![]() ![]() They're now faced with new challenges as laws have been enacted / changed to assure that disclosure of videos is the norm, not the exception. Or, they had a legal structure that let them deny requests for data at the time - but that legal assurance no longer exists (California's new laws are an example of this). Many agencies purchased camera and storage solutions, but skipped on a redaction plan to come under spending targets. It's equally vital that all stakeholders participate. Thus, the test / validate process becomes vital. When an agency goes through an equipment purchasing process, they often expend all of their resources and are locked into the solution for years - sometimes a decade or longer. But, as users are finding out, pennies saved on features not purchased are costing them dollars when dealing with redaction and other requests for the video they store. The majority of the cloud vendors offer a solution to accommodate records act releases in light of the many privacy laws that require compliance. This mind-blowing amount of data is sitting in servers at police stations and in the cloud via platforms like. This can be a problem in light of the various privacy laws that exist in the US. these cameras often come with a very sensitive microphone that can clearly capture not only the words of the officers but also every single sound within about 25' radius. Citizens like the real-time view that theses cameras bring in reviewing officers' interactions with the public. Cameras have been deployed on the officer, on the vehicle, and in the air (drones / helicopters). Citizens demanded accountability and transparency from their police and the market responded with cameras of all types. It's been about 4 years now since the body-worn camera really exploded on the scene. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |