongly believe we could make some small changes to legislation that can have a big impact on officers: "PACE was written in 1984 at a time when BWV was not around...We want to get the legislation changed so that BWV could replace the need for handwritten statements from officers when it is likely that an early guilty plea would be entered at court or that the incident could be dealt with a caution or community resolution."

Hollywood would object strenuously because it would make the average action-movie shoot-out look like a ticker-tape parade.

This feature, of course, has been strenuously objected to bun gun makers, because at this point the entire gun manufacturing industry is forced to operate in ‘wingnut’ mode due to declining amounts of people purchasing their guns, and thus has to object to every gun regulation, including ones that would only help solve crimes, like this one.

Bestbody Camerafor YouTube

In case you’re not joking, the confetti is ejected from the same cartridge and along the same axis as the probes and their wires are propelled.

The use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement offers potential advantages in keeping officers safe, enabling situational awareness, improving community relations and accountability, and providing evidence for trials. A legislation regarding body-worn camera has been enacted by the Ministry of Public Security, making the body-worn camera standard and mandatory policing equipment for law enforcement agencies in China.[77]

Basically, you put a serial number on the hammer of the gun, so that when it hits the shell, it leaves an imprint of that number on the shell casing. These serial numbers would be registered to the owner.

Following the national pilot, BWV began to gain some traction in the UK and, by 2008, Hampshire Police began to use the technology in parts of the Isle of Wight and the mainland. These were the first steps that paved the way for Chief Constable Andy Marsh becoming the national lead for BWV. Pioneers of BWV in the UK began to drive the need to review the legislation surrounding the use of the equipment. In 2009 the Security Industry Authority concluded that a CCTV license could be extended to cover the use of a body camera. The summary stated that a CCTV license was required to review footage from a body camera and that a door supervision or security guard license was required to operate a body camera if security activities were also being performed.

It seems like national security and crime are very similar in this respect: if we put our efforts into solving social issues, both domestic and foreign, as opposed to covert ops, creating dozens of law enforcement agencies, military posturing, etc. then we would probably be a lot safer with a lot less crime. Unfortunatley, solving social issues is harder to profit off of; if your donors are defense contractors, you aren’t going to work to make a world that doesn’t require such a large military.

This aspect consists of criminal investigations, crime resolution, intelligence gathering or court proceedings and outcomes. Prosecutors rarely bring cases against the police and it remains to be seen whether this will change much as a result of BWCs. Empirical results are hard to find. Three studies (all from the UK) revealed positive outcomes: officers can pursue prosecution even without victim cooperation and cases may more likely be charged.

Oh, forgot to add. .22 might be cheap for you (these days, it’s kinda hard to find the brand/type you want at a decent price), but for me, it’s one of the more expensive rounds.

The police in Hong Kong has been experimenting with body cameras since 2013. Based on positive findings from an (unpublished) evaluation, the decision was taken to supply all front-line officers with a bodycam.[78]

I’m not sure why folks are assuming that this type of tracking system isn’t already incorporated into firearms. What did they think was inside the “hollow” of hollow point rounds? Candy?

The tool isn’t really the problem, its the perp, and their reason to be a perp. I think we need more work on that, rather than trying to use tech to solve a social issue (I believe Bruce has mentioned the topic before, with the same outlook).

More than 30,000 body cameras are in use by police officers and municipal guards throughout the country, according to a survey conducted by the MJSP (Ministry of Justice and Public Security).

According to the NPA, a total of 102 wearable cameras are to be purchased, including 65 for local areas, 19 for crowd control, and 18 for traffic divisions. In the case of the crowd control officers, the cameras will capture video of situations with many people coming and going, and the feeds will be monitored remotely in real time. For traffic, the video will be used to educate drivers on road violations. In principle, police officers will still watch for traffic offenses on-site, with the bodycam footage expected to play a supporting role.

These items are called taggants and microtaggants. In Switzerland, they are required to be placed in explosives. There was a U.S. true crime investigation show that profiled a case where an explosive had killed someone in a parking lot. Under the microscopic investigation of the blast residue, the investigators were surprised to see small blocks with colored stripes about the size of a grain of pepper. This led to the bomber who purchased the Swiss explosives. Switzerland was and apparently still is the only country that requires the microtaggant technology.

In 2016, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) formally introduced BWV technology commencing with Derry City and Strabane District, with Belfast becoming the second District to introduce the technology.[72] A pilot BWV camera scheme was run during 2014/15, which illustrated the benefits of BWV. On that basis a business case was submitted to the Department of Justice and funding was secured to purchase BWV, following the success of the PSNI deployment.[73]

And #4 is incorrect. The process works on revolvers, it’s just that revolvers do not normally eject spent cartridges, so there’s not much point of that. If you want to argue that microstamping is pointless for revolvers, that’s fine and everyone agrees, and I’m pretty certain that the laws people are proposing do not include any weapon that doesn’t eject cartridges anyway. (And if all this laws does is force criminals to move to revolvers, hey, that’s a victory in itself. Revolvers generally have less bullets between reloads, you can’t buy extended capacity mags, suppressor use is fairly difficult, and reloading is much much slower.)

Looking at the United States in particular, there are 117 million Americans in the FBI's shared database according to the Georgetown Report.[149] People can become fearful of the police's ability to identify them in public and gather information about where they've been and where they might be going. In the US, there is no federal law in place that directly protects Americans when it comes to the use of facial recognition technology. Only the states of Illinois and Texas have regulations, “that require(s) an individual to give consent for their biometrics to be used, protecting its application in a system that it was not originally intended for”.

All costs and benefits, including indirect costs and benefits, have to be weighed against each other in a cost-benefit analysis, to be able to judge whether body cameras lead to a positive or negative business case. The police in Kent, United Kingdom, predicted a positive business case within two years after their investment of £1.8 million in body cameras, purely because of a reduction in the number of complaints.[144]

Other organizations besides the police use body cams, mainly local law enforcement officers employed by municipalities. All local 'handhavers' or city wardens in Amsterdam and Rotterdam wear bodycams, in addition to over thirty smaller cities. Other organizations use body cameras including public transport, security professionals, ambulances and fire-fighters.[129]

In policing equipment, a police body camera or wearable camera, also known as body worn video (BWV), body-worn camera (BWC), or body camera, is a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording system used by police to record events in which law enforcement officers are involved, from the perspective of the officer wearing it. They are typically worn on the torso of the body, pinned on the officer's uniform, on a pair of sunglasses, a shoulder lapel, or a hat.[1] Police body cameras are often similar to body cameras used by civilians, firefighters, or the military, but are designed to address specific requirements related to law enforcement. Body cameras are used by law enforcement to record public interactions and gather video evidence at crime scenes. Current body cameras are much lighter and smaller than the first experiments with wearable cameras in the late 1990s. There are several types of body cameras made by different manufacturers. Each camera serves the same purpose, yet some function in slightly different ways or have to be worn in a specific way. Police in the United Kingdom first began wearing body cameras in 2005, which have since been adopted by numerous police departments and forces worldwide.

Really, if you want to use gun control to reduce crime, nothing short of an outright ban (at the very least on Handguns) is likely to have much of an effect. We would be far better off if we tried to fix our social issues, but I don’t see that one happening any time soon. I’m in that small category of people who don’t support laws requiring firearm registration, “assault-weapons” bans, gun purchase limits, or wait period for purchases (except for maybe your first purchase), but do support handgun bans (although that would be unecessary if we solved our social problems).

@Sam: You’re forgetting a pretty important criterion in your (otherwise very good) list: D) How much will your solution help in practice? If it only has a low chance of working or won’t do much good when it does, that might also be a reason to reject it.

How long are the ID strings on the confetti? If you printed your own with random strings on fake confetti, how large a bag would you have to dump after firing before you got plausible deniability on the real ones from your taser?

Bestbody Camera2024

Take out the drug/gang violence, and we’re talking about a nation that is on par with Canada and Finland for gun violence — rates that have already fallen in half in the last 20 years. And that’s pretty remarkable given the high rates of non-drug violence in Greater Appalachia and the Deep South — take those 2 of Woodward’s 11 Nations out of our statistics, we’d probably rank much, much lower still.

Many body cameras offer specific features like HD quality, infrared, night vision, fisheye lenses, or varying degrees of view.[2] Other features specific to law enforcement are implemented in the hardware to integrate the body cameras with other devices or wearables. Another example is automatic triggers that start recording when the officer initiates a specific procedure, such as when a firearm or taser is drawn from a holster, when a siren is activated, or when the car door opens.

Police body cameras have been cited in resulting in increased levels of compliance by civilians and lowered levels of complaints in relation to policing in their neighborhoods.[46] At least 16 studies were aimed at examining the Impact of BWCs on civilian behavior.[citation needed] This can be measured by compliance with the police, willingness to call the police, willingness to cooperate in investigations or crime and disorder when an officer is present. The results were varied and some aspects have not been studied at all, for instance the concern that BWCs may reduce people's willingness to call the police due to worries about personal privacy.

The Mayor of the city of Nice has asked the Minister of the Interior to rewrite the legal framework to include live streaming of bodycam-footage. This would enable supervision centers to not only watch regular CCTV-cameras but also body cameras. Included in the request was the suggestion to enable these centers to distribute the footage to the devices in police vehicles. The national privacy watchdog, CNIL, has called for a democratic debate to define appropriate frameworks and to strike a balance between security and the rights and freedoms of everyone.[89]

Body cameras have been shown to be valuable in legal processes, especially in securing quick guilty pleas for lower-level offenses.[56] Footage that is ripped from police body cameras is captured from the officer's perspective, which can allow for prosecutors to have indisputable evidence against individuals that are involved in lower-level offenses such as traffic violations and trespassing. This results in less cases going to trial as the concrete evidence provided by the cameras can make a plea deal the only reasonable option left for a defendant.[56] Body cameras can provide necessary evidence that can be used against lower class individuals that are arrested for lower-level crimes. This makes it easier to prosecute and speeds up the receipt of guilty pleas. Cameras also speed up a system that is not built for full length cases to always play out.[56]

@George William Herbert The black powder and gunpowder taggants alter the burn behavior of the propellant. You can say “well, fine, just modify the amount of powder then” but cartridges are finely balanced, carefully adjusted mechanisms which assume powder behavior that’s been standardized for decades. The results of mistakes or changes which aren’t properly calibrated are explosions and injuries to users, most of whom will be innocent target shooters and police officers training.

Features such as cloud storage have been trialed and implemented into the cameras and the data-storage process. Axon allows sharing footage outside the police department, for instance with district attorneys, other prosecutors or the courts.[163][164]

National and municipal police have also been outfitted with body cameras, starting with 2 000 cameras in 2017, after experimentation during the previous years.[88] This number of cameras has been expanded and 10 400 additional cameras are being rolled out in what has been called a 'massive deployment'.[89] Nearly 400 municipalities applied for permission to use bodycams in the pilot that was conducted in 2017 and 2018. These communities ranged in size from 1 500 inhabitants like Collias to 100 000+ cities like Marseille and Nice.

Number 3 is the biggest by far, but either way the law is going to be costly and about as effective as every other gun control measure California has passed (aka completely ineffective).

According to Russian Internal Affairs Ministry the end of the 2016 all traffic police officers in Moscow will receive body cameras, which are attached to their clothes and work continuously. In some regions, such devices designed to eradicate corruption in the ranks of traffic police officers, are also purchased by other law enforcement agencies, but in limited quantities - for testing. Total equipping to all Russian police officers with body cameras was scheduled to completed by 2017.[131]

A) What specific problem your solution is addressing? B) How prevalent that problem actually is? i.e. are you solving a problem with no statistically meaningful rate of occurance? C) What is the impact on lawful users? Kinda similar to type 1 & 2 errors, you must consider not just the “bad actor” rejection rate, but the “good actor” rejection as well.

That would surprise me. I always thought that most rounds fired in the US—indeed a majority of rounds fired—were .22 long rifle rounds. I don’t think many people reload 22.

Not that I have much hope, but perhaps this framework will help people think about new regulations a bit more rigorously.

“Every time a TASER Cartridge is deployed, at least 24 small confetti- like AFID tags are ejected. Each AFID is printed with the serial number of the cartridge deployed, allowing law enforcement agencies to determine the registered owner of the cartridge and track citizen use if ever used in a criminal act.”

At the time of purchase, we verify the identity and background of the prospective buyer with the understanding that we will not release the information and it will be kept confidential unless a TASER device is used in the commission of a crime. This information proved invaluable during the investigation on the Stradivarius violin. “We worked very closely with TASER International who provided us invaluable information that the FBI was able to track down for us in Texas,” said Chief Flynn, “That information led us to an individual who had purchased this device.”

Regarding micro-stamping (and suggestions that it should be compulsory with registration of the stamps to track down the owner of guns used in crimes), if I was a bad guy worried about micro-stamping, I would just use a nice revolver and not have to worry about shell casings.

But, more importantly, it is completely hilarious for the NRA to complain about industries not ‘accepting liability for their products’.

One of the main reasons for the national police, gendarmerie and municipal police to start using bodycams is the systematic recording of identity checks in public places. Starting in March 2017, the police and gendarmerie in 23 prioritised security zones ('zones de securité priorities), including Paris, Marseille, Nice, Toulouse and Lyon, had to record each identity check. Up to 2013, the decision to start a recording was discretionary, but after 2017 recording of these checks was supposed to become the rule. According to a critical article, this requirement was not fulfilled, given the fact that there were 2 500 bodycams available for the total of around 245 000 officers in the country. Some controversy surrounded the introduction because of a statement in the Senate by ministre de l'intérieur, Bruno le Roux, that recording would be triggered automatically - a statement that later had to be revoked because it proved to be incorrect.[96] The report describing the results of the experiment was not published, but a spokesperson of the National Police told a reporter that the cameras increase the legitimacy of officers, pacify difficult situations and offer the possibility to record the specifics of each intervention, in this case identity checks.[89]

Following The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (effective January 1, 2016), the state of Illinois became one of the first states to have a comprehensive set of rules for police departments in regards to body camera usage.[4] The Chicago Police Department as well as the mayor of the city, Rahm Emanuel, have been vocal about their plan to enact a body-worn camera expansion that would equip police officers by the end of 2017. The goal of this plan, as well as the hiring of more officers, is to improve public trust in the law, expand transparency, and halt the climbing number of homicides.[5][6] Springfield Police Department (Illinois) has also been among the local departments that have expanded the use of body worn cameras despite the Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow stating that "there are still problems with the state body camera law, and many departments in Illinois aren’t adopting the cameras as a result".[7] One of those departments is the Minooka Police Department that discontinued the use of body cameras because they felt overburdened by administrative responsibilities.[8][9] The considerable cost of cameras and the support of related technology is another factor limiting the speed of their adoption. In New York City, for example, initial purchase of body-worn cameras could cost up to $31 million. However, proponents hypothesized that body-worn cameras would save money by reducing lawsuits targeted towards the police force and by aiding in the dismissal of court cases with digital evidence provided by the recorded footage of the body-worn cameras.[10]

It is simply irrational to say the Constitution doesn’t mention bullets so it’s OK to ban them. It doesn’t mention paper and ink, or electrons, either.

And even if you imposed all those restrictions and created additional expense and inconvenience harassing the vast majority of gun owners who do not misuse their guns, we live in a nation where most gun violence is related to drug-financed gang wars fighting over distribution territories, gangs that deal in drugs like cocaine which the suppliers have been known to build submarines to sneak it into the country — in other words, the criminals will quickly learn how to subvert such controls.

Body cameras require sizable investments. In 2012, the price of the camera itself was between $120 and $1,000, according to a market survey by the United States Department of Justice in which seven suppliers were compared.[3] A more recent market survey in 2016, describing 66 body cameras of 38 different vendors, showed that the average price (or actually: the average manufacturer's suggested retail prices) was $570, with a minimum of $199 and a maximum of $2,000.[155] In 2017, based on information from 45 police forces in the United Kingdom, research showed that nearly 48,000 body cameras had been purchased and that £22,703,235 had been spent on the cameras.[156] Dividing this total by the number of cameras gives an estimate of the average costs per camera: £474. The minimum was £348 for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the maximum was £705 for the Metropolitan Police Service. These differences may be partly attributable to the fact that some forces have included more types of costs than other forces.

My guns must be the laziest there are. Not one has loaded itself, and jumped out of the case to shoot so much as a fly.

Remember one thing, you cant patch stupid. You cant patch gun violence with tech, guns are idiot agnostic, fingerprint scanners and taggents are not a patch for stupid. The only patch for stupid is branding the foreheads of idiots with the word STUPID and then not selling or allowing possession of guns by STUPID.

There’s a good chance most rounds fired by civilians in the U.S. (the bullet is only the projectile, if a bullet is the style of projectile being used) are actually hand loaded by folks in the basement — much cheaper and you’re able to tune your ammunition to your firearms and conditions for maximum accuracy. Producing your own bullets and to a significantly lesser extent but possible gun powder is well within technical capabilities of a hobbyist. The brass cartridges can be reused many times. Primers are the most difficult and dangerous to produce, though I suspect if they were restricted you would see a movement to electronic firing systems (which would also eliminate the ability to “microstamp” from a firing pin, a system of highly dubious value other than as harassment of otherwise lawful gun manufacturers since it is likely the microstamp on the firing pin will be damaged by repeated strikes and not provide valuable information.)

AxonBody camera

In 2012, the National Institute of Justice at the United States Department of Justice issued a primer regarding laws, policies, practices, and technology for local police departments to consider.[3]

The privacy law governing the use of bodycams by police in Italy is the law that protects personal data. According to a spokesperson of the police in Rome the law allows for the creation of video recordings of police interventions, provided the footage is used only for the reconstruction of police activity. The fact that other people including innocent by-standers could be recognised by their faces or voices does not mean the recording can not be used for legitimate purposes.[116]

Starting in February 2016, the Federal Police began testing bodycams at train stations in Berlin, Cologne, Düsseldorf and Munich.[111][112] In early 2017, the Bundestag agreed with government plans to introduce bodycams to protect officers.[113]

Across various countries, but particularly in the United States, police body cameras have shown the potential to reduce complaints and enhance police officer accountability, although their effectiveness remains debatable.

@hoodathunkit: Yeah, at least as a European I find it hard to understand that the right to bear arms (which is, at it’s heart, a liberal issue) is mostly defended by American conservatives and mostly attacked by American liberals. It pretty much only makes sense when you look at the sub-factions that make up the parties:

Except, of course, for the real reason the NRA managed to get the proposal shut down back in the 90s: Cost. It was estimated to add about 20% to the cost of powder. (And now, of course, in full wingnut-support mode, the NRA would oppose tagging on insane ‘liberty’ grounds, but they were somewhat less insane in the 90s.)

Three states have the most widespread use, according to the ministry: São Paulo, Santa Catarina, and Rio de Janeiro. In addition to these, in another 4 states, the implementation process has already begun: Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Norte, Roraima, and Rondônia.[139]

In early 2018, some 30 cameras were in use at Helsinki police department on a trial basis. The National Police Board recommended in April 2018 to issue all police officers on patrol with cameras. The ambition is to make the procurements in 2018. The two main reasons are to improve officers' safety by reducing confrontations with members of the public and to make recordings that can be used as evidence.[84]

Our are you just trying to impose the same vindictive, petty harassment that folks opposed to abortion try to take out on women to limit their exercise of constitutionally protected rights?

ProCrimeTip #2: Always take your battery-operated “Dust Buster” with you so you can vacuum up all the AFID tags after you commit the crime.

The NPA will check the footage to see if officers are questioning people appropriately, among other purposes. Relatively large prefectural police forces will implement the system first, and the NPA will consider full-scale introduction after verifying its effectiveness. About 15 million yen (approx. $103,000) for related expenses has been included in the agency's fiscal 2024 budget request.

Incidentally, due to imperfections in the hammers, these marks already exists and can be matched if you have the casing and the gun, just like the imperfections in the barrel leaves marks on the bullet that can be matched…but the premise here is to register them in advance. Now, registering-in-advance could be done with the existing random marks, but that requires firing the gun and recording them, whereas if it’s a serial number stamped on the casing you don’t have to bother with that, you can just look up who owns a certain gun. (And before anyone suggests faking someone else’s serial number, of course the police would actually match the still-existing imperfections, both on the bullet and casing, if this needed to be introduced as evidence.)

Both bullet and brass take some damage in firing, particularly the projectile – and guns are close enough to the same that any decent defence lawyer could find another that a state forensics guy couldn’t tell from the one in evidence. Precision is the name of the game here. Which means, heck, they’re all alike these days.

Ever since body cameras were introduced, there has been a debate over whether capabilities that make the camera superior to that of the officer's eyes should be allowed. For instance, infra-red recordings could in hind-sight clearly show that a suspect did or did not carry a gun in his hand, but the officer at the scene may not have been able to see this. This issue forces companies to choose whether to incorporate 'super human' features, or not.[145] For one, body cameras are able to record for up to 12 hours. If a law enforcement officer turns on their body camera at the beginning of their shift, they are able to record footage for the entire duration of the shift.[146] Another important feature in law-enforcement body cameras is buffering: the option to let a body camera 'pre-record'. The bodycam can record continuously and store video from the previous thirty seconds, for example. If the officer presses the record switch, the preceding thirty seconds of recording will be kept. The ability to buffer enables officers to retain video of everything that occurred prior to the moment the record switch was pressed. This buffered video and audio may provide more context to an incident.[2] If the recording doesn't start, the video will be deleted after thirty seconds have elapsed on a 'first in, first out' basis. HD resolution improves usability of recordings as evidence, but at the same time increases file size, which in turn leads to an increase in bandwidth requirements for data transfer and storage capacity. At present, HD is the industries' standard, but until roughly 2016 that was not the case even though the technology was widely available in other devices.[147][2]

I would guess, difficult enough for the average criminal to be unable to justify it… Why go through all that trouble when a real gun is easier to obtain, easier to reload, more intimidating, and probably cheaper too! Although, I suppose it wouldn’t be too difficult for someone attempting an elaborate frame-up job…

The first body worn video cameras used by the Dutch police were portable videocameras used by the mounted riot-police in 1997.[121] The first experiments with more modern bodycams date back to 2008 and were all small-scale technical tests. After four large-scale experiments from 2009 through 2011, the conclusion was that bodycams did not reduce violence and aggression against the police, largely due to technical problems with recordings and 'wearability' of the equipment.[122] The Department of Justice concluded that bodycams were not ready to be 'rolled out' on the national level. Regional police forces continued experimenting with bodycams. In 2011, according to a survey by one of the major suppliers of BWV cameras in the Netherlands, 17 of the 25 regional police forces were using bodycams in 2011.[123]

Taggants have been known to be hard on barrels (the real danger with them is they might not be in the powder uniformly, and you get a load of all powder, or all taggant, more or less).

There is a technology to do the same thing to black powder and gun powder with plastic taggants, but the NRA and the gun lobby killed the implementation: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178858037/taggants-in-gunpowder-might-have-helped-identify-bombers

As more studies in more police departments were performed, the evidence became more mixed. One of the most robust studies was done among thousands of Washington, D.C. officers, led by David Yokum at the Lab@DC, a team of scientists embedded in D.C. government, and Anita Ravishankar at D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department (M.P.D.). The evaluation found no effect on use-of-force by officers or on the number of complaints by civilians.[18][19] The researchers concluded that police officers equipped with body cameras used force and confronted civilians in a similar manner compared with officers without body cameras: “This is the most important empirical study on the impact of police body-worn cameras to date. ... These results suggest we should recalibrate our expectations” of cameras’ ability to make a “large-scale behavioral change in policing, particularly in contexts similar to Washington, D.C.". The study not only presents statistical analyses, but also provides qualitative research and analysis to shed light on the controversies surrounding the cameras. According to the study, several factors could explain why the cameras did not change the behavior of the police - even though there was a high level of compliance to the rules governing the activation of the cameras: desensitization to the cameras and the fact that police officers already performed better due to an increase in monitoring of their actions before the introduction of the cameras. A third possibility was that officers without cameras acted similar to officers with cameras, because they were aware of their colleagues who did wear these devices.[19] Since the Washington-study, several others have been published that concluded the body cameras did not live up to - perhaps too high - expectations. The meta-evaluation cited below contains information on all studies if they met the methodological quality requirements.

An impact assessment, based on 54 Rialto police officers wearing body cameras showed that civilian complaints against officers dropped by 88% and "use of force" dropped by 59%.[10] Another report that studied the effects of police body cameras for 46 officers of the Orlando Police Department over one year[20] concluded that for officers wearing the body cameras, use-of-force incidents dropped by 53%, civilian complaints dropped by 65%, two in three officers who wore the cameras said they’d want to continue wearing them in the future and that it made them "better officers".[20] Other studies produced similar results. For instance, an analysis by the San Antonio Express-News of San Antonio law enforcement's use of body-worn cameras found that incidents where police used force and formal misconduct complaints decreased significantly. Scholars of crime were unsure to what extent body-worn cameras played a role in these declines, but noted that the results were consistent with trends in other cities were cameras had been introduced.[21]

Another major concern that has arisen since the implementation of police body cameras is how these technologies will affect the privacy rights of individuals in regards to search and seizure laws. The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States determined that “there need not be a physical or technical trespass to constitute a search or seizure deserving of constitutional protection.”[154] Extraction of sensitive information from individuals through electronic transmission is deemed to be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Police body camera recordings conducted on private property without a warrant or probable cause are expected to violate the individual search and seizure rights of the property owner. Video recordings conducted in public spaces aren't generally subject to Fourth Amendment protections under the “plain view” doctrine developed by the Supreme Court.[154] In these circumstances an officer can record an individual and their actions as long as they are in public spaces. Many other nations have their own search and seizure laws that have specific implications associated with the use of body cameras worn on police officers.

The Swedish army in Afghanistan has used helmet cameras.[135] In 2016, train hosts in Gothenburg and West Sweden started testing bodycams. They were only allowed to turn on the cameras if a passenger became violent or threatened to use violence.[136] Public transport in Stockholm, Storstockholms Lokaltrafik, started using body cameras in 2018. Security guards were the first to start using these cameras and ticket controllers followed in December 2018. The cameras are used in order to improve the safety of staff. Additionally, the cameras can be used to make a recording of travellers without a valid ticket. By filming them, the identity of the person in question can be verified even if they used someone else's identity during the check.[132]

In the cities of Milan and Turin, police forces have started experimenting on a small scale with bodycams. One of the first projects started in 2015 in Turin where police used the bodycams for their own protection during protests.[114] Starting in May 2017, ten bodycams were being trialled by the police forces of Turin and Milan to be used in high-risk operations and use-of-force incidents. Part of the trial was to connect the live streams of the cameras to the control-room of the police. The bodycams for these pilots were supplied free of charge by a manufacturer for a period of three months. Based on the experiences during the trials, a decision would have to be reached whether to supply all front-line officers with bodycams.[115] The price for fifty bodycams in Milan was 215,000 euros.[116]

Some police services in Canada such as the Calgary Police Service have outfitted all front-line officers with body-worn video systems since 2019.[60] Police unions in Canada have been opposed to body-worn video systems, citing privacy and cost concerns.[61] In 2015, several city police units, including those in Winnipeg[62] and Montreal[63] announced plans to experiment with the technology. The Toronto Police Service started a pilot in 2014 with the technology during a year-long study of body-worn cameras. In total, 100 officers were using the technology from May 2015 through May 2016.[64] The evaluation report concluded that support for the body cameras was strong and increased during the pilot. There were technical issues, for instance with battery life, camera mounting, docking, recharging, ability to classify, ease of review and other issues. In September 2016, the Toronto police wanted to put out a call for proposals from suppliers.[65]

/just about as useless as checking IDs at TSA checkpoints….No one’s ever had a fake ID before, right? But I’ll save that discussion for another day.

It has been argued that while useful evidence, body camera footage in the courtroom should be presented with great caution. As such, juries should be made aware of their implicit biases while viewing footage, the objectivity of which is incomplete as it does not cover all aspects and context of the situations being filmed.[43]

Oh, and I love that one of the reasons that the NRA cites taggants as being bad is that the taggant industry doesn’t accept liability from them damaging guns. Firstly, duh, the taggant industry has no control of whether or not it’s put in gunpowder correctly, or how well the gunpowder works afterwards, that would be akin to a wire manufacturer accepting liability because bare wires in your new house shocked you. Yeah, that’s not really their fault.

Some police officers in Japan will strap on body cameras in a trial set for fiscal 2024, with an eye to introducing them across the country in the future, the National Police Agency announced on Aug 30, 2023.

One study found that when looking at support for BWCs race, ethnicity, differing neighborhoods, and other demographics had an effect on support for BWCs.[47] Most likely due to the goal of transparency and trust in police that are often linked to BWCs. On the topic of public view of the footage release aspect of BWCs, another study found that race, gender, and police accountability had a significant impact on the concerns of citizens opinions of the release of BWC footage.[48] Another factor of citizen support is transparency of police work which is one of the main points brought up by citizens when discussing BWCs. A nationwide study found that the public is enthused by the thought of BWCs to improve transparency in police work.[49] However, within the same study it was found that there was less agreement on two factors: trust in policing and the ability of BWCs to improve police-citizen relationships. It appears that throughout studies there are different reasons behind why the public would feel approving or disapproving of the main issues such as trust in police legitimacy, transparency, release of BWC footage, officer accountability, etc. The public in general has differing attitudes in how and if BWCs are fixing the issues that they are supposed to target. BWCs have shown effect on how people feel about these main issues with the most consistent category being that they do gain a sense of transparency when viewing law enforcement.

In Finland, a pilot with body cameras was started in 2015. Thirty cameras were used by the Helsinki Police Department to help the police in maintaining public order. It was hoped that body cameras might prevent crime and disorder. Furthermore, it was expected that the cameras could at the same time improve the way the police worked. The cameras were meant to be used in specific settings and only in public places. Filming inside homes would only be allowed as part of a criminal investigation. The data were to be encrypted and could only be accessed with specific software, according to the police. It was expected that most recordings would be deleted right after each shift, because of the need for privacy protection.[82]

The NAACP National Board of Directors has endorsed the use of policy-based automatic body-worn camera solutions for use by law enforcement.[36] The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization that has been a major proponent of body cameras on officers, but only in certain situations.[37] The ACLU has advocated body camera use for both police departments and U.S. Customs and Border Protection,[38] granted that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of both officers and civilians.[39] However, they have opposed the use of such camera systems for parking enforcement officers, fire marshals, building inspectors, or other code enforcement officers.[40] The questions raised by the ACLU and others fuel the most heated debate on body-worn cameras. Others, such as Black Lives Matter, have released specific policy solutions to tackle the issue of police violence and escalation that include body cameras for police, limited use of force, and demilitarization of the police are a few of the ten crucial policies listed in Campaign Zero.[41][42]

@Autolykos:”Doing nothing is always the option against which all others need to be measured first.” Good point! You should always have base line to compare to.

More for rifle rounds where you can’t use the brass as many times, need more powder, and you have to use jacketed bullets @ around 20c each for the good stuff, a nickel for the cheapo. But dirt cheap army surplus…traceable to…the army.

Allowed HTML • • • _^•

1. •

   	Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/
   
   Swedish police have used body cameras, for instance at large football games and demonstrations. According to a spokesperson for the Swedish Police in 2015, body cameras would not become standard equipment for police officers. They would be used for special purposes because there was no need to record all interactions. "We are not in the same situation as the police in the US who need to document everything in order to maintain credibility".[132] Early trials with body cameras have been carried out in Gothenburg and Södertälje in 2017. Many other Swedish police regions expressed interest in using body cameras.[133] The police in Stockholm have piloted body cameras in 2018 and 2019. In total, 300 body cameras were used in three parts of Stockholm to prevent violence against police officers. The Swedish Crime Prevention Council (Brottsförebyggande rådet - Brå) evaluated the pilot.[134] The evaluation revealed that the body cameras had the intended effects, but on a relatively modest scale. Certain types of violence decreased: harassment and violence using weapons. Sexual intimidation of female officers was reduced too. The sense of security improved, according to interviews with officers: people 'guard their tongue'. Physical violence has not decreased in the same amount. According to the police, this type of violence is perpetrated by people who are either drunk or mentally troubled. Their behaviour is not adjusted when they realise they are being filmed. Footage has rarely been used as evidence in courts: overall, 178 recordings were pulled for prosecution and conviction. In roughly half of these cases, the footage was used as evidence, but in the other half the decision was made to not submit the recording as evidence. Another conclusion is that the level of activation of bodycams varied from one officer to the next. There was a lack of clear instructions and guidelines on which situations needed to be recorded. The researchers believe that the bodycams could lead to more positive outcomes if a better strategy for the deployment of the bodycams would be developed and implemented.
   Primers ~ 2.5 cents/ea
   Powder ~ about the same, depends on the round.
   Brass – reused, so a one time cost, mostly.
   Bullets – recast from recycled lead from my range and elsewhere.
   Reloading gear -expensive if you get the good stuff, once.
   You seem to be suggesting that the U.S. legalize all drugs, which is a great idea for a number of reasons I’d be more than happy to enumerate.
   I hate to be pedantic, but please distinguish Tasers (trademark), which shoot darts and thus work at a distance, from “stun guns”, the obviously inaccurate name applied to shocking devices which don’t shoot anything and thus require direct skin contact to work.
   Your “liberals” on the other hand are mostly composed of what we’d call social democrats or socialists (which seems to be almost an insult on your side of the pond) and a bunch of Greens, both of which are pretty ban-happy in their own right. They also have more support in cities, where people think of guns as weapons only, leading to a very different perception. The small part of actual social liberals (who would oppose gun control on liberal grounds) is unable to influence party policy much, even they are sometimes divided about gun-control issues (but it’s hard to completely separate them from the Greens), and there are usually issues they care more about than guns.
   
   ..or.. could’ve just been a serial number on the taser that was dropped at the scene. The company might just record the owner’s name when they buy one of these guns.
   Finnish parking inspectors from Vaasa, Jyväskylä, and Kotka[85] have been using bodyc ams since the spring of 2021[86] and have reported fewer threatening incidents since they began wearing body cameras on their uniforms.
   A 2018 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics explained that the main reasons for the adoption of police body cameras by police departments was mainly to improve the safety of officers, to increase the quality of evidence that was gathered, and to reduce complaints made by civilians. Research from this report has shown that there are mixed results regarding how effective police body cameras are in achieving these goals. The report’s review of around 70 studies showed that there were no consistent or significant impacts on issues such as the use of force (in relation to civilian complaints), officer safety, and more. This essentially concluded that police body cameras effectively had “no effect” on various aspects of police behavior.[51]
   All that said, taggarts in gunpowder would not be anywhere near the helpfulness of what Taser does, at least not for gun crimes. It is possible it’s not actually worth it. (OTOH, we’ve done a lot of anti-terrorism measures that have a lot less usefulness and a lot higher costs.)
   Civilian body cameraamazon
   This feature is not useless, it’s just meant to catch the stupid. From a society and law enforcement point of view that is quite useful, as a lot (most ?) crimes are commited by induhviduals.
   PersonalBody Camerawith Audio
   In reviewing the existing research on police body-worn cameras in 2017, University of Virginia economist Jennifer Doleac noted that the existing research was mixed as to whether the cameras reduce the use of force by police officers or increase the communities' trust in police.[2][22] But a reduction in complaints against police using excessive force does not necessarily mean there are fewer cases of misconduct, it could mean that people are just not speaking up or the body camera was not turned on and the footage cannot be investigated. More time and research was expected to allow a more precise answer to whether or not body worn cameras improve officer conduct.[23] As more empirical evidence became available, the importance of differences in local contexts and policies was revealed. The level of discretion that officers have in the activation of the body cameras has, for instance, been suggested as one of the deciding characteristics in any body camera policy and therefore in the results that can be expected. Unintended outcomes can even be the result from increased transparency due to over-deterrence: officers who know they are being recorded, will only do the minimum required. These officers may follow protocols strictly, reducing their use of discretion.[24][25]
   Body-worn video cameras received wide media coverage because of the first testing of body-worn cameras in the United Kingdom in 2005. The test was begun on a small-scale by Devon and Cornwall Police.[69] In 2006, the first significant deployments of BWV at the national level were undertaken by the Police Standards Unit (PSU) as part of the Domestic Violence Enforcement Campaign (DVEC). The basic command units equipped with the head cameras recorded everything that happened during an incident from the time of arrival which led to the "preservation of good-quality first disclosure evidence from the victim". The evidence gathered was deemed especially useful in the way of supporting prosecutions if the victim was reluctant to give evidence or press charges.
   However, as I am sure you are aware, there is too much money involved on the Law Enforcement side of the equation. The War on Drugs is a big business and like most big businesses, they have plenty of lobbying power. Plus, “think of the children”.
   You can kinda-sorta make an attempt to distinguish a brass or a bullet as having been fired from a particular gun, but within the same gun and across guns – which are constantly improving in uniformity (it’s a selling point – quality) – it’s more a case of he said, she said, in court.
   Gotta love it when the people who don’t trust the government to not abuse surveillance powers (now proved) will put their lips to the same government’s arse and trust it entirely for a different political reason.
   Taser International, the maker of the stun gun used in the attack, “provided invaluable information” that the FBI tracked down in Texas and ultimately led police to Universal Allah, a Milwaukee resident, Police Chief Edward Flynn said Thursday.
   In 2014, the Metropolitan Police Service began a 12 month trial in ten London boroughs, testing the impact of BWV on complaints, stop and search and criminal justice outcomes for violent offenses. Following the trial, the decision was made to issue body cameras to all officers who have regular engagement with the public. Other officers will be able to access cameras on an ‘as needed’ basis. A total of 22,000 cameras will be issued.[71]
   In addition to the cartridge chad, the Taser device has an accurate clock and internal log of firings and shocks delivered.  Some models also include video recordings of their use.  It’s unclear what model was used, but the information available might be significant.
   Civilian body camerafor sale
   The police in Denmark has been credited in English media as the first police force to use body cameras, even before the English pilots of 2007 were initiated.[79][80] In 2017, the Minister of Justice has equipped security personnel in detention centers with body cameras.[81]
   In the State of Rhineland-Palatinate body cams are in use since July 2015 in the cities of Mainz and Koblenz to reduce violence towards the police and to collect footage that can be used as evidence. The costs of these body cams was 18.500 euro.[105] Based on the positive experiences, eighty more bodycams have been acquired to be deployed in more areas in these two cities. In Hamburg, one of five members in each team that surveils during weekends is equipped with a bodycam since June 2015. These cameras can be pointed in different directions by manually operated remote control.[106] Since 2016, the Bavarian State Police has been testing bodycams in Munich, Augsburg and Rosenheim. The cameras have to be activated in critical situations and at dangerous locations, for instance in nightlife entertainment areas where fighting is a common occurrence.[107] In Baden-Württemberg, bodycams are deployed in Stuttgart, Mannheim and Freiburg since 2016.[108] The aim here is to test the bodycams during one year with the purpose of reducing violence against the police.[109] Since late 2022 Berlin's police have implemented a pilot program with bodycams.[110]
   And the same issue with the ‘but they might just use stolen guns’ argument. Even if all gun crime was with stolen guns, if this system was in place, you could link a gun stolen from a certain place with a different crime, which gives you much higher chance of figuring out the intersection of possibilities of the two crimes, and even if the gun has been transferred a few times, the possibility of working forwards to the other crime. Without a microstamp, you have no idea what gun it even is that committed the crime.
   Could someone please develope this for real bullets and make it
     mandatory? The constitution says nothing about bullets…
   For the obvious thing, different companies use different formulations of powder. It’s not like there’s some magical perfect formula for smokeless powder or gunpowder. There’s plenty of ways to get the same ‘powder behavior’ with slight additives. And these formulations have, indeed, changed.
   This is about training, policies, accountability, supervision et cetera. It is the least researched area, with some exceptions.[55] Technologies often have unintended consequences on police. Much more research is needed to understand whether BWC footage can help officers to learn skills better and whether that in turn has an impact on their actual behavior. BWCs can - in theory - strengthen the accountability structure in an organization, but perhaps not if existing accountability mechanisms in the agency are weak. BWCs for instance will unlikely improve mentorship or supervision in an agency that does not value such mentorship or supervision.
   I am a public-interest technologist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. I've been writing about security issues on my blog since 2004, and in my monthly newsletter since 1998. I'm a fellow and lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. This personal website expresses the opinions of none of those organizations.
   Granted, picking up a shell casing is much easier than picking up the Taser confetti, but there’s plenty of circumstances where it’s not possible, or time consuming.
   In 2015, the Dutch National Police published their plans to integrate more 'sensing' capabilities into routine police work. This plan focused on CCTV, automatic number plate recognition and bodycams.[124] Thirty experiments were conducted with body cameras to determine whether the technology should become part of the standard equipment of all police officers. The biggest experiment was done in Amsterdam where one hundred body cams were tested for 12 months by 1,500 officers. The trial was monitored and independently evaluated, according to the highest possible methodological standard: a randomized controlled trial. Violence and aggression towards police officers were reduced significantly.[125][126] Based on these positive findings, the management of the National Police in 2019 decided to roll-out 2,000 body cams to all front-line police units in the country.[127] Results from a 2022 research report[128] show that 86% of police officers find that the body cams have (a lot) of added value to their work, with officers also feeling safer on duty while carrying body cams. The research report further found that the body cams have added value for investigations, training, and evaluation.
   In a 2012 market survey by the U.S. Department of Justice, eight companies producing body cameras were compared: Taser International, VisioLogix, StalkerVUE, Scorpion, FirstVU, Wolfcom, MuviView and Panasonic.[3] In 2014, the three top companies that had been producing body cameras throughout the United States were Taser International, VieVu, and Digital Ally.[2] In 2016, a market survey described 66 BWV cameras produced by 38 different vendors.[155]
   1) Which incidentally means the idea someone suggested, of only using stolen Tasers, a bit silly. Yes, if you wanted to steal a new Taser for every crime you committed, you could do that. Otherwise, no.
   There are several types of wearable cameras that attach to different parts of the body, such as the head and chest. Which type will be used has not yet been decided. Data storage periods and other operational practices will also be considered later.[118]
   Police unions in several U.S. cities, such as New York City (the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents part of the NYPD),[32] Las Vegas,[33] and Jersey City, New Jersey,[34] and St. Louis, Missouri,[35] expressed doubts or opposition to body cameras. Specifically, union officials expressed concerns about possible distraction and safety issues, and questioned "whether all the footage filmed by body cameras will be accessible via public-records requests, whether victims of domestic violence will be hesitant to call police if they know they will be filmed and whether paying for the cameras and maintenance will lead to cuts elsewhere in the police budget".[34] Others have worried about a "gotcha discipline".[35] Some unions have argued that it was "mandatory" for police departments to include provisions about body-worn cameras in union contracts because it would be a "clear change in working conditions" as well as something that could "impact an officer's safety".[33]
   As a whole, research on police body cameras definitely varies in quality but provides valuable insights for law enforcement that is considering this technology. While some studies suggest potential benefits, the full value of police body cameras remains unclear. Ongoing research is rather important in order to better understand their impact as more law enforcement agencies across the United States adopt and implement this technology.