Body cameras are the new law enforcement tool that is on everyone's lips after South Carolina and Ferguson. The politicians are naturally rushing forward to give grants and get grants while the media asks how come all police don't already have this 21st century tool. However, the Wall Street Journal explored one often-ignored feature of body cameras- storage costs. The media rarely, if ever, mentions the storage costs as it usually just focuses on the sticker price. A police department that has several hundred body cameras is also going to have a great deal of data to store - and that costs money. The Journal reported:
As more police agencies equip officers with body cameras in response to public pressure, authorities are discovering they create problems of their own: how to analyze, process and store the mountains of video each camera generates.
Prosecutors in northern Colorado recently spent hours poring over a dozen videos captured by police wearing cameras. The case? An arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct.
Clifford Riedel, Larimer County’s district attorney, said his office has been overwhelmed with footage from the 60 body cameras the Fort Collins Police Department uses, and will need to hire an additional technician to sort through it all. “There are just huge amounts of data being generated from cameras,” said Mr. Riedel. “It used to be that video on a case was the exception. Now it’s the rule.”
Rest of article.
The movement gained new intensity after the police shooting last week of a fleeing man in South Carolina. While many experts inside and outside of law enforcement agree that body cameras—clipped to officers’ uniforms or glasses—help increase police transparency and may even improve police behavior, police departments and prosecutors are struggling with how to sift through, preserve and share the visual evidence.
On top of that, agencies need policies and personnel to respond to requests from journalists and the public to release video under freedom-of-information requests.....
But the cost has given some officials pause, said Lindsay Miller, senior research associate at the Police Executive Research Forum and co-author of a Justice Department report on the topic. “The cameras themselves aren’t overly expensive, but the years and years of data storage you’re going to deal with—that can definitely be cost-prohibitive,” said Ms. Miller.
Many departments keep inconsequential video for 30 to 60 days. But if the footage is evidence in a criminal case, it must be kept longer; most states require that video in a homicide case be kept indefinitely, she said. Ms. Miller said an emerging consensus is that the benefits outweigh the costs. In limited studies, the cameras have shown promise in reducing use of force by police and citizen complaints—and that can save money spent investigating complaints and settling lawsuits, she said.
In Oakland, Calif., the police department deploys 560 body cameras, enough for nearly every officer on duty, said Sean Whent, the chief of police. Their use results in about five to six terabytes of data every month—equivalent to about 1,250 to 1,500 high-definition movie downloads—said Mr. Whent. That data is stored on a department server for two years at a minimum—or longer if it is needed in a criminal or disciplinary case, he said.
In the future, Mr. Whent said he anticipates either using a cloud-storage service or reducing the retention period because of the sheer size of the data.
“It’s absolutely worth the cost—the public today demands a greater amount of accountability and transparency on the part of police,” he said. “The cameras have a civilizing effect on the police and the people who know they’re being recorded.”
In Berkeley, Calif., officials are weighing whether to outfit officers with cameras. Police estimate it could cost up to $135,000 to buy 150 cameras at $900 a pop. But it could cost an additional $45,000 a year for a limited data-storage plan priced at $25 a month per camera—and officials have raised the possibility of also hiring new employees to sift through all the video....
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has pledged to purchase 7,000 cameras. The cost of data storage and maintenance is estimated at $7 million a year, a spokeswoman said. The city plans to include money for the program in its coming budget and seeks federal funds as well. The department already purchased about 800 cameras with money raised by private donors. .....
12 comments:
“It’s absolutely worth the cost—the public today demands a greater amount of accountability and transparency on the part of police,” he said. “The cameras have a civilizing effect on the police and the people who know they’re being recorded.”
This quote sums it up best. Figure out a way to earn trust back or come up with the money to pay for accountability.
why would it be necessary to store routine patrol footage more than 30 days?
these cameras should not be for the huffy citizen that claims a rude officer wrote a speeding ticket. it should be for arrests that are resisted, other violence, and evidence for a possible trial.
or am I missing a point...
Body cameras will protect all involved. The officer and the public the officer sworn to protect. This article does bring to light the costs involved with these advanced video systems. Smaller departments and small municipalities will have a tough time bearing these costs.
To those that say it is worth it and departments must find a way to pay for it: Are you willing to have a tax increase? Everything government does costs money, but no one wants to pay for higher taxes. Body cameras cost money; the data storage cost money; the time and personnel for review costs money. Most law enforcement departments don't have enough personnel or budget funds for the basic requirements. If you want more technology, you must be willing to pay for it. Nothing is Free!
@4:51 - Well said my friend.
4:02 The huffy citizen and the rude officer is exactly what these cameras are for. As well and the more serious situations law enforcement officers face everyday. These videos are evidence to be used to build cases against criminals, huffy citizens and officers that do wrong. You also have to pay someone to maintain these systems.
I'm a bit confused as to why the storage costs would be so high.
My single costs a year for having everything I've filmed or photographed or written since I got my first computer doesn't rise to these quoted costs.
We have the media able to download these cam recordings quickly so why can't they be downloaded into convenient, less expense storage?
I'm sure they are storing computerized records not much differently than we store our important documents.
Is this the cost for a police department having their own cloud?
If the problem is keeping the original, then couldn't the laws be adapted for this technology as long as the chain of the evidence being downloaded is protected?
I'm not a techie so what am I missing?
Newsflash! For those of you who suggest these tape loops can be disposed of, it will not be up to the municipal po-po chief or city attorney (or even the Madison Mayor) to decide how long evidence must be kept, preserved and maintained in a usable state.
In a legal sense, these tapes will be similar to board meeting minutes and records of disbursements of grant funds. Once you got 'em, you gonna keep 'em.
7:36 am " usable state" is the key phrase
What might be a " usable state" can be legally defined to take new technology into account assuming our legislators are not brain dead,can it not?
@4:51 Freedom has its costs and they are 100% justified. I would be more than willing to have a slight tax increase to fund the cameras and data storage. Maybe Congress should find the money for bigger grants somewhere in our massively overfunded Defense Dept.
12:49 Shut your mouth! DOD could never take money away from that Pentagon program that details all the sexist language in the Constitution, Bible, and Declaration of Independence. It's heroes like those bureaucrats that have kept our country free.
Doesn't the "black box" in an airliner start recording over itself after twenty minutes or so, only keeping data from the last 20 minutes of a flight (presumably when a significant event happened)?
Aren't security camera recordings tossed after one week in most places?
Post a Comment