Category Archives: Seattle Police

The Dallas Divide: A Problem Technology and FirstNet Can’t Fix

I have long been an advocate for using technology to improve government and governing, and in particular for advancing law enforcement.   I’ve been a long-time supporter of building a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network – a network for priority use by first responders for their cell phones, body-worn video, tablet computers and sensors. And we are seeing that network come to fruition in FirstNet.

But there are some problems technology and FirstNet can’t fix.   Specifically, technology can’t repair the divide between law enforcement and the black community, underscored by the events in Dallas, Baton Rouge and Minnesota.


In fact, technology probably exacerbates those divisions, as smart phone video of officer-involved shootings and use of force goes viral on social media, which itself is another feature of modern society made possible by technologies such as the Internet and the Web.

As an “old white guy” I certainly have no special expertise on police-community relations and how to repair or improve them.   But I can cite some innovations which many communities could adopt:

  • Community-police academies. The Seattle Police Department and many other major urban departments have such training, which helps educate non-law-enforcement people as to how their police and sheriff’s departments operate.   Of course people have to actually sign up for these courses, and then attend them.   And often they are operated at night, at times when people may be busy with family or work.
  • Ride-alongs. Most departments have a ride-along program, where a citizen can ride along with a police officer and see law enforcement “in action”.   Trust me – too often it is fairly boring, but can be punctuated with moments of terror.
  • Police situation simulators. Karen Johnson of the Black Alliance of Thurston County and Austin Jenkins of National Public Radio’s KUOW (University of Washington) put themselves into such a simulator recently.   They faced real-life situations similar to those cops find themselves handling, with some surprising results.
  • Better police training. Ron Sims was the longest-serving Executive (Mayor) of King County (Seattle). He was the Deputy Director of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.  He lives in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Seattle, Mount Baker.  Yet he’s been pulled over, while driving, by cops 8 times.   He’s 68.  He’s African American.  Apparently he’s “driving while black”. How many of you reading this blog posts have been pulled over 8 times?
  • dallas-police-protecting

    A Dallas Police Officer protects Protesters

    Guardian, not warrior, mentality. Sue Rahr, former King County Sheriff and now director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center, advocates for this change in culture and attitudes by police agencies and officers.  Certainly the behavior of Dallas Police Officers during the recent sniper attack, putting themselves in harm’s way to protect the Black Lives matter protesters, is the highest exemplar of this change in attitude.

  • Better police training. Many departments, including Seattle Police, are training hard with de-escalation training and crisis intervention programs.   Crisis intervention is phenomenal, as it seeks to have police officers support the mentally ill, homeless and others in crisis by getting them the services they need rather than taking them to jail or a mental health ward.  Seattle Police, in fact, are working with Code for America to develop a new app to make crisis intervention data available to police officers on smart phones and tablet computers.
  • Open up the data. The Obama Administration launched a police data initiative, which 53 cities covering 41 million people have joined.   The open data portal is powered by Socrata, a Seattle technology firm.   Amazingly, the Dallas Police Department has been one of the most forthright in opening up its data, publishing datasets on use of force and officer involved shootings, something most other departments have failed to do.  Code for America publishes a report card on which police departments have released which datasets.   The Police Foundation has pushed departments to go beyond the White House initiative in being transparent in their actions and operations.
  • President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing.   This Commission, headed by Charles Ramsey, former Chief of Police in Washington, D.C. and then Philadelphia, made a number of recommendations to improve police-community relations.  I was honored to present some recommendations to the task force which were adopted in its final report.

The Seattle Seahawks Superbowl Victory Parade, 2014, which cell networks where jammed – one reason we need FirstNet

Technology and FirstNet have significant roles to play as well.  Many of the innovations above rely upon technology such as open data platforms, apps, and training simulations.   Body-worn video, in-car video and similar technologies to record how police operate will build community trust.   FirstNet is extraordinarily important to providing real-time two-way wireless communications for not only police and other first responders, but anyone who responds to public safety issues – transportation, public works, utilities, non-profits like the Red Cross and even teachers who are often “first responders” to incidents in their schools.

All of these innovations are cool and important.  But, ultimately, it is not technology which will bring law enforcement and the black community back into balance.  It is cops getting out of their cars and talking to people in cafes and barber shops and on the streets.    It is one community meeting after another where police officers and commanders show up to hear the real problems facing real people and modify their tactics to help.

We cannot rely on police departments and sheriff’s department for all of our public safety needs.  Keeping the community safe from those who prey upon us is, ultimately, everyone’s responsibility.

Police officers are also citizens, and need to think like citizens, not as warriors.   But also, perhaps every member of our communities needs to become a police officer, or at least put themselves in the shoes of cops.


Filed under Code for America, community technology, Law Enforcement, open data, Seattle Police

Tough Day in Dallas and Seattle

This is a message I sent to the women and men of the Seattle Police Department’s information technology unit today, Friday, July 8, 2016:


(Photo by Ting Shen, AP/The Dallas Morning News)

“Today is a difficult day for those of us working in law enforcement.   We acutely feel the pain of the police officers, civilians and families of the Dallas Police Department.   We work closely with our own uniformed officers and can’t help but share their worry and concern as they go about their jobs today.

“You all are proud of the work you do supporting the Seattle Police Department.   I’ve seen that pride manifest itself in many ways, in what you say and what you do.   Indeed, a primary reason I accepted the job as SPD’s interim Chief Information Officer was because of the satisfaction of knowing the work we do helps keep the 650,000 people of the City of Seattle safe and improves their quality of life.

“Thank you for continuing to adapt and apply technology to the work of the Seattle Police Department, supporting its officers and civilians and, indeed, those 650,000 people who live in our City.  We will redouble our efforts to make that technology rock solid, to streamline it, and to adopt new technologies to improve the safety of our citizens – and our officers.

“It is extraordinarily important work, and I’m proud of it.

“And you.”

Leave a comment

Filed under employees, Law Enforcement, Seattle Police

Cops and Teachers: The New Social Workers

Social Worker

Social Work

The social workers and case workers of the future probably reside in our schools and police stations, carry gradebooks and body-worn video cameras, walk the halls of schools and the streets of our cities.

Let’s face it, police officers and teachers have always been astute, street-wise (and “hallway-wise”) psychologists.  Few people have the guts to be locked into a roomful of 30 high school sophomores in a required math class for 60 minutes.   Not too many of us have stepped out of a patrol car to investigate an assault in a bar only to be greeted by a crowd of drunken, angry, college students.  (Having been both a police officer and high school teacher, and faced both situations, I’ll take the bar crowd any day.)

Good teachers rapidly learn to “out-psych” their students and trick them into learning.    I’m not talking about the advanced placement classes, mind you.  Anyone can teach advanced placement English or high school calculus.   But trying to teach a classroom of C and D students basic English grammar is a challenge of a different order.  Good teachers rapidly develop techniques to control the class and actually make students interested in the material.

Similarly police officers – especially detectives – develop techniques to help discover concealed information from suspects and informants – even witnesses – and use it to solve crimes.

Social work, however, is becoming a new calling for teachers and police officers.

Foster High School

Foster High School

The Seattle Times recently wrote about Foster High School in Tukwila, Washington, and a turn-around in its performance.    The article states:

The school’s guidance counselors serve as de-facto social workers, fielding requests for help with utility bills and eviction notices — even dealing with bedbugs and moldy apartments.

“We come in and hear hard, hard stories,” said Laura Linde, Foster’s chief guidance counselor. “We don’t always have the resources to help.”

They usually find a way.

Teachers have long recognized that effects outside of the classroom have a huge effect on learning.  Angry, abusive parents, hunger, homelessness, fear, even out-of-date (“uncool”) clothing all affect students’ ability to learn.   In the past educators and schools felt there was little they could do to affect such outside influences.

School lunch programs were an early intervention, instituted before World War II, to address the issue of hunger in schools.   Some schools implemented uniforms to reduce social inequity between students which prevents learning.

Schools such as Foster take this intervention to a new level, actively seeking those factors which distract students, and working with parents and social service agencies to address them.   Perhaps individual teachers are not becoming social workers, but certainly they are at the forefront of seeing problems with learning and helping to identify specific problems with individual students, so guidance counselors and others can intervene.

Similarly, many police departments are trying to move from a “warrior culture” to more of a “guardian” one.   Former King County Sheriff Sue Rahr, now executive director of the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, has been a leader in such a cultural shift.     Part of the “guardian” idea is that police officers’ jobs are not just to apprehend criminals and catch members of the public doing something wrong (speeding), but rather to help determine and correct the underlying causes of crime in individuals and families.

Seattle Police Crisis Intervention Team

Seattle Police Crisis Intervention Team

The Seattle Police Department, among others, has been at the forefront of this cultural shift.  Every Seattle Police Officer has received at least 18 hours of crisis intervention training.  More than 400 officers have received 40 to 80 hours of such training.  When police officers encounter people in crisis – specifically the mentally ill or homeless individuals who are potentially at risk – they attempt to engage social services to address their physical and mental health needs.  For individuals who police frequently encounter, the Crisis Intervention Team is building an individual Crisis Intervention Plan, which includes resources such as their caseworker, social worker, concerned family members and others who can be engaged to immediately help the individual.

Every such encounter is logged.   Sometimes an individual is violent, or armed, or so mentally impaired that officers have no choice but to use force and the result is jail or a mental ward.  But less than 7% of encounters end in this fashion.

Washington DC Frequent 911 Caller

Washington DC Frequent 911 Caller

Fire departments also encounter people in real or imagined medical crisis.  One woman called 911 in Washington D.C. for medical help 226 times in a single year.  Another study found that 14 to 27 per cent of calls to 911 for medical reasons are really not emergencies and could be handled in doctor’s offices or walk-in clinics.  A third study found that 1% of “frequent flyer” users account for 22% of the health care costs.

Salt Lake City addressed this with a “Nurse Navigator” program – a trained nurse-dispatcher handles low-acuity 911 medical calls, attempting to find the proper resources, other than a fire department paramedic and ambulance – to address needs of some frequent callers.

As Sergeant Dan Nelson of the Seattle Police told radio station KUOW’s David Hyde: “I say all the time, police and social workers are two completely different jobs while we’re going towards the same common goal. We want this person to not be relying on the emergency rooms and jails, not have to be such high utilizers of the system, and at the end of the day we want this person to have a nice productive life.”

I’m not sure where these efforts will ultimately lead.   Perhaps every American will, to some extent, become a social worker.  This actually would take us “back to the future” – back to a time when families and communities “took care of their own” before a time when government was expected to be the first line of attack for social problems.

But I hope the new equilibrium we reach does not abandon government programs all together, but rather involves most government workers – especially teachers and cops and firefighters – as “guardians” of the social fabric, yet keeps many critical social programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, school hot lunches and housing subsidies in place.

Of course there will always be hardened criminals, and evil people, arsonists and people so mentally unbalanced that they need to be institutionalized.  We’ll still need jails and mental hospitals and professional “guardians” of our social fabric.

But, with a little bit of luck, every American will become more involved again in taking care of our neighbors.

Leave a comment

Wednesday, 2 March 2016 · 8:59 pm

Can Police BodyCam Video be Public while protecting Privacy?

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray launches bodycam Workshop

You have a serious car accident. The police arrive and investigate. They issue a citation and write a report. The officers are wearing body-worn video cameras and their cars have dashcam video. At the end of the event the officer gives you a code. The next day you go online to the police department’s website, key in the code and all the materials regarding the collision are available to you – the videos, with a written transcript, the officers’ reports, the citation, the sketches and photographs of the accident scene, witness statements, and perhaps a history of other collisions and problems at that intersection.

That’s one vision laid out at a body-cam video workshop hosted by the Seattle Police Department on Tuesday, June 23. The event included officers from the Orlando, Louisville and Dallas police departments, plus representatives of the Police Foundation, Code for America and Socrata, the Seattle company which powers open data portals such as and These organizations are all participating in the White House sponsored Police Open Data initiative, announced last month by the Obama Administration.

“Policing is in a crisis,” said Seattle Police Chief Operating Officer (COO) Mike Wagers several times during the workshop. “Police are not necessarily using more force or making more mistakes,” he added, but there’s been a change in the technology available to the general public. “Two-thirds of adults in the United States will own a camera-capable smartphone by the end of this year.” Those smartphones mean there is more video than ever being taken of police-citizen encounters and uploaded to YouTube and similar sites.

What’s the real future for police video?   Can the privacy of victims, children and witnesses be protected while at the same time making this video public?   Is it possible to “redact” or blur the faces and audio of such people to protect them yet release the video to the public?

The rest of this article is on GeekWire here.

See also the previous article discussing how Seattle Police held a hackathon in December, 2014, to find ways to redact video.

Implementing a body-worn video camera program requires much more than just buying the cameras themselves – there is storage and indexing and search and making the video public and much more – here is a previous blog post discussing these issues.

1 Comment

Filed under 911, hackathon, Law Enforcement, Seattle Police, video

The Internet of First Responder Things (IoFRT)

IoT-toasterThe “Internet of Things” or IoT is a common buzzword in the technology community these days.  It refers to the increasingly prevalent distribution of sensors throughout the natural world, and the connection of those sensors – as well as other machines – to the Internet.

The running joke is that IoT is about putting your home refrigerator, thermostat, washer, dryer, microwave, range, TVs, computers, smart phones and even toasters on the Internet, or at least connecting them so they can talk to each other.  Now what a toaster would say to a TV, or what the conversations between a washer and a dryer might include, could certainly make for a lot of talk show jokes and lists on a David Letterman show (should he return).

But clearly creating such an “Internet of Household Things” or IoHT would be quite useful.  Take, for example, the urgent water crisis in California and throughout most of the West.   If you could add sensors to every water fixture in the house, and then connect those sensors to computers and smartphones, you could determine where your water is being used and take steps to cut back use.   Going one step further, if those water sensors also had valves, you could control your household water use from anywhere in the world.  So when your teenager’s shower has gone over five minutes in length, you could abruptly get a notification and then shut off the water (or turn on the cold water full blast) from your hotel room in Hong Kong.

How might this Internet of Things concept apply to First Responders – the paramedics and firefighters and police officers who respond to our 911 calls?

I recently had a twitter conversation about this with Ray Lehr, former fire chief in Baltimore, and former FirstNet State Point of Contact (SPOC) for Maryland.  Ray suggested we should start talking about the Internet of Life Saving Things (IoLST) which I morphed into a possible Internet of First Responder Things (IoFRT).

There are many applications for the IoFRT, and I’d guess they fall into several buckets:

  • First Responder Personal Things – the sensors and equipment which would be on or near a First Responder to help that officer do the job and keep the officer safe.
  • 911 Caller and Victim Things – these sensors would help alert 911 centers and responders to problems so First Responders can quickly and accurately respond to calls for assistance.
  • Information and Awareness Things – these sensors and machines would improve public safety by monitoring the natural and built environments.

Seattle Police Body Worn Video

“First Responder Personal Things” would include a variety of sensors and communication devices.  Body worn video cameras – so much in the news recently after the events in Ferguson, Missouri – are one example of an IoFRT device.  Most such cameras today record their video and hold it in the device.  But if wirelessly connected to the Internet (by, say, FirstNet), a police commander, 911 center and other authorized users could see the video in real time to advise and support the officer.

A police officer’s badge or other apparel might have a small radio which broadcasts a signal unique to that officer, which allows many other communication devices (smart phone, radio, tablet computer) to automatically recognize the officer and therefore allow access to restricted databases such as criminal history.  A similar situation for a paramedic would allow her/him access to restricted patient files and healthcare history.

A police officer’s weapon could have a sensor which only allows it to be fired if it is personal possession of the officer.  Firefighters – especially those fighting long, sustained, wild fires, would have an array of sensors to monitor heart rate, respiration, ambient air quality, etc., alerting the firefighter and incident commander to firefighters who are overworked or in dangerous situations.

“911 Caller and Victim Things” would include those sensors on a victim or in their home or place of business which help to monitor and protect them.   Medical sensors are an obvious application:  people with a history of heart disease, stroke, diabetes or other conditions would have such sensors which would immediately alert them and their healthcare providers to impending problems.  Such sensors might further alert 911 centers for dispatch of emergency medical technicians to an immediate problem.

Vulnerable people in high crime areas might have sensors or video cameras which could be activated at a moment’s notice when they come into dangerous situations.   Many homes and businesses are now equipped with video cameras, movement sensors and other sensors.  A 911 call from the premise (or other activation by the owner) could give 911 centers and responding officer’s immediate access to the telemetry and video from those cameras.

Finally, General Motor’s OnStar gives us a premonition of the technology which will go into vehicles in the future.  Vehicles which communicate with roads or automatically notify 911 centers after an accident, to include transmission of telemetry and video are definitely in the future.

“The Internet of Information and Awareness Things” is both more fascinating and frightening.  Applications to support 911 response can be harnessed to many of these “things”.


Seattle Police Demonstrate a UAV aka “drone”

For example, Video surveillance cameras are becoming less expensive and more ubiquitous.   Surveillance camera systems deployed by cities and counties receive significant scrutiny and attention from the ACLU and city/county councils such as the brouhaha surrounding Seattle’s attempted deployment of a $5 million system.  The use of unpiloted aerial vehicles with cameras is just starting deployment.  But most such cameras are in the hands of businesses and private individuals, as demonstrated by the identification the Boston marathon bombers.  Powerful new technology tools are becoming available for automated analysis of video, for examples automated license plate recognition, facial recognition and object recognition.  We aid and abet this analysis by gleefully tagging faces in our Facebook photos, all of which Facebook uses to build its database of known faces.  The largest license plate recognition databases are in private hands.  In the near future every human being is likely to be recognized and tracked (and NOT by governments) whenever we are outside our own homes.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security was created.  Fearing potential chemical, biological and nuclear terrorist attacks, it deployed a network of sniffers and sensors in cities and other potential targets.  Similar technologies and networks could be deployed to support first responders.

For example, every load of hazardous material being transported by road, air or rail could be tagged and tracked.  Every hazmat container stored in a building could also be identified and tracked, with firefighters watching them pop up on a tablet computer app when they respond to an event in the building.

We could even tag every can of spray paint or every cigarette lighter as the combination of those two items, plus a healthy dose of stupidity (which, alas, cannot yet be tagged) contributes to major home fires like this one.

It is now easy to imagine a world like that depicted by George Orwell in his novel 1984, where surveillance is both nefarious and ubiquitous, fueled by a government (probably controlled by private companies) out of control.

Like so many other choices faced by our early 21st Century society, the Internet of First Responder Things hold both great promise and some peril.   Elected officials and chiefs of responder agencies will have many decisions to make over the next few years.


Filed under 911, FirstNet, government operations, Internet of Things, Seattle Police

Inside the First-ever Seattle Police Hackathon

Henry Kroll Demonstrates Redaction

Henry Kroll Demonstrates Redaction

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) held its first-ever hackathon on Friday, December 19th. The event was focused on a single problem: How to redact the video streams recorded by police officers from their dashcams and (soon) body-worn video cameras.

More than 80 people filled the room from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. About one-third were technology professionals or part-timers like Henry Kroll, who makes a living as a salmon fisherman but focuses on video and other technology issues in his spare time.  The remainder were Seattle police and other public officials, a few members of the community, and a number of people from local companies such as Amazon Web Services and, plus a substantial media presence from local television stations and newspapers.

Seven teams made presentations and demonstrations …

Read the rest of this article on Geekwire here.

1 Comment

Filed under government operations, hackathon, Law Enforcement, Seattle Police, video

Will Obama’s Body-worn Video Cams for Cops really Work?

Body-Worn Video

Seattle Police with Vievu Video Camera

(This post originally appeared in Crosscut here. This version is more expanded and detailed.)

President Obama is redirecting at least $75 million in federal funding to buy body-worn video cameras for up to 50,000 police officers.   This initiative is driven partially by recent shootings of unarmed citizens in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City.   Seattle’s Crosscut has extensively reported on this issue.

Since the cameras are relatively inexpensive – a few hundred to a thousand dollars each – police departments around the nation should be able to rapidly and deploy this useful technology, right?


Police Officer Darren Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, has ignited a nationwide interest in the potential use of body-worn video cameras by police.   The Ferguson Police Department itself purchased and deployed such cameras for all of its officers just three weeks after the incident.   Other police departments from around the country joined this the body-cam bandwagon.

In a time of polarization about the role of the police in our communities, the use of body-worn video cameras seems to have universal support.   The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) dislikes video surveillance in general but likes body-worn cameras because they hold police officers accountable for their actions.   Police Unions like them because they hold citizens accountable for their actions – in two small studies, civilian complaints against police officers declined by 60% to 88% after implementation of body-cams.   Police management likes to use such video because it helps build public trust in law enforcement by showing accountability.   Many officers like video cameras because most of what they do is helping people – saving lives, performing CPR, protecting the vulnerable during serious crimes such as assaults and domestic violence – but this side of the work is rarely mentioned in the media.  The Department of Justice likes the cameras, as do elected officials.    And they appear to work:  one DOJ study found showed use of force by officers declined by 60%, and violence from citizens against police also declined.   Prosecutors like video, as it helps establish and support criminal charges, although evidence for such support is unclear (DOJ 2014 Study, page 7).

This trend is also good for Seattle, as two of the major companies working on police video technology have offices here.  Seattle’s VIEVU is a major supplier of the cameras themselves.   Taser International is headquartered in Phoenix but its cloud-services operation,, is located in downtown Seattle. stores video and serves it to both police departments and (when authorized) others such as attorneys and citizens.

The trouble is, it is difficult to widely deploy body-worn video cameras given a wide variety of technological and legal challenges.   Here are a few:

  1. Deploying cameras involves almost every unit within a police department. Besides patrol, police management will be involved, as will internal affairs, the legal staff, technology staff, evidence custodians, civilian staff involved with public disclosure and a number of outside agencies such as courts, prosecutors and public defenders.  This takes a lot of time and effort,
  2. Body-cams have an effect on the efficiency of patrol officers. On one hand police reports may be easier to write and charges easier to file because video shows at least part of the police interactions, statements by victims and witnesses, at the arrest.   On the other hand officers and supervisors will spend time reviewing video, a new task in their workdays.
  3. Body-cam video creates a huge volume of digital material. Seattle Police, for example, has a total of over 500 patrol officers.  If each officer works 40 hours a week, and the body-cam video is constantly recording, this represents 20,000 hours of video a week.  Of course most video systems are set up to record only at certain times, for example when the officer turns on the recording or (in the case of dashcam video) when the overhead lights are turned on during an incident or traffic stop.  But officer discretion also presents a number of problems.  Often incidents happen very fast – an officer sees a crime in progress and immediately responds to stop or apprehend the offender.  Officers may not have time to stop and turn on the video system because to do so places either the officer or a citizen in danger.   No matter what the policy for having the video operational, at the very least hundreds of hours of video will be produced each week.
  4. Police work occurs during abysmal conditions: rain, snow, traffic noise, night-time.   Audio and video quality often will be poor.
  5. Body-cam video presents major technology challenges. There are a whole variety of these, for examples:
    • Maintaining an adequate amount of disk storage;
    • Acquiring fast servers to immediately serve the video on demand;
    • Backing up the video to preserve it in case of disk storage failure;
    • Protection from intentional or inadvertent alteration;
    • Protection from intentional or inadvertent access, e.g. hacking or access by unauthorized employees or the public prior to redaction;
    • Creating a system to manage the video. Often this might include disk storage on the officer to hold the video, followed by offloading the video to a computer in the car, followed by offloading the video to data center servers when the car returns to a secure area.
    • Adding metadata so the video is easily searchable. Metadata attached to each video clip might include date, time, officers’ names, victims’ names, witness’ names, and case numbers.
  6. Video presents a major public disclosure issue. The Washington Public Records Act and the State Supreme Court’s decision in the case “KOMO-TV versus the Seattle Police Department” state these videos are public, except when a case is under investigation.   But such video captures, real-time, the trauma of often-innocent citizens who are crime victims, victims of domestic violence and rape, having a medical emergency and who are being detained or arrested – often when charges are later dropped.   The videos include statements from witnesses, victims, confidential informants and sometimes attorney-client privileged conversations.  A minority of the Supreme Court, in the KOMO decision, felt Washington’s Privacy Laws took precedence and agreed such video should not be released.  But the majority disagreed.   Public disclosure is the major reason most Washington police agencies do not widely employ body-worn video.  Baltimore has created a specific police task force to address privacy issues and others associated with body-cams.   Seattle has a digital privacy initiative to address not just police and body-cam issues, but privacy issues in general.
  7. Seattle Police Hackathon

    Seattle Police Hackathon

    Video requires redaction before release.  A sergeant with the Albuquerque Police Department observed that “officers a lot of times are seeing people on the worst day of their lives, and we’re capturing that on video that’s now a public record.” (DOJ Study, page 27.)  Common sense as well as privacy dictates every video should be reviewed and redacted.  This includes either getting permission of most of the citizens in the video to release it, or blurring faces and removing audio before release.  Indeed, changes to Washington State’s public records act or privacy laws may be required to deal with these redaction and public disclosure issues.  Redaction technology to reliably blur individual faces or otherwise redact video does not exist.  Redaction must be done manually, a time consuming and expensive process.   (Note:  the Seattle Police Department is conducting a hackathon on December 19, 2014, hoping to enlist the help of tech-savvy citizens to address the problem of redaction.)

  8. Unredaction may be an issue.  Technology allows at least partial redaction of video;   but similar technologies may be available to unredact video, re-instating the privacy concerns.
  9. Police departments need to develop a whole variety of policies to address the issues listed above and others.   Many of these issues are quite thorny.
    • Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson just released an opinion about whether an officer needs to ask permission and a citizen needs to give consent before their interaction is video-recorded. According to that opinion, police do not have to ask permission, even to record video inside a private residence.  Citizens may act differently – and behave better – if they know a recording is in progress.   Or elected officials may decide they want officers to ask permission before making recordings inside a private home.
    • As another example, basic facial recognition technology now exists. Should all police-recorded video be sent through facial recognition software to identify the individuals who have been recorded?
    • Should officers be allowed to turn the video on and off? If so, under what circumstances?
    • Such questions require serious deliberation.
  10. Deployment of body-worn video often requires re-negotiation of the police union contract, and negotiation of the policies with community organizations such as the ACLU.
  11. Officers must be trained not only in the operation of the body-cam video, but also in all the policies for managing video and using it as evidence.   All this training means officers will, again, spend less time on the street.

Body-worn video cameras for public safety are an admirable technology.   Body-cams for police officers are needed in America today.    And there is almost universal agreement they should be deployed.

But, as with many technologies, the cultural, political, policy and technical impediments are significant.    Communities need to understand all the ramifications, and elected officials need to be ready to pay the costs in resources, dollars and time to enable an effective deployment.


Filed under Law Enforcement, Seattle Police, video