I work for Restore the Fourth, the people who have been protesting the NSA, and I soooo wish we could help with this. Sadly we are single issue and I don't have the time to start something up. I do see it as a big issue though, I think they should wear camera, just not have them be monitored by the NSA
Interestingly, cameras have recently been banned in the SF fire department after video leaked of SFFD personnel running over a foam retardant occluded victim at the Asiana crash scene. I don't think these things will ever be popular within muni governments or rank and file officers (be it fire, police, whatever). And so, I think they'll always do everything possible to avoid them altogether, or at a minimum obscure them.
From the quote in the article, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Mayor Bloomberg didn't quite understand what was being implemented - it's a body-worn camera, not a "cameraman" and crew following an officer or group of officers around. The angle would be ideally from the officer's perspective, most likely head/shoulder/chest height, and provide more information instead of relying on eyewitness accounts and intended/unintended distortions. I would love to see if this result is replicated through the NY programme; not necessarily as high as 88%, but a solid, overall positive result.Judge Scheindlin cites the experience of a small police department in Rialto, Calif. In the first 12 months of a pilot program there, with half of the department’s 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras, complaints against the police dropped 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months.
At every mention of Judge Scheindlin, I keep thinking they're talking about Judge Judy.