"Though presumably only the guilty cops would have anything to fear." sounds a lot like the "if you are innocent you have nothing to fear" argument to me so I hope I just didn't notice the tongue firmly wedged in the cheek (early morning here. Where's my coffee? Oh, right, I'm drinking it.)

"presumably only the guilty cops would have anything to fear."

Do we detect just the mildest, slightest, most tiny hint of sarcasm?

Sounds like a good idea to me. It's not directly comparable (of course), but all my admin access to systems at work is recorded, why shouldn't gun waving be?

My USB missile launcher has a web cam option so that is no big deal. The interesting thing would be to feed the camera through facial recognition software - if only to avoid 'collateral damage'.

"Though presumably only the guilty cops would have anything to fear."

You could make an argument that gun-cam videos, taken out of context, would in many situations not really give the information you need to reach a conclusion. Not being a firearms / tactics expert, I don't know, but it seems like it might be the case.

Would be interesting to see this applied to the UK police as well.

Living on the edge of the City of London all my life I've experience of officers interesting ideas about firearms safety.

Especially when the ring of steel went up and officers decided it was ok to stop vehicles at gun point assuming they were proxy bombers, got accused of that one on a motorcycle once.

My sister and the driver of the taxi she was in being stopped at gun point, the doors being opened and guns pointed in just to ask where she was going then let go.

And lets not forget Stockwell either.

So a crooked cop makes a wrong decision and shoots the wrong person (or at the wrong time). Not being an idiot, he then proceeds to destroy the electronic evidence (frying the camera and/or memory in a microwave oven possibly).

If the camera i turned off when the phone is in the holster, you will undoubtedly have some people who will learn to shoot while the gun is still in the holster.

This is of course not a worse situation than today, where there is no video to destroy in the first case.

But consider the reverse situation, where the video recorder malfunctions and there is no video available, or where the video also shows somebody else that would be put at risk by making the video available to the public (like the snitch who handed the guy to the cops in the first case) - can you hear the cries of "Cover Up !" ?

Well, in some case, yes, it will give enough information.

For example, if they're inside of 21 feet, with a lethal weapon, and coming towards you, you draw and shoot. Also, say I decide to just kill someone for no good reason, and draw my gun to shoot them when they're down- surprise, it's on camera. Seems to me that in either of those situations, that's better than no information.

The downside is, that, well, you don't catch what's said before it. You don't know if the cop was trying to bait that guy into attacking him.

Some departments, if I recall from my Technology in CJ class correctly, are looking into a new storage method for squad car cameras- instead of always on, which consumes memory in a hurry, you can use a higher resolution camera (to make it more useful footage) and have it streaming a 1 minute loop, which, the moment anyone in your department flips on their lights, every car in the department saves and continues saving from then on. This gives a three-fold advantage over normal systems: you have way less data to trudge through, you get some lead time before the issue has become prominent, and you get better quality video without worrying about increased space issues.

How do we watch the watchers? Amongst other things, we put cameras on them and audit the footage. This is precisely the kind of thing we are arguing for here:

http://snipurl.com/27w2q

Using the example of Stockwell doesn't give much cause for hope for the gun-cam solution. The police don't dispute that de Menezes was not a criminal, and was doing nothing suspicious (later lies to the contrary were all retracted). Any evidence provided by a gun-cam couldn't have made the police look any worse. Yet there was no recrimination whatsoever. If you can kill a man in those circumstances and get away with it, it's difficult to imagine a realistic situation in which you couldn't.