Wichita police testing out 6 body-mounted cameras (via The Wichita Eagle)

From the article by Stan Finger -

A half-dozen Wichita police officers are testing a new body camera system that records everything the officers see and do outside their vehicles.

The field tests began two weeks ago and will continue for another two weeks, Capt. Jeff Easter said Wednesday.

“Anything that they get out of the vehicle on, they’ll record,” Easter said of the officers. “Anything is evidence. You never know what’s going to happen in front of you when you get out on the scene.”

Early results are promising.

“It’s a very good system,” Easter said. “The video quality is amazing. It’s much better than any other camera system we’ve looked at in the past.”

The system is manufactured by Taser, which is letting Wichita police try it out. The head-mounted system resembles a Bluetooth and can also be attached to an officer’s hat or eyewear.

I’m a little surprised that the police are adopting these without any fuss. I have read and directly heard about the police disabling cameras. But apparently it has become a useful tool for the officer.

I’m a little more interested in what this means for the rest of us. I recognize that the technology is available to be purchased now but it is not the same. These things kick on every time an officer exits the car. They keep all of what is seen for a year. This is no short time surveillance camera in a tie. While we are not police officers whose department is willing to spend the $5,000 a year necessary, we will eventually be the beneficiaries of the technology. Soon at a reasonable price you will be able to make a record of everything you see 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It might be useful taking college classes or at a family reunion or in large scale use changing the social fabric of the nation.

Will all Americans adapt their behavior to an utterly continuous recording of themselves by countless others? What will be the long term social effects?

In terms of business ethics, what we have here is the private becoming public. Discussions, comments and negotiations will all be easily recorded in the most informal of circumstances with the ability to keep records for years. Is there a disclosure requirement? Is there going to be an unspoken agreement not to use these in negotiation? Can they be used in court? This kind of evidence could come back to bite you as long as it exists and eventually those records will exist for the course of our lives or longer.

Will states or the federal government regulate their use? That is an important question. There is some regulation of recording phone calls. The grounds for this is that there is no consent from one of the parties. That would be a similar justification for laws on continuous viewing by personal cameras.

These things worry me. We seem as a society to do things without discussion and debate. When we do it turns every single time into a debate over personal freedom versus government regulation whether or not these are significant factors in the issue. Every subject can be classified that way but that doesn’t mean it fits into that box. Surveillance is more of an issue of what can new technology do and “what the effects are.” What are the advantages of this technology? Does it conflict with our customs and morality? What effects will it have in different areas of endeavor; medical operations, trial, sports, sex, and countless others. Once we think about the effects then we can start putting it into legal or regulatory boxes. But in current discussion the boxes come first and we never do the often subtle thinking that allows humanity to make reasonable and intelligent decisions.

James Pilant

P.S.

I went to a “gadget site” on the web. I couldn’t get a price but the system ad read this way. I think you’re supposed to feel like Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible move.

This High Quality Body Camera set is ready for Covert Operations. This complete set is all you need. At a much better and higher resolution then our lower priced Body Cam, you get what you pay for. This is the best there is. Camera is powered by the DVR unit itself so there is no stupid 9 volt batery to weight you down.

A New Theme

Wordpress Theme

I’ve changed themes on my blog. I sometimes posted more than three times a day (one day I did nine). My previous theme was a three column and it was difficult to look at more than three articles I began to get concerned that my kind readers would only see the three posted when they visited. So, I went to a single vertical column with a list of recent posts off to the right. The theme also places my blogroll right at the top. I like that.

If you like the change or don’t the change, please let me know.

I changed it to make your blogging experience more user friendly.

James Pilant

Response to Rep. Marsha Blackburn: A True Conservative Tech Policy (via The Prelator)

This article is concerned with net neutrality. A good part of the article focuses on this issue. But the article takes on some other critical issues. One is Congress’ bizarre lengthening of the copyright privilege to seventy years plus the life of the author. It’s tragic in literature but in the tech world it ties up technology is a disastrous fashion. He also discusses new laws under consideration that would make suppliers of net access vulnerable to legal action over the content of their various customers. This would provoke massive censorship of the web not because there is illegality but to avoid the slightest possibility of illegality.

It’s a good article and his conclusions are very close to my own. I wish the author well.

James Pilant

On January 18, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn gave a speech purporting to give a conservative view of technology policy. As a strong conservative myself, I was deeply saddened to read this speech, which not only displays a deep lack of understanding about important policy issues facing the tech world, but a misunderstanding of the true tenants of conservatism in favor of the very corporate cronyism which Republicans are all too often accused of. … Read More

via The Prelator

Net neutrality – Who really benefits? (via Now we’re EtherSpeakin’)

This article focuses on the key issue in the FCC ruling. The issue is whether or not the decision actually favors consumers.

I hold the FCC decision in contempt. I do not believe it protects the interests of consumers because it will allow charges for using larger amounts of bandwidth when there is no shortage. Further, the FCC under these rules can only respond to complaints. The FCC does not enforce the rules without customers asking it do so in individual cases. Responding to complaints sounds good until you look at what happens with a complaint. If my web site is discriminated against and my loading time dramatically increased, I will only get redress after a lengthy complaint process. By the time that is completed, I would no longer have a successful blog. It’s the same with anybody else. The Internet is a fast moment by moment product. A complaint system is a post destruction remedy that does in no way mitigate the damage.

This is a good blog entry that asks who does the decision really benefit. If you are interested in a deeper understanding of this issue, I would read the article.

James Pilant

Contributed by: Bill Alessi, EtherSpeak Communications As defined by Wikipedia, Network Neutrality (AKA net neutrality and internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for users’ access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication. About a month or so ago the … Read More

via Now we’re EtherSpeakin’

Net Neutrality: The More Things Change… (via The PSSI Blog)

Is a major factor in the battle over net neutrality the consolidation of the industry by companies like Google? History suggests that after a period of development the market tends to consolidate and it consolidates with companies that make things simpler. From the author -

The question today is whether this is happening again, and if the Internet is slowly becoming monopolized. Here, think Google, with 70 or 80% of global search volume. Likewise, in social networking, Facebook has become predominant. Apple’s iTunes rules content download in the music sector. We’re consolidating.

See what you think. Read the article and ask yourself if consolidation makes the end of net neutrality inevitable.

James Pilant

The FCC recently cast its vote in creating a net neutrality law.  Basically, this means it’s illegal for a major carrier, say Verizon or AT&T or any of the others, to block or tamper with the speeds of content providers.  In an example posited by Tim Wu, the Columbia Law professor who is said to have originally coined the term “net neutrality,” it would prevent, say, Verizon in partnership with, say, Google speeding up YouTube while slowing d … Read More

via The PSSI Blog