What I meant to say was that if you use a private/public key system, there should be a way to implement this such that the operator can provide their public key to allow anyone to validate the videostream without being able to reproduce it.

A free program for Android, by Susamp Apps. What is Proof Cam? It is a camera app that can take photos and videos, including the location and time of the event.

If you used the GPS pseudorandom stream, you’d have a ready-made way to encode location/time of the video. If you encrypted each frame’s GPS location/time pseudorandom using the private key, then during the recovery, you could use the public key. The proper GPS pseudorandom stream for a particular time/location is a matter of public record. Thus you would have a means of encoding time, place, and integrity with a public/private key verification. Does this hold up?

Lead nitrateformula

25 votes, 18 comments. So In the show they have the axon body 3 and 2 so I'm wondering if the cameras are rented from axon or did the show ...

Lead nitrateand potassium iodide

Now, to help better examine how Tasers are used, manufacturer Taser International Inc. has developed a Taser Cam, which company executives hope will illuminate why Tasers are needed—and add another layer of accountability for any officer who would abuse the weapon.

17 — Earth is choked by toxic air, and humanity survives within bio domes controlled by Global Breathe, a corporation that rations the very air ...

If the signal were also relayed in real-time to a volunteer group of civil rights lawyers, the cops would know it might be hard to ‘disappear’ the evidence. The threat of prison terms would tend to curb cheating by the police.

Being able to remotely disable a weapon is a terrible idea. It endangers the person expecting the weapon to work and shortens the amount of time available to discard the nonfunctional weapon and employ another tactic. Less-lethal weapons are employed more readily than firearms because they are not expected to cause permanent damage or death.

To put this in perspective, in training, people are taught that a knife wielding assailant at 7 yards has an advantage over a person with a gun in a holster. A tazer is a short range weapon, meaning that a failure of the tazer to operate correctly puts the user in greater danger because they thought they were armed, but were not.

L'Oréal shares were introduced on the Paris Stock Market on 8 October 1963 and are now listed on Euronext (Compartment A). ... Find out about L'Oréal's strategy ...

(*)If anyone finds the article(s) I was talking about above on Slashdot or perhaps Wired, please post the URLs here as they did drive an interesting point.

Ideally, you’d be able to generate two streams, which were the ‘private and public’ key of each other, but I don’t know if that’s mathematically possible, I’m too stupid. 🙂 If you could, then you could validate the stream integrity without providing the key.

Lead nitratehazards

A TASER didnt kill your nephew JP and you know it. And the camera does not use a tape Mr. Owens as you said. Nor would the police smear mayonaise on the lens. Where do you people get your thoughts???????? The problem is not the police it is the morons who need to break the law and fight with the police. WE dont get paid to fight with idiots. DONT BREAK THE LAW AND YOU WONT DEAL WITH THE POLICE IN A NEGATIVE WAY. GROW UP AND STOP THE PHONY FALSE UNTRUE MADE UP STORIES ONCE AND FOR ALL…..

Eventually, We should have a much more robust monitoring solution. Imagine not only a visual record and an audio record, but bio monitoring on the officer as well (think the combat monitoring system from “Aliens”).

Problems: You would only be able to do this once, unless you had a trustable method of generating this pseudorandom stream again – entering the generation seed would allow an attack on the system? I’m probably getting this wrong.

On-the-fly real-time generation of cryptographic hashes of every frame of the video followed by a gpg signature? Would this be possible?

Leadiinitrateformula

On the whole, I agree with Bruce in that this is a relatively cheap auditing tool that can help prevent misuse, or at least enforce consequences of misuse.

The Taser Cam records in black and white but is equipped with infrared technology to record images in very low light. The camera will have at least one hour of recording time, the company said, and the video can be downloaded to a computer over a USB cable.

Ride the lightning! Related but not directly connected to this thread, before the cops can be allowed to use pepper spray and tasers, they get hit themselves. This is to let the cops know exactly what they are putting the perp through. Already the tasers have a shots used counter on them and each shot has to be reported. I think adding a camera is a good idea. The events leading up to using it would be covered by the dash cam, and the taser cam would give a better close up view of what happened. Sometimes the dash cam can’t capture the important stuff because of its fixed location.

In general, though, I’m a little leery of cameras as an auditing tool, since they still leave a lot open to interpretation. Cameras in patrol cars have the same failure problem -> they can make a visual record of a traffic stop (which is great when someone shoots a cop and you now have a record of a license plate), but they can’t record audio, so you’re still going to be relying quite a bit on people’s interpretations of an event.

While I’m all for increased police oversight, I don’t think that the sort of actions you’re suggesting are realistic. After all, there’s no system (that I’m aware of) that sends video from cruisers’ dash cameras to a central location for real-time viewing, nor do we hear about cops disabling their cameras in order to harrass citizens during traffic stops.

In the event of a “questionable” shooting, for example, you’d have not only a much more authoritative record of the victim (with the audio and video), you’d have a record of the cop’s pulse, blood pressure, etc. which gives some indications as to the officer’s physiological state during the event.

It would be much easier to exonerate someone for a questionable shooting if you had a physiological record showing a state of extreme agitation indicating the officer was actually in fear of the suspect, as opposed to a normal heart rate and/or blood pressure.

Anyhow, it struck me as something that could be implemented as part of a camera or as a video processing pass-through unit. Even if performance was an issue, at worst case, you could have a separate ‘lower framerate’ version of the video which was thus encoded to compare to the original.

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.

Having a tattletale built in will encourage the police to tamper with the recording apparatus. As an example, simply break the tape before using. Or insert a cassette that’s at the end of its reel. Or smear a glob of mayonnaise on the lens. All of those can be explained away as ‘accidental’ disabling.

“The camera would only capture relevent events when turned on and pointed in the target’s general direction. The events leading up to the officer’s decision to acquire the target would not be recorded. To me, it seems the camera would be of limited use – particularly when the decision was made in haste.”

This brings to mind something I was noodling over earlier…if you have a video record of the taser in use, it makes sense for the video record to incorporate anti-tampering. I had asked on my blog (at http://www.sharp-tools.net/archives/000245.html) if in fact it was viable to build into a video device some manner of tamperproofing – perhaps using pseudorandom streams and keys embedded into the video – such that the ‘continuity’ of the video could be later verified for a court. I’m not enough of a mathematician to know. It seemed to me, though, especially if people were going to be taking cameras to public places to record events (protests, etc. – the NYC RNC protests and associated camera footage use were what triggered this thought) then the ability to have a device which embedded this antitampering track into the video would be good. IIRC, the police footage from that trial had turned out to be edited, and the court had not been told.

@Mike Sherwood … if there is continued resistance after being tazered … Trust me, there is no continued resistance after being tasered. You may have to BBQ a PCP twice, but that’s it.

It would be nice to know if the data is protected against tampering. I wonder if other data is recorded such as durration of current applicaiton?

Of course, this still wouldn’t be perfect, but you would have an advantage of knowing which officers ought to be at desk jobs and which ones handle the stressful situation of a physical confrontation with a subject well.

Silvernitrate

Allowed HTML • • • •