sender or the recipient, because that very fact will trigger a further safeguard in order to ensure that it's not examined any more freely than it could have been classed as an internal communication. >> that is exactly the case. i should be clear, it's not about being a british citizen and the system is blind to citizenship and nationality. it's where you are when the communication takes place. if you are in the u.k. when the communication takes place then that both of you are in the u.k. the section 81 warrant would be required required. a point of view is in the u.k. under section 8 for warrant an authorization to access that data would require modification under 16.3. ..

>> >> with those communications still be regarded -- regarded as external because it is to an sir overseas or is an internal because the only person with access to them is myself and i live in the uk? gimmick of the sir is overseas it is regarded as external with the save

regards as said e-mail sent to someone overseas >> if i am somebody from the point of view of national security would i have the same assurance of security for something i have uploaded to the cloud externally but then the modification kick did before you examined it as if i had uploaded to raise sir in the uk using the other form so with the two types of warrants which should take that douceur type to the path of modification it is as strong? >> yes. effectively yes it looks very similar the same considerations with the

secretary of the state. >> can i improve this area of discussion? it is very complex and as has been noted there is some public concern as to the perception of the different levels of safeguard is there not a case with the government authorizing we should have some documents a bank which has to the external and internal when one applies with the other replies? >> i think what people in the uk need to understand is the communications of the people of the u.k. will only be examined on the basis of a specific authorization by a secretary of state's either under section --

section 81 llord 16.3 modification in they should be clear about that that they enjoy the protection as a result in united keep them even when they use the extra roll or overseas server. >> is still fairly informal language so. is that something worth considering to be documented that would explain and give examples of what has been put to you as though the answer points in that direction? >> i am certainly prepared to look for my suggest the committee in its report? >> we can do that but we're not the government.

it is the agencies that come under criticism. >> rabil said the book at whether i can say by what i said by referring to different sections. >> the final question if you authorized to examine external communications would do expect this information so the to be used by gch or would you have difficulties passing this information to i five? >> gch will be tasked to provide information to the other information's working very closely with the secret intelligence service with 55 fan out the national crime agency as well. and where appropriate pass information to those

agencies. >> the information report goes to all the agencies with the requirements to have a need to know based on the requirements of the statutory functions to process information from the gchq that they would be interested to have such functions to space make but that does not apply to gchq as a domestic role. the. >> that the data is gathered primarily overseas at other agencies. for example, the mi security service will clearly have the interest in that data related to a fugitive

terrorist plot affecting the united kingdom. but it argument has been put to us one of the ways the internet has changed the of world with as so many aspects of personal information. it is now available through the internet. day deus think there was any validity in that argument that has changed the of world? to make it has changed the world. llord david is used as a suspect that in the past there has spent vast amounts of data but it had that been

accessible to except with the expenditure of the huge amounts of efforts with but much of the stage is now available in the readily accessible form to feed the appetite for still more data to be made publicly available to have that resource to access it. >> but one particular aspect is the amount of communications data mattel's more than it did with those personal situation is. but that definition is much

tighter did the united states. with a degree of protection. are you satisfied that the definition of communications and data is a heck to prevent what is content about people's lives spin my guess. i am quite confident about that. the communication dated is hugely important to establish networks in patterns printed is around to to sir they provide a robust content is a widow with five ministers.

but i just go in ashley previous conversation but it was by ministers with the widow said to be in the uk. [laughter] >> they tell us in good to invest spirit of transparency.

>> but to go directly to the rule that i have an with the issue of warrants principally under section five and seven of the intelligence services act, i a nuclear end working for the united kingdom. and they carry out the works that they do but to understand the level of authorization and that is required asking someone to

tops with there is still a hilo of her physician crumbles under the framework spicule have to remind read the original. [laughter] >> that this public debate we have just discussed the a as but a field trip to create consistent with the public interest civic i suggest perhaps it is more disclosure but precisely what is authorized under the intelligence services act to help contribute to transparency? >> what is capable is pretty

clear and of course, with not only political and though there's of accountability and was authorized to produce practiced since well within the parameters of wandering people like yourselves to oversee this process to exercise democratic campout -- accountability to your candidate we will talk barely the table back to give you deployment test is

it the way is that windows is to lead doing so for those open-minded constituents is a proportionate thing to do to protect national security. >> have odbc our responsibility and don't think. >> this is day demo of seventh with the intelligence services act is described as the james bond cause because it seems to provide mi and what we call sas to do whatever they deem necessary. the government sentence which i could put on record for the benefit of people watching is as follows.

if a person would be liable in the united kingdom for any act done outside the british islands, he will not be liable if their authorized to be done. >> had to reassure the public so the private clients have individuals also reveal to the other entries so that sections of her spirit and think the answer to that is the scope is brought under the act in the warrant required and this is the secretary of state's role, define the actions that can be carried

out under that warrant. event is authorized to carry out the following actions during the following time periods. >> there seems to be a common fear and half of the high stick it is true have receipts you have said capabilities so we know we're not abusing these and they are determined to buy the orange free. >> think giving the

secretary of state the power spirited is a legal framework with power to use the secretary of state. that democratic accountability is insurers cisplatin and even within individual author of the issues and as a mild but the was i have seen in nearly defined in the application for such warrants and sometimes restricted by the secretary of state. >> it is also this committee has the right to examine how they were used ceramic their ritz still stand and he

seeks love that's i would say that prices are the responsibility over at to ensure that information is disclosed they did not say who would send specifically but it should be codified. these arrangements but to be treated with the same purpose that we would expect in the -- with the u.k. or could they possibly.

>> if you would not mind? and i guess it would be possible but to the extent it would impact on the effect of working on the agency's. i am confident though we have robust arrangements fyi error and to anyone else how do we ensure that it is dealt with in the same degree of rigor that i have just arrived here yen will

elaborate further. >> but a more theoretical question you said that public confidence in the security would be enhanced by greater public understanding but what might those ranges me but if its ships with other agencies to have that capability of our relationship is of trust and however much we wish you be more transparent we can only be so if there is us that

lecter relationships but if we could move briefly into authorization. >> you have responsibility but most of the people we have spoken to during the course says the judges decided though warned. would issue a sensible response? >> i think it is wrong it is a fluid analysis than the system would be weaker if judges signed warrants because they quickly would look at the legal commission and judge within those legal conditions. secretaries of state of course, i will constrain from the reagan there porsche but dash permissions to exercise their powers but

also he is out there is political judgment. >> most of those difficult warrants that takes serious time and consideration are not debates. >> is it of political judgment or to national security? >> to the safety and well-being of our citizens? justified by the close of low-risk. >> bile getting stitches this is that so bad bet and

in a democracy they have to be a countable to make such a decision overseen by all the tears of oversight. >> getting to those tears the commission does that oversight to. of our ratings - - two is replaced is there any changes you would like to be made? the. >> moderator: -- but we should ask the question as i am sure to make sure it is robust but the way it looks at the moment with publicly

by index -- i explain as far as the us secretary and by a and for this to be delegated of the responsibility to have a very tight and effective system to ensure we operate within the law with proper political judgment and full democratic accountability and an but the national security? how many warrants are apt -- authorized in that time and how many operations?

>> yes. i am afraid that it worked. [laughter] >> in that case let me take refuge in the fact that i think again but with public accountability these are in the lives of the events in into canada. i cannot state so that the counterparts are already analyzing as you would expect what happened in canada. i cannot say anything about the scale of operations that i have authorized because it is ongoing but if it would

help in terms the way your question is seeking to go to our respect to spend several hours considering warrants in the paper were questioning officials about the material that i see foresee for other agencies come just a blip for privacy >> with that transparency? >> you mean understandably cautious. but the outgoing director so to publish information about teeeight nine clutching

capabilities but to say you agree to get ministerial backing for this. syria's attitude is day conversion of the road to damascus. a and semantics close us -- closes. >> but generally i am confident from what i have seen that the public would be reassured by knowledge of the way the system works. and those who have something to hide it just their behavior. we have seen hands. al qaeda changing the way

they communicate, accruals operating over different communications or groups. we have to balance the desire the self-interest. >> as foreign secretary and to stem a bet between the reaction that those of rural less willing sublimity you

really think neither is more posen to kid knew of. >> m. and read chance for each. >> i took off to find legislation. neither confirm nor deny it is of vital part of our ivory. and it is a self denying ordinance and sometimes it is very tempting but if we want that temptation the next time we know to confirm or deny and confront. we have considered this of a number of locations very carefully but maintaining

user part of control -- of what the statement but you recently stressed about the legislation as a protection for the public and a reassurance to the public. can i just read you this extract simic notwithstanding selection but if he leaves on and reasonable grounds that the mysterious -- materials subsection that they are satisfied in relation to the material.

and i am shocked so they could be reassured. >> i think that question could be a play it -- applied more by suspect and then operating currently put the key point to in there while legislation provides the framework is the reference to the person authorizing though world. it is the ultimate safeguard

but to make sure they are not all up front with a particular situation in. but it is the future of the times that we live in that when i say for all of my colleagues it is all the back of our minds at some point in the future we will be appearing before a tribunal or hearing or court accounting for the decisions we have made and essentially accounting for the way we have applied the proportionality and necessity for a texas. there is a very strong political incentive to apply

these tests nearly into the way that minimizes the scope of the agency's to interpret warrants that are not issued >> thanks very much. we will adjourn and like us on fs

on twitter.

>> the cato institute held an event thursday looking into police misconduct, abuse, and whether new technology like body cameras can make police more accountable. this is an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hello. welcome to the cato institute. i am kat murti. you are at our new media watch, a regular series highlighting the entered section between tech, social media, and liberty. our panel will be discussing the policy and privacy concerns surrounding filming active-duty police officers as well as touching upon on

on-bodied programs and what those could potentially do to mitigate problems of police misconduct. for those of you in our online audience and watching on c-span today our hashtag is new media lunch. otherwise we will take questions at the end of the panel. without further ado and would like to introduce our first speaker today, steve silverman, founder and executive director of the flex your rights organization and a cato alarm. a critic of the -- creator of movies. in addition to self distributing more than 35,000 dvd is, the flex your rights youtube channel has seen over 35 million views. >> thank you. i appreciated. how many of you have seen the movie the matrix by a show of hands? pretty much everybody. good. what i want to try to do is

the same thing that happened to kneele. do you remember when he said, i know conns flew after they uploaded to the program into his brain? like as said, i want to try to do the same thing with you, but what i want is for you to say, i know how to record the police. so to do this i have broken down five rules for reporting the police. rule number one, know the law. and the law is, you have the right to openly record the police and public. you will notice that i emphasize openly, and i will explain why in the second. his first role is probably the most important and confusing because you have all seen videos where people are getting arrested for openly recording the police

and public. we see these everyday fifth of police intimidating or arresting people. this is happening despite the fact that every state and federal circuit court to rule on this question has concluded that the monopolies and public his first amendment protected activity. but some of you might ask what about the torso's states that have what are called all party consent laws that require all parties to agree to be recorded. we have good news because the courts in these states have ruled that those laws do not apply to citizens who are openly recording the police and public. so the most obvious and effective way to avoid running afoul of these all-party consent laws is to use your camera like you are a reporter, not like you're a spy. if you want to be always openly corinth.

some of you who know a little bit about these laws might be saying, well, wait a second, what about massachusetts and illinois? these are two states with statutes on the book that make it illegal to report -- openly record the police and public. again, good news because in 2011 the first circuit court of appeals covering massachusetts declared their lot to be unconstitutional. soon afterwards into dozens -- those laws have been invalidated. therefore, in the united states citizens always have the right to openly record the police and public. so, if you are recording the police and they tell you to put your camera away, that is an unlawful order in that situation i would argue it is okay to inform the police of the law by saying something like, officer, i am familiar with ala.

the courts have ruled it does not apply to recording on-duty please provide do not generally advise educating the police and ordered in counters. they generally do not appreciate that. in this situation i think it is advisable the area's number two, know your technology. how many of you have a smart phone on you right now by show of smart phones? that is pretty much most everybody here knows how many of you pasco protect your phone? most of you. who of you do not pass to protect your phone? he should not admit to that. but you can easily secured rate by installing a pass code protection. i highly recommended. the supreme court recently passed an excellent fleet requiring police to obtain a torrent before searching your smart fun to but in the meantime it is always a good idea to keep it locked down

because sometimes police don't get the memo right away. now, how many of you have a streaming video application of the sunscreen at your spark the ninth effort really? three, fortified spree that is fantastic. for those of you who did not, i will show you right now the benefits of keeping a streaming video apple and your phone screen. i am unlocking my secret has cut caught tapping the bamboos are streaming video recording app. i don't work for them loser. but right now they have the best streaming video recording at out there, and i am now streaming you all live to an off site server. now, the benefit of this for when you are reporting the police is that if a police officer on lawfully tries to the snatch, confiscating or destroy your smart phone what you have recorded up until that moment will be saved securely of sight.

also, if you use another live streaming video recording app, in particular there is an neat feature rare if you tap this leap button your screen goes blank, and this can be as additional security and protection for your data because the pass code -- it goes to sleep, but if they try to unlock it, turn it on, they will get a pass code. of course, you are not going to give you your pass code and they won't be able to get into and delete your recordings which is an extra layer of protection. greuel number three, respond to things that cops say. for example, cops might say, if you are, for example, recording an arrest that is happening but, you are a witness, some of you might see a situation where one of

the police officers will break off from that and some of the approach you and say, what are you doing. well, sometimes people make the mistake of responding with something like, officer, and recording you to make sure you're doing your job right or because i don't trust the police. there's a better way to say this. better way is to say something like, officer, i am not interfering. i am asserting my first amendment right to record. you're being documented and reported of sight. another thing that cops might say is, please stop recording need. that is against the law. and police who are in those 12 states with all-party consent laws might actually use this misunderstanding of the law in order to try to get to stop recording. in this situation it is okay to say something like an officer, and familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled the law does not apply to recording on-duty police.

another things officers my scream at you, stand back, you are interfering. i need you to step back. a good response to this is to step back. it is okay to be a little bit flexible in situations. say something like officer, and not interfering. it is for my safety endorse. our room number four, do not point your camera at the police like it is a gun, like this. i have seen lots of videos were people with aggressive and shove it in their face. i do not think that is a good idea. a better way to do it and you can avoid that vertical video syndrome that you might see, make sure you go horizontal. it is a good idea to a record like this.

when you hold the phone at waist level i think it is a lot less confrontational pros and you can still look at the screen and get a perfectly good shot. you do not have to frame it up like a cinematographer. it is okay if you click the officer said in the process, but it is better than pointing your camera like a gun, and you can avoid. number five, a predator to be arrested. basically this is perfectly legal behavior, yet if you are brave enough to record the police, you must look at this activity as a potential act of civil disobedience that can lead to your rest. it is troubling that citizens who are not breaking the law should prepare to be arrested, but if the officer says shut it off for i will arrest you, you should take the officer at his or her word. at this point it is entirely up to you if you want to continue testing the

boundaries of free speech and risk arrest. you may comply by saying something like, officer, okay. and turning the camera off but under protest. or if you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. if you are recording with men loser, for example, it does lead button to prevent police from the leading your college pre do not resist. as with any arrestee have the right to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer that you should use this right by shutting up. keep colman be confident that any frivolous charges against you will certainly be dropped and you will have video evidence of an illegal arrest that might become the basis of a potentially lucrative lawsuit. more importantly embraced in could change the way that police treat other citizens to assert their first amendment right. congratulations. you have all been upgraded and now know how to record the police. >> thank you, steve.

[applause] our next presenter here today is jonathan blanks he is a blogger editor. research interest include police misconduct, the drug war, over criminalization and other crime and justice issues. he maintains a personal blog , and you can follow him on twitter. >> thank you. first of all, i want to apologize. i am happy to be here. police misconduct is a cato resources we used to disseminate police abuse and

crime throughout the country. i will take this moment to a think katie rangel who does a lot of work keeping this side running an up-to-date. it is not meant to shame police as a whole. we believe that police officers are trying to do their best. but the pressures are a given into often it leads to right violations against both guilty and innocent. often this occurs with daily roundtrips a police breaking the law. police misconduct tends to be thought of as a rare bad apple incident where it is one, and not representative of the entire department which is often very true. it only does take one cop to give the rest a bad example. however, there are many factors that shield and protect bad cops, including complicity of good cop to

the then may resent the bad ones feel through police solidarity that they need to stay quiet. that is a long story 4q and a or another time. but because of this reputation of imbalance the conduct often goes unnoticed or unreported. moreover, when officers are caught doing bad things they are dismissed out of hand. but we feel that police misconduct is something that requires more attention because sunlight is the best disinfectant. the more we know the better we know how to deal with bad apples and the better that we can stop bad management of police agents. and technology is a growing part of maintaining that accountability. from an internal police death perspective and forced accountability by the citizens, as steve described. and there is reason to be

optimistic. as steve explained, most of us have cell phones with recording technology. likewise, dashboard cameras have been in patrol cars for a long time and now the technology allows police officers to wear cameras on their person so that they can record every instance they come into contact with the public. these technologies allow for observers to observe contested events and stops after the fact. so this can show an officer of abusing authority and it also works to protect the police. recently an officer was accused of sexual assault on someone he stopped. his camera showed that he did absolutely nothing wrong, and it exonerated him because of affordable and accessible technology.

it may have finally brought us closer to answering the question who watches the watchers. we all do. as many of you probably know, the official autopsy results of the michael brown case in ferguson were released yesterday along with grand jury evidence. perhaps we could have had a better idea of what actually transpired in the altercation. i say perhaps because we know the technology is only as good as the people who use it and share it. cameras are not a cure all. there are instances caught on film in which police are clearly violating the rights of others. two years ago there was a young man from just outside of the sea was assaulted by a business of the south is crime was essentially locking away from an officer spotted his detention facility offices started running after him, he turns

around here in their running footsteps of the police officers, the officers not yelling stop police. he gets hit in the face with a gun. the gun goes off. luckily no one shot, but this man, again, was assaulted by a police officer. luckily there was surveillance video because the man was charged and spend a month in jail for essentially being physically assaulted by a police officer. now the police officer was charged, he went to trial, but he won. there was video evidence, and it did not get him off. he also was not fired. he had backed issues and was allowed to retire and retain his pension. likewise, video evidence that sometimes is withheld. in one instance, a woman was

pulled over by police. she claimed that she was injured during a stop. back up police came. there were seven dashboard cameras. all mysteriously simultaneously stopped working. and so it was her word against seven police officers. guess what happened? people's word against the police in court is usually not good without video evidence. and part of this is because people want to believe police officers. and i understand that in polls, but they are people, just like the rest of us. people lie and have many incentives to do so. this is where the public comes in. as steve was saying, if you follow the right rules you can get taped evidence of misconduct in your neighborhood. but i must caution that this bill is a dangerous endeavor to please some of you saw during the protest in ferguson there was a large

moving protest, and a police officer was in the middle of it and he pointed his assault weapon at individuals and friend to kill them. and this was caught on tape, and the videographer aston, what is your name. the officer responded with something and not going to say on c-span, but that became his name and it went viral. because of that video that officer was found, identified, and fired. that is rare. if that police officer got too scared or someone bumped into him or something went wrong, that person with the camera could have been shot. so be careful. i am not saying don't do it. please do, but understand the risk float. at that 40 of questions picture. >> thank you, jonathan. [applause]

our final panelist, a retired federal deputy a member of law enforcement against @booktv against prohibition. after 32 years of service he was fired. he holds a positions in three organizations today. you can find him on twitter. matthew. >> thank you very much, and it is good to be here. thank you for that introduction. i agree wholeheartedly with my two colleagues, things that had been presented here, but i present a law enforcement perspective to augment and add to that some

of the things that i have observed. one of the things to win a lawsuit, there were improprieties. a lot of things going wrong. the one thing i remember when i came out of the academy and arrived at my duty station, i remember the manager, because i was this young recruit, excited, when to shoot, how to use the first and fourth amendment rights were, how to implement the law, so to speak, and was really excited. the first thing he said, i know you guys learned all the stuff at the academy and all. listen, this is how we do here. and i always remember the good this is how we do it here. and what i want to say to you about this is, when we look at the body cameras and we say saw cecil what types of solutions despair and

they if better understand the situation scott lee have to understand, when i am on that street as a law-enforcement officer, i have a lot of discretion, and i have a network behind me that is going to back me up. it includes police officers, prosecutors, judges. it is an entire network, and even when i sat on a grand jury and remember that close relationship that the u.s. attorneys had with the grand jurors, talking to them every day, communicating, laughing, joking, coming together. that right there has a major influence on the case is that they brought before the grand jury, whether they would get indictments are not. i am saying their is a network. how do we build and get into the network. now, being a member of law enforcement against prohibition, a powerful organization because

nationally across the country we send a message out. the war on drugs is bad policy, but not only is it bad policy and costing the country a lot of money, it is probably one of the most racist policies that has been instituted since slavery, and that is pretty powerful. when you begin to look at the disparities in numbers from the aclu report to my was a member of amnesty international. we did a racial profiling report that indicated more people have been profiled sense 9/11 than the population of canada. i mean, i have seen so many reports that show the disparities are not close. there are so widespread. look and see what happens in ferguson, what happens in new york, we are seeing this stuff right on television. we saw this man choked to death while he was saying i cannot breeze, and he was

ultimately killed. we saw rodney king get beaten with a stick on television. everybody's saying, that is awful. that is crazy. but what happens? the officers cannot convicted because what happens is that network behind you says, this is how we doing here. body cameras are good, but we don't know, to be honest with you, when all of that information is gone back and a jury, when you're sitting in front and that officer is allowed to go back and rethink everything because the law is different when an officer is involved. they do not have to give a statement right away. all of the protections they have. people tell them. i know. i have been involved. look, you want to change this. you don't want to say this. you want to be careful how you put this forward. this is real, and what i am

saying is, once that begins to happen he take a year or two years for trial, that jury is sitting there and hearing the officers say, oh, well i thought he had begun and i was threatened for my life and the remember one of my partners was killed six months ago or so when so was killed. i felt threatened when he turned around and looked at me with his hands of saying don't shoot. i still felt the threat. you want to give people that will sit on that jury and listen and say, you know what, i no police officers have a lot that they have to go through every day. and so i will give him the benefit of the dow -- benefit of the doubt. their is a lot in law enforcement that is wrong, but we need protection. i dare say to you, when i won my case everyone said to me, don't take on the justice department. to not go forward. you know what happens to cops when they blow the whistle and speak out. your career will be

destroyed and not only that, they will probably kill you were set you up. believe it or not, that happened. my backup left me in a stakeout. my black partner who also raised a discrimination complaint about the internal impropriety wound up dead. somebody ran his car off the road. the wife the spoke up to five the marshal the spoke up losses job. he went to congress and testified. that is what they gave him in this quad bay. so what i am saying to you is, we have these situations that we are looking at that are going on in ferguson and sanford. mainly because it is an issue with the cameras and so forth, with this stuff has been going on, ladies and gentlemen, forever. it has been out there. with my 32 years of law enforcement i saw a lot of

questionable incidents. i had to tell officers right then and there, you are not going to do that in front of me right here when i am working with other departments. i would work with seattle, miami, lapd, new york pd. and i saw some of the most egregious violations of rights. you pull a vehicle over and a young man says to the officer, no, you can search my car they will bring a dog , and the dogs nickname is alert. that is a nickname. what i am saying, all kinds of ways to get around your rights if that is what i want to do. and most african americans out there know that, so they don't even want to challenge a lot of times because if you get pulled over on your way to work or going somewhere, you know right there the officer can put you in a situation where he can create a problem for you

so you just give that consent. you don't want to be held up for work. you give them the consent and say, go ahead. it is easy to stand back and say, no, i don't want you to search my vehicle. all of the other rights the you have. but there are so many things that come into play on the street. what i am saying is, until we address those issues, until we start to say to people, why are these disparities, the same drugs, crack cocaine arrests, we look at the same arrests, the same incidents, but we see the numbers of african-americans that are arrested, charged, and doing time for the same drug, i have always said, if the war on drugs is an equal opportunity enforcement operation we would not even be having a war on drugs issue today because it would have been over the same way

as alcohol prohibition. because it is not equal -- like when i was working with the d.a. they said to me -- i said, look, we have drug interdiction task forces in the urban areas. i said, don't they use drugs in potomac, silver spring or other may be affluent locations? he said, yes. as a matter of fact, they use them probably more. they have the better stuff. but if we go out and lock those folks up they will -- the know what happens? we will get a phone call, and they will shut our operation down, and there goes your overtime, there goes all your excitement, all your money, everything you're making. you know what he said? basis of using the draft tribute to just go to the public is a place to get our

numbers up paris with this is what we have to look at it this fall processed. >> thank you. [applause] >> from what you are saying today, it sounds like cameras would be a part of a solution, a viable solution for police misconduct, part of an overall strategy? are they maybe not going to work? >> i think that certainly you cannot count on cameron's to cure the problem, but i think, you know, what video does is brings us closer to the truth, and the truth can bring us closer to justice and accountability i think that i like the fact that you have politicians is quite grand paul and clearing the castle in the wake of ferguson talking

about funding for cameras, body cameras for the police. what we have seen -- and through small trials that have been done, i think it was rialto. it was a trial. you have to take it with a grain of salt. in that small study they found that incidents of police actually using force reduced by about 80 percent, are really striking reduction, and the incident of police misconduct was reduced by about 60%. so what you are seeing is -- what i hope to see more often is the police officer with the body camera facing off against a citizen carrying a camera, and what you will have is a pleasant and lawful police encounter more times than not, and that is a good thing because video brings us the truth, which brings us closer to justice.

>> i agree with pretty much everything. not pretty much. i agree with everything he said. there are different problems within departments. it has been called the thin blue line where fleas will not testify against each other for reasons that at said. when you read the stories, i mean, you think of it when you think of corruption you think, okay, well, you know, his wife left him, he's taking a little bit of money on the side, not that big a deal. but the problem is, i have read cases where they are not -- police officers are afraid to tell on child molesters. i mean, the intimidation factor within the police culture can be so bad that they will protect whomever just to keep the peace. that requires considerable reorganization of police department accountability.

a lot of people point, as you see with the ferguson case, the pages that went up to a fund-raiser for officer wilson work, in fact are run by the police. i do not blame them because there are plenty of institutional problems that are completely divorced from the union that reinforce the procedures. >> just add a little bit to that, i think body cameras are a good idea. certainly has a law enforcement officer being on the street and i would have felt a little funny that everything was doing was being recorded. their is a certain invasion of your rights. but because there is so much violence when it comes down to it, especially the african-american community. we are talking about two different policing aspect. i tell people all the time.

you know, the police get behind me, i don't even have a neat hair on the back of my neck and it raises up. i am like wondering, what are they going to do? and i know when i came out of the academy, i remember very clearly having my shoulder holster on pier with a shirt and tie and every fifth death if. they came and surrounded my vehicle, i jumped out guns and and everything. and once they came of and said -- sought was a u.s. marshal we ever had a report of a man with a gun. to tell and african american, you handle it this way, cordial to the cop. if that officer is looking

for in arrest, harass somebody or create a scene, he will be looking to do that. and if he is out there, that camera may help you. everything is being recorded , but they can turn them off. there are all types of things that they can do. and then we are talking about cops and rural america there are a lot of things that we need to address with judges, lawyers. we have to address the system. race is still a part of america. and we need to address it. a lot of times we try to pretend like it is a great thing, and it is not. it is cut and dried. what is happening in the black community is different than the white community when it comes to policing. i can sit here and tell most folks in this room, you can say. because i knew if i stopped

the vehicle, i knew whenever i said, that whole institution is going to back me up, prosecutor and all, lock stock and barrel. those white folks, somebody might say, what was your probable cause. never asked that before. it is the culture. when the guy said -- again, i want to emphasize. this is how we doing here. when he said that to me he wanted me to understand. i know you know the rules because you went through the academy. don't worry about that. if you have to shoot them, and we're talking about having a thrower weapon. that was a part of their culture. make sure you have an extra weapon just in case you get into an incident where an you know you were wrong. throw that knife on the ground. put it in their hand, whenever. i mean, this is real. i hope i am not frightening anyone, but this is real and i am talking about things

that are said on the inside and the culture that exists. >> so when thinking about these potential cultural problems in police departments, will on-body cameras have a real effect, or will we run into the exact same issues we are seeing with the dashcams with them getting turned off for the videotape going missing? >> i think that the technology is there where it is obvious whether it was turned on or off or not when you look at the met to data with the recording, you can tell whether the person turned off or whether it was a technical failure. certainly a technical failure could include an officer snapping the camera, but that could be something that could be diagnosed pretty easily after word. i am hopeful and optimistic.

i believe that -- i hope that we are not going to say or it will be few and far between where we have an incident like what happened in ferguson where someone dies as a result of a police officer and we do not have video evidence of it whatsoever. i think that the technology is there. certainly when ferguson happened the first thought i had was, where is the dashcams footage? there isn't any and now you have ferguson police with military units, hundreds of thousands of dollars, the full camouflage and, you know, infrared goggles and the don't have the means to install dashcams? moreover, i think that if

you have a situation where there were dashcams installed, body cameras and dashcams and they give out for one reason or another before a terrible, tragic incident regardless of who was to blame that if that technology goes out it will look a lot like obstruction of justice. if there would be investigating and that in and of itself as a crime. i am hopeful that. >> i was recently at an event at the urban institute with d.c. police chief among others. she was talking about the other technological ways that we can start bringing police action more in line with respect to our rights. and one of the programs is

tracking basically who police pulled over because it is not so much -- i mean, we are, but many times an officer does not think he is racist, does not think that he is out there to try and mess up these people because i do not like them. they just happen to keep pulling over an overwhelming amount of black people. and that, measuring and recording in being able to go back and say, hey, why are you only pulling over by people are mostly pulling over black people and having an accountability factor. i think that along with the body cameras and this sort of profiling information is just part of a broader scheme of accountability. san diego has a bunch of footage that they will not

release. it is not part of the public record. it bought for with taxpayer dollars but somehow when you asked like a freedom of information act they don't release it. you need a system that will become accountable for these people. >> to add more to that. and i go back to race. when you are talking about race, it is almost like germ warfare in the sense that as soon as you come up with an antidote they come back with the worse trend. and you begin to try to figure out, every time you create a policy, accountability, it is really all about accountability. that is the bottom line. officers are found to have violated someone's civil rights, then an officer should be held accountable. i remember i was on a radio. officers were stopping only blacks peters. a black man called and said,

where these people speeding. yes, they were. and there were black? what is the problem? there were speeding, weren't they. i had to think about this. the problem is this, we violated their civil rights first before we stopped them because we were not stopping white speeders. so that was a violation of their civil rights because now we are stopping just them for that same crime. so the issue is, yes, a lot of officers may be doing things that they do not necessarily see as racist, as biased enforcement operations. they see it as going to the weakest link. that is what that particular manager told me. look, we go out and start arresting, they will create a problem for us. let's go after the weakest link. now, this was a white person. it never dawned on him that

the weakest link for me was the community i came from. he never thought about that. he said, look, they're still violating the law, using illegal drugs and so forth, but that same policy. so if we use the body cameras, going back to what was said, again, there are always ways that you can mutate around what i did in my head as opposed to what i did physical because if i can convince you, jerry -- and refined that juries don't want to convict cops, especially if that person happens to be african-american, most of the time of the jurors cannot even identified. they should look like the people who they're going to lock up or put away. the community, the officers should look like a community that they surf. that was not in ferguson. again, i am saying, we can bring out a body cameras.

these are all good things. we can put in policy when to use the taser, when to shoot, when not to shoot, but ultimately it is on me, and i have to say, i feel threatened for my life. i got in a shooting in miami i am fighting this guy in the apartment. he was an escaped felon. physically fighting. i have done nine mm gun. i am fighting this guy from one room to the next. i am so tired. i felt like a ghandi when it was over. there was no strength and my arms. here it is. when it was all over each still got out into the hallway and my partner chased him and with a shotgun, puente. did not kill them. did not kill him. ultimately the u.s. attorney said down with me and said, i have one question. when you were fighting this man, why didn't you just

pull your gun out and shoot him? i stopped and looked and said, well, i guess i did not feel like my life was in danger. he said, good answer. get answer. and i guess that really was it. i never thought -- now, of course, they don't want us fighting people. get a good lick on me and knocked me and take my gun. he was not armed at that time. so it is discretion. when do i shoot? but we just happen to find a lot of these instances are taking place on african-americans. so there is a mind set out there. >> thank you. >> one more question. i will take moderator's paraded before we get to the audience. we start talking about cameras and we will run into issues of privacy.

with the on body cameras i have seen two different facets of that argument. one comes from the police officers concerned about having their day-to-day on-the-job filmed, not because they're worried about being caught in police misconduct issues but because they're worried they will get in trouble. on the other hand, i am hearing from private citizens who are concerned that police wearing body cameras cameras might come into their home for a routine reason which turns their home into public domain and what it would not normally it be allowed to be filmed is now being filmed and are concerned about fourth amendment issues there. could you speak to that? >> even before anyone had a 34th of the issue was

cameras in public. closed-circuit cameras and a lot of civil libertarians were concerned that this smacks of george orwell's 1984 surveillance state stuff. you know, they got installed despite objections and everyone just sort of waited for the other shoe to drop. the thing is most people appreciate that when you're in public you do not have an expectation of privacy, and police are now learning that they too do not have an expectation of privacy in public. so the concern that the police officer effect that nothing the cops, that is barely justifiable reasons to our care rid of technology that could reduce police misconduct or police covering at out. but it is almost always police department precincts in particular who use the

argument, we are concerned about people's privacy. this is something that is so easily -- the protocol can be developed to say, if you leaked information, a video of the inside of someone's home to the public you will be fired for that. this information would only ever be used if relevant as far as a criminal case is concerned, the same with the video, the police officers always having the cameras on the video -- the procedure would be the video would only be pulled if there was a shooting or an incident or even an arrest happening. so i think that we can craft policy and protocol that can easily address these sorts of policy concerns -- privacy concerns rather. >> i would agree with that, although i would prefer legislation over protocol. i mean, you had the crime

act. senator sam

show that comes on called cops. how many people have seen it? the video everything. these guys come and. if you can put it on cops, you can put it. that is what i am saying. the bottom line is, once the police come to the scene anyway there is no more privacy at that point. a fire on the scene something is going on and we need to have some dialogue. so i think the camera is important. i agree with that. body cameras need to be there, some type of recording of what is being said and done needs to be there and will make officers think twice about what i am telling somebody something that i know is not legally proper or right and what i am giving them their rights. again, we said we have always known that people have rights. officers know that, and we have been trained that way

in the academy. they need more training. no, he needs to be fired. he does not need more training. we have more training @booktv adelle want to say that, but the point is we have all of this training. so we understand. the culture has gotten to such a way that america does need to see what you do. you should not have a problem with us seeing what you do because that is your job, to serve and protect the public. the public should know exactly what you're doing, and we can make the call. then we have the stop taking the accountability out of the policeman's hands and put it into a private organization. something that has teeth. something other than the police determining whether they messed up or not. that is my view on that.

>> and with that i would like to kick it over to our audience for questions with a reminder to our online televised audiences that you can tweet any questions using hashtag #medialunch. >> to questions. number one, the technology coming down the line, you would have a vast camera for the average citizen. and so i am sure there are rules about that. let's say everyone is walking around with a button that has a camera on it and audio and is able to record every aspect of your life, including interaction with officers. what are their rules about that? would think that is a great opportunity to talk about what we can and cannot record. secondly, if i have not had problems with the police in my entire life and have

never been incarcerated or done drugs or anything that would be considered egregious in terms of breaking a law, am i still considered a black man? >> the main question there was common sense technology is moving in a direction in which private citizens can have cameras that potentially not everyone can see in there will be likely rules and regulations around what constitutes invasions of other people's privacy and public space while wearing one of those cameras , can those rules than be transposed into on body camera policies for police officers. >> i think we already have a framework for that. the term is reasonable expectation of privacy. the states that i described that have the all party consent laws work essentially created for prevention of wiretapping, people reporting what should be confidential and presumably confidential conversations from being put in public or used to

blackmail. so i think that we have, you know, that's from work. a lawyer and a client in an office, certainly if they are recording, they should be obligated to tell the other person that they are recording and give their consent. [inaudible question] >> there will certainly be a lot of awkwardness. and i can appreciate that police officers right now are trying to get used to the idea that they are almost like celebrities and it is almost like a proper runcie's. and a lot of celebrities are not comfortable with that, but ultimately the court has come down on the side of the first amendment right to record so long as you are not putting a camera and an

off-duty officers window. clearly you have the right to open late, keyword openly record the police and public the other more obvious operative word, you cannot just be pointing at into their bedroom and bathroom. >> i concur with what steve just said, but about being a black man. i guess never having any encounters with the police, would that change your race, absolutely not. we are just saying that there is an overwhelming disparity in how police operate when it comes down to people of color, and that is just statistics. but not every person of color has been, you know, have any type of encounter with the police or some type of negative encounter. >> one last thing about that. i think some of us have been raised a certain weight, and

it has benefited us. and if you have good parents and are fortunate enough to understand principles they're is a way you conduct yourself regardless of skin color in public. if you do get pulled over their is a way you talk to the police that is likely to garner respect. and so far it has worked for me. that is all i can say. >> and i understand that, but i know all lot of guys that were very respectful, nice, everything -- excuse me. everything you can think of to the policeman but wanted to make an arrest and was looking for a way to make an arrest. and i have seen victims behind stuff like that. he knew that if he did that to you he could get away with it because the money would cost you to fight it and try to appeal it, everything you would go through, most people don't have those resources.

so they just go along. there are some people you pull over and do the wrong thing to, trust me, you will hear it on city hall, but most of these folks, they know their rights. you have guys who say to the officer, i don't have to tell you that. i don't have to step out of the vehicle, and of the story. if you got step out of that vehicle in know what's going to happen, you'll probably get a taser. i'm just saying, this is the real world. even though you may know it is not right, you do what the officer tells you to do. >> i met a guy, dear friend, who was a police captain in a s.w.a.t. team in a major u.s. city, retired. and they ask why was working on. i said police misconduct of the rights of individuals. and he said -- i told him

about refusing to answer questions. and as a rule what would happen if someone did that to you. and i swear i had just met him. he just looked around the room and was like, are there any african-americans around here? just with every bit of condescension as if he would say something else. and my friend informed him that my father was, in fact, black. and he was like, well, anyway, we would shake them down anyway and tell them to go about their business interests and up a little bit. ..

>> >> to make sure any material that is taken but if not outside of that talking about going into the house to say somebody rob the house. then they go back to look at the film. then they realize they go back later then issue the warrants originally there in the house to help you but then come back to sir jack.

>> to literally sitting home with a large screen that had a body camera that you can listen in. i just don't know if we will see that in our lifetime i've got no if we have that level. if we have accountability. to have the independent review board with the ability touse subpoena the timeline of events that are disputed to be easily

excessive lead minimum. >> briefly at the think any video that depicts the incident would be admissible. now maybe from that video not necessarily in trial by with think of any video or and incident it would be admissible. >> what i think we have missed is the militarization of police and the reason it has put a lot of power in the police hands with conduct but not a remedy that fact policies police

officers don't know how to use the weapons are the tools it is evident and it is interesting what you have to say. >> the question was about organization with access to military equipment and the police department and what could be looked at. >> in response to your question we're trained how to use it does what he my was on we had the equipment

that was upgraded stuff we would not necessarily need in a public forum or a situation but the purpose to bring that equipment was to intimidate to show the forces is what we will have and we will use it to. and the gear that they were wearing with the upgraded weapons but again we don't need to use the weapons. if you have a situation with assault weapons i would come

in with the m-1 tank if i could but with that situation is different and then they throw out the molotov cocktail to be honest i would venture to say that i don't know. i just feel for that. and then to steer the public to make them that is about 10 people. and even the solution was that the president gave a

comment about where they put into a situation like that? >> one of the things we agree that the money comes free from the government but also we have local budgets where we have a spot to train these guys and maintain the equipment but we never use them. so wide repay all this money? and then they think we'll just put the amount. but it would take a

full-scale reorganization of priorities because with the city budget will pay for it then if it is disbanded. >> but about the localities are independent review boards will drop the hand written submission is that has freed people from reports that there is no reason to submit the misconduct reports. >> i feel that he threw me a soft ball. >> a question was because

many different police departments for the misconduct report requires a handwritten report so what about the process? >> i actually want to talk about filing reports. first of all, if you are mistreated as a new victim of police misconduct the police were just rude and use profanity you want to report that. most police departments don't have a very pretty website to do it right here. but we have a decent for a

system but there is a complaint for accommodation. that is super. it is good if you have of getting counter i guess. but the other thing is the energy to come down to the station for mediation. if you were a victim of serious brutality this is the worst thing you can do is to file especially if there are charges which is almost always by the case if it is physical. assaulting a police officer saw you first want to deal with the criminal charges to take legal action so always

always always do it with a lawyer also situations and videos where reporters will send somebody and in the police officer will try button talk them on a better even to interrogate their name and address and birth stage to make a very intimidating to do so. so what we're doing now and developing independent online police misconduct reporting service see don't have to go against the police department to file. that you can share if it is appropriate that is something we are currently developing.

>> on the back end their needs to be accountability. sometimes there is easier access the average person does not pursue that but it should be automatic on a contingency basis. so they don't have those. and some of this is more controversial but the grand jury becoming more independent and not controlled by the attorney general. >> the question is is there more room for civilian oversight for police misconduct?

>> actually this civilian review board you'd have voice been in that format where to suggest maybe not suggest that before those solutions the civil-rights attorney. i think the courts should appoint any sign there is a complaint there should be an attorney appointed to the

person. and then there is the witness protection program. i am telling you that is the very reason for governments to prosecute you have to make than uranus he the same thing for police officers and in telling you here and now it is like friendly fire its people angry your support its behind you you may wind up with a friendly

fire. i experienced it and the with every armed suspects then baltimore those white guys when i found my discrimination and i and the inspector in charge he did not ask them given memo if he does not know you are here. and then i get a phone call he will pull the task force back if i did not lock those fugitive's up soon. i locked him up within three hours.

rearrest these guys there on the 15 most wanted list. you charged with insubordination to know where he told me? let's let bygones be got bygones if they beat the heck data somebody that bad when the gun was on a really was not on rigo with a litany of things. most jurors will believe them. so those other officers know

but don't leave me hanging out here. we need a protection for law enforcement officers. >> want to follow-up the challenge to file a civil rights lawsuit and then i was nauseous it was into my head the idea of the long road that exist someone that is considering filing essentially have very few with that clear intent that

violates the law the way to get that information. >> even with a whistle-blower even with racial profiling you need to have that inside information. he does fileted -- face police misconduct the most powerful thing they can do not too many people are filing misconduct reports. >> so i've recommended for anybody who wants to know

more about it. where the film is involved the presumptions those to use the defendant excuse me. sova they say this officer hit me upside the head where is the body camera? it was not functioning it was not there. then the default goes to the client i don't know how you institute that. that would make it easier for people. ; will take a clarification question from twitter. a little bit on the foyer process.

to its citizens? >> i am not a lawyer budget i don't know why california would not release there's to make it fully public but against a citizen you have to show some sort of cost. >> with that we are out of

time. please give an applause to our guests today. [applause] thanks for tuning in on line. i hope to see them on december 5th with the alcohol prohibition