California Introduces Candid Camera “Cops” (Jun, 1939)
California Introduces Candid Camera “Cops”
Adopting the slogan “Pictures Don’t Lie,” the Police Department of Beverly Hills, Calif., has equipped its motorcycle and radio car officers with candid cameras, as shown at right. It is pointed out that the policemen will collect pictorial records of traffic violations to refresh the memories of careless drivers when they are hailed into court. The cameras will also be used by the officers to take pictures at the scene of a crime for use with court testimony.
I’ed think getting a decent shot going at speed would be impossible...
The beginning of big brother.
Comment by Kosher Ham — October 5, 2010 @ 10:33 am
That’s what I was thinking, it begins.
Comment by Myles — October 5, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Oh Please! Read the part that says “take pictures at the scene of a crime for use with court testimony. ”
Expectation of privacy at a crime scene? Want to be tried based on a sketch in some traffic cop’s notebook? Oooh, how about eyewitnesses?
Hardly Big Brother.
Sorry you didn’t win, but here’s the home version of Modern Mechanix along with some parting gifts.
Comment by Firebrand38 — October 5, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
He said “The Beginning…” it all starts with little things and creeps in. Of course 70 years later and it is only red light cameras.
I wonder if police back then had a problem if you tried photographing them the way they do now.
Comment by Mike — October 5, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Firebrand38: I don’t disagree with you statements; Big Brother, no – but I do wonder if a policeman with a handheld camera could, intentionally or unintentionally take pictures that could bias the story behind an accident in such a manner as to depict it in an incorrect fashion?
I would argue that it could; we definitely know that it could if biased and/or malicious forethought by the photographer is employed, and the photographer is skilled enough to present the “facts” of a case in the fashion wanted. In theory, an inept or unskilled photographer could unintentionally do the same thing.
Today, with digital photography and photoshop, one can get away with just about anything, though hopefully in a police case there is a chain of evidence, non-tamperable digital photographs and cameras (using encryption and/or key-signatures and/or other hashing methods to prevent modifications of the photos). Even so, the person holding that camera could change the story, depending on a number of possibilities and factors.
The same even holds true for cameras mounted on street corners and such covering an intersection; if the cameras are pointed wrong, or aren’t kept in maintenance, or are positioned in such a way so that shadows, reflections or other optical issues alter the resulting image…
Luckily (…hopefully…) the decision in any instance doesn’t hinge solely on the images from a camera, but is only one part for a judge or jury to make a decision on.
Comment by Andrew L. Ayers — October 5, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
Mike: And I still maintain that back in 1939 giving cops cameras to document traffic violations didn’t result in telescreens in our houses (see I’ve actually read 1984 although I think we’re really living in Fahrenheit 451).
And no, police back then probably weren’t too concerned by whackos who think it’s OK to target cops.
Comment by Firebrand38 — October 5, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Andrew L. Ayers: Ask Ronald Cotton if he prefers eyewitness testimony.
Wonder away, I still haven’t heard any reason to discourage photographic recording of what happened over basically nothing but fallible memory and catch as catch can sketches. And I’m really sorry your first reaction is that cops will submit photographic evidence that’s been Photoshopped over a traffic accident. I may be out of the mainstraem but innocent until proven guilty applies to them too and I don’t think that just because someone could abuse using a camera to commit a crime by falsifying evidence that would discredit the use of taking pictures. Crime scene technicians use photos to document the scene all the time. I haven’t even heard the ACLU raise the possibility that the photos were altered on a computer.
Jesus, the paranoids are after me!
Comment by Firebrand38 — October 5, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
“police back then probably weren’t too concerned by whackos who think it’s OK to target cops”
It is not whacko, if the police feel (as they do now) that they have the right to record anything anywhere at any time, than citizens have the right to film their interactions with the police as well.
Anyway, I guess you can agree to disagree. I can’t see any problem with having a camera to record accident and crime scenes; nevertheless this is the earliest example of lets say mechanical surveillance equipment I’ve seen police use.
Regarding not having telescreens — these days something like that would be obsolete. Luckily nobody in recent years has decided to be a real tyrant, because the equipment exists (some police departments have it on hand..) to see through walls, to point at a window and pick up sound from the vibrations (laser so nothing has to touch the window), some areas have loads of outdoor cameras, far more wiretaps than there used to be. And thanks to Bush and Obama (and their parties) lack of respect for the bill of rights, there’s warrantless wiretaps and some of this other stuff is now being done warrantless that would have definitely used a warrant even 5 years ago, so there’s not even proper oversight or “checks and balances” on how this stuff is used.
Comment by hwertz — October 5, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
hwertz: When I said target cops I wasn’t talking about with cameras
Yeah I know, a 1939 article about cops being issued cameras and it’s now Bush and Obama’s fault. Feel better?
And so it goes.
Comment by Firebrand38 — October 5, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
FB38: I never said I thought the police were photo-shopping anything; I merely brought forth that it was possible for anyone (including the police) to do so, not that it is probable that the police are doing it (but we do know it is done in other venues).
I was also trying to steer clear of implicating crime scene technicians, but even there, there is nothing to say that unconscious or accidental bias couldn’t come into play during the taking of the image which may or may not suggest something different from reality. One hopes that their training in crime scene photography (I assume they are trained!) would prevent that, but we know there have been instances of trained people (police and otherwise) inserting bias and doing worse things that went against their so called “training”; I am not saying this is the norm, merely that exceptions occur.
Once again, I doubt that any photographs of a crime scene are altered (during the photo session, or afterward), but what is in place to prevent it, if it were wanted to be done? I am not saying extreme alterations, or such, would be done – but minor changes, if executed expertly across all frames of an image set, and barring any “chain of evidence” tampering protocols (if such are even in place) – what is really to prevent it? If the memory of the people involved are fallible, as evidence suggests, then they might not even be aware of the difference, since their own memory of the events would be just as faulty…
I don’t consider this paranoid thinking (especially when you live in Arizona with Sheriff Joke and cronies) – I don’t think it is likely, but then again, I don’t know what, if anything, is in place to honestly prevent it from happening. Then again, considering the level of corruption in various government departments that exist in my state, and what they have already done and gotten away with, the possibility of photo-shopping of crime scene photos is the least of my concerns.
Comment by Andrew L. Ayers — October 5, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
“Yeah I know, a 1939 article about cops being issued cameras and it’s now Bush and Obama’s fault. Feel better?”
Yeah actually I do 8-). I just wish more people would vote 3rd party since the main 2 don’t respect the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but I’ve talked to too many who don’t like the main candidates but think they are “throwing away their vote” voting for someone they DO want in office. How odd. It makes political discussions entertaining when people notice I’m ragging on both parties though
I’m actually surprised that cameras aren’t still used more universally given what a digital photo costs now and what film cost up to 5 or 10 years ago — when someone has a fender bender or accident here and calls in the police, they DO just fill in one of those paper forms, no photos whatsoever.
@Andrew L. Ayers, I doubt any photoshopping (especially for a fender bender photo haha). I do think at present there is usually a strong chain of custody to prevent tampering. One of the things that troubles me is the present move of both main parties to view things like this as “obstacles” to law enforcement, forgetting that police are fallible human beings just like everyone else, some will be tempted to abuse power, some will simply make mistakes, procedures like this help prevent this from happening.
Comment by hwertz — October 6, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
hwertz: Yeah I’m sure those 6,581 total votes in the 2008 Presidential election for Brian Moore of the Socialist Party died in a good cause. Idiots.
I sometimes wish I could call Ralph Nader’s bluff and actually elect him President, but then I remember I love my country.
But again, this all has nothing to do with traffic cops being issued cameras in 1939.
Comment by Firebrand38 — October 6, 2010 @ 2:55 pm