severe means that an attack is highly likely. the point he makes is important. we should continue to do everything that we can to keep the trade in weapons including replica weapons out of britain. a lot of action has been taken. we need to keep up the pressure. >> alexander? >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm ashamed to think this summer many of us will swim in the sea where people have drowned because they're fleeing war, violence and poverty. is the reason why the uk is failing to take its fair share of refugees because this government finds human suffering

easier to bear if it is just made someone else's problem. >> i don't agree with the honorable lady. britain is fulfilling its moral obligations by picking up those people, 4,000 people. question ear one of the only rich countries in the world that's kept its budget about the aid budget. but do i think that it is somehow the correct act to be part of a relocation scheme for people who already arrived in the eu, no i do not. because i believe it would add to the business models of the smugglers. so the idea that you can only have a moral upright position on this if you take part in a european scheme that i believe to be misguided i think is just wrong. >> richard dracks. >> thank you. i'm delighted to report that arnold, his girlfriend and their

family were on the fateful beach and at the time of the shooting were offered shelter by a local tunisian in his house. would my friend agree with me that shows the courage of the tunisian people? >> many exam. s of this courage and kindness, it's good that they're coming out. >> mr. gwen. >> on the kpurpian council, specifically on the issue of migration, did the prime minister did the opportunity to discuss with other european leaders the situation and does he think that the eu's proposals for relocation will help or hinder the efforts there? >> the short answer is they won't make any short-term impact but in the long term they might make it worse by encouraging

more people to make the journey. i did have a discussion with the home secretary and he's meeting later this week. there's more that we're going to in terms of spending money, providing fencing and other action including sniffer dog teams and the like to help the french and work together with them to reduce the problems. >> thank you. as part of our prevent strategy we ban hate preachers from coming to the uk. sadly their message is being direct to our young people by social media but also by satellite directed to certain mosques and community centers. what further action are my friend take to prevent this from happening? >> i think my friend makes an important point. we can ban the peachers but we've got to look at their use of media some of the individual television channels and make sure that where there are messages endorsing extreme uchl

and violence that we have a way of stopping them. i think this is very important. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the day before this terrible incident many my constituency, a someone was convicted of a machete accident. could the prime minister just generally look at -- i welcome what he said but could he look at with the internet providers and see how we could stop that type of information being used in people's bedrooms where the lone wolves can use that? >> i will certainly do that with the internet watch foundation we've acted to take down awe lt of pages of extremism. but the point he makes is an important one.

the argue about violent and nonviolent extremism also apply to the extreme right. we'll never condone that we'll tolerate the national front but go after combat. we shouldn't do it when it comes to islamist fascism either. >> honorable lady rightly highlighted the appalling treatment of gay people and of women by whose to subscribe to the evil pleef. is there not something powerfully symbolic that it is a female british home secretary in the aftermath of the attack is standing in solidarity with them in tunisia today? >> i think actually the role of women was a very important one in moving that country towards the democratic future we hope it continues. >> davis. >> can i give me best wish to

matthew james as well, the engineer who took three bullets in protecting his fiancee. but can i say that in talking with the imams in shia and sunni from bangladesh pakistan, from iraq, there is one in saying that the daesh are imposters, gangsters, murderers, blas fee mers and will he work side by side with the muslims in the community and give them the resources they need to combat radicalization. it's our probe and together we must solve it together. >> i think the way the honorable gentleman put it is exactly right. they have a role to play and we should help them. the relevance of the mosque to young muslims when sometimes it can seem less rel vabt to their lives.

we need to address the whole issue to make sure the imams have good english when they're dealing with the radicalized people. >> the prime minister sid he would put a common market at a half of the membership. and i'm sure the british people and myself will be shoulder to shoulder with him on that. why is it that this british media says she can't do that when i know he won't except anything less than reform and a common market. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his support and say i want to continue this close union as as long as possible. >> we hope and pray for the safe return of ray and angela fisher. generally in the region does the prime minister agree that

daesh -- can he tell us what he's doing to build an affected united front against daesh. >> let me join him in wishing his constituents well. in terms of building an a united front, there's a coalition that includes many arab and gulf countries and we need to keep the coalition together because all of us bring different things in that country. they will bring them away from daesh and belief in an integrated government. >> i'm afraid we have no question with preamble but if colleagues are willing to immate the honable exam pofl their friend, i shall endeavor the honorable gentleman sitting there beaming, i shall do my best to accommodate them. mr. henry smith. >> following last friday's

terrorists attack in tunisia john and janet stocker my constituents are still unaccounted for. can i have assurances from my friend that all nhs records that may be required by the tunisian authorities to identify those victims will be made available? >> i can certainly give him that assurance. we have victim identification specialists and police officers out working with the tunisian authorities on exactly this sort of issue. >> in the midst of this tragedy, would the prime minister join me in commending all of those who went about their business this weekend, particularly those who went and supported or armed forces events. >> i certainly do that. i was delighted to join the armed forces day parade. there was an enormous turnout. >> steve bryan. >> thank you.

can i just ask in talking with the tunisian authorities who conversations's had about the domestic security response that people traveling to the coastal region can expect. many people are making the decisions the next days and already want to know more. >> what i can assure my old friend is that we are talking to them right now in the home secretary is in tunisia talking to make sure our offer of help with security is taken on board. and i think it's very important that it is. >> gentleman frye. >> would my friend agree that the bravery of the uk and tunisian citizens aside each other is a sign that they cannot win both to fight it together and provide the hope of which you've spoken. >> i my my old friend is absolutely right. this is going to take resolve and patience and determination against gofls and people. >> just as we need to do all we can to disrupt vile propaganda, does the prime minister agree that it's time for mainstream

broadcast and print media to review their editorial policies and stop publishing stills and instead let's see the faces of those tunisians who stood arm in arm to protect -- >> i think my friend makes an important part. the media has to exercise their own view about the social media and what they should and shouldn't publish. i hope the bbc is look again at calling this organization an islamic state. call it's l or daesh but don't give it the dignity which it's asking for. >> as somebody fres father was an i mom, grandmother and uncle is an imam i think the values going hand in hand. does the prime minister agree with me that each and every one of us has a due toy to challenge

the nonviolent extremism in our country? >> my old friend speaks with great knowledge on this issue. the short answer is yes. members of parliament can play a role in shifting this debate on this vital issue. >> i would like to join the prime minister of the brave efforts. on the ground brave pesh merger forces are taking on daesh. now is the time fsh the pesh merg pesh merger forces to be armed. >> i'll look into the issue of funding baghdad. we're helping with the forces with training and support. >> i wu welcoming the extension. are we still not open to some criticism of too little too late for those fleeing pers caution? >> i think if you look across what we do, taking a five the

ten-year view in terms of how many people we've been aie lum too, i think on that basis we can say we play our part. >> will the prime minister awe agree with me that it is fundamental that we retake complete sovereignty over control of our british borders if we're to prevent this'dology from creeping on to our shores. >> i think what calley demonstrates is the importance in the age of ferries and euro tunnels and the rest of it that we work with our partners in order to deliver the security we need. >> tell the house what steps are being taken to ensure that intelligence is properly shared by national security organizations in middle eastern countries that should be allied in the task of tackling these terrorist atrocities. >> we are sharing intelligence. obviously we have different relations with different countries but the more we build up trust, the more we're able to

do this. >> in relation to safety here at home, would the prime minister agree that where the security services identify people who are threats and where those people are here illegally, would the prime minister agree that we should as a matter of priority deport them? >> i absolutely agree with that and that is one of the reasons that we want to alter the arrangements in the human rights act which can sometimes get in the way of these arrangements. >> morris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i share the sentiments of what the other prime ministers said about the families. given what's going on in that particular region with people trafficking and coming across the water, would by old friend the prime minister consider beefing up the resources to help to combat terrorism and to move people around when needed? >> i'll certainly look at the point my honorable friend makes. enormous pressure has been put

on them. >> speaker, on wednesday my con tich went due to travel to the beach resort where the massacre took place. her tour operates low cost holidays have agreed to wave the 7-day cancellation fees. can my friend comment to what the government can do in relation to alternative bookings? >> well what we've done is encourage the tour operator to treat people properly and to be fair to them. they have offered people consolation without penalty and their money back. but the specific points you make perhaps i'll ask the foreign office team to take that up. >> i'd offer my tribute to bruce wilson who lost his life on friday. the dignity of that family is a credit to mr. wilkinson and in stark contrast to those who committed such a crime. can we ensure that the

bereavement support will go on for many months. and i can join the members saying we do need to chaung what we call these terrorists. they are not an islamic state. >> well let me join my tribute to bruce wilkinson in the way his family has handled this terrible tragedy. the point he makes about islamic state is well made. and on the issue of making sure that we continue with help whereby part of that will be how we commemorate and remember the dreadful events. we're just coming up to the anniversary of 7/7 and that's a reminder of how important it is that we mark these things properly. relatives go on mourning for years and decades into the future. >> with regard to the desperate and growing wave of human hisry that is taking to the mediterranean in leaky boats from the north african show

what advice has the government and the european union taken from the australian government about the successful way to tackle large scale organized sea form human trafficking? >> we have looked to what the australians have done and looked to what the spanish did with respect to migration where one year they sefz 36000 migrants. and just a few years later that was down to zero. they broke the business model of the smugglers and found a way of returning people to those african states. that i think is the model we need to adopt. it's obviously more complicated in this case but that is the long term answer. cuba is the first country in the world to be recognized by the world health organization for eliminating mother to child transmission of hiv and syphilis. cuba's public health minister will discuss what the country did to make that happen live at

10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. then more about cuba. president obama will announce the opening of the cuban embassy in washington and a u.s. embassy in havana. we'll have that live on c-span at 11:00 a.m. eastern. after a number of high profile shootings of citizens by police officers, some lawmakers and civil advocates suggested body worn cameras could deter the overly aggressive police behavior. the brennan center hosted a delegation looking at the liberties. this is about an hour and a half.

good afternoon and welcome. i'm nicole austin hillary director and council of the walking off of the brennan center for justice. i'm happy to see you this afternoon for an important discussion on candid cameras. the impact of body cameras on privacy law enforcement and community policing. we know we're at an extremely important moment at this time in our country with the intersection of law enforcement, race, politics, constitutional rights. and we know it's an important moment for those of us in the advocacy community to be thought leaders on these issues. we're pleased to be hosting this conversation today. this conversation was really the brain child of my colleague rachel levinson waldman who is one of the panelist, part of our liberty and national security

program at the brennan center. for those of you not as familiar with us and what we do, the brennan center is a national legal advocacy think tank strategic communications organization. i know that's a mouthful. we like to do what we call fix the broken parts of our systems of democracy and justice. we work on issues with the liberty and security issues dealing with policing, privacy, civil liberties and civil rights as well as voting rights, fair courts, money and politics and issues of justice with respect to our criminal justice system. we use those tools of advocacy, litigation, research and advocacy to try to fix the broken systems in democracy and justice. as part of that work we host conversations like this where we try to engage you, interested individuals and stakeholders whom we know can be a part of

our efforts to make reforms and basically problem solve. again, thank you for being with us this afternoon. i am going to quickly introduce our moderator for today's discussion, and then she will take it away and begin the conversation with our panelists. we will be joined today, and we are happy to be joined today by tanzina vega, digital correspondent for cnn politics where she covers the intersection of technology, politics and civil rights. prior to beginning her work at cnn, she was a staff reporter for "the new york times" where she covered digital media and advertising for the business section, race and ethnicity for the national section and the new york city courts for the metro section. she was also a web producer for the times and joined the paper in 2006 as a news clerk and a stringer. she began her career at cmp media which is a technology and trade magazine publisher where she was a research editor and helped pioneer the company's first podcast. one of the things about her background that i'm particularly

impressed with as an npr junkie, as i'm sure many of you are in this room but the code switch included tanzina in their journalists of color to watch. "huffington post" listed her as one of the 40 top latinos in american media. we're pleased to have her help us this discussion today. without further ado, i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you, nicole and thanks to everyone for being here today. before we introduce the panel, i just got back from camden, new jersey, which used to be one of the most dangerous cities in america. in addition to the surveillance cameras and the audio recorders and the license plate readers that the department is about to deploy more than 300 body cameras in september. crime rates in the city as a result have been drastically reduced through what officials say is a combination of technology and old school policing. camden is not alone. we live in a world of video everywhere, from youtube to cell

phones, we're inundated with a constant stream of media. the power to create media is in the hands of citizens. michael brown, tamir rice, freddy gray are just a few of the names of victims of police brutality that might have otherwise gone unnoticed had it not been for someone recording or snapping a photo on their cell phone. many police departments around the country are realizing they, too, want to record video to increase transparency, and also to protect themselves. but the solutions are not that simple. today's panel will help us uncover some of the complexities involved with implementing this emerging technology. i'd like to introduce our panel. jay stanley, a senior policy analyst at the aclu. then jim bueermann, president of the police foundation. next to jim we have andrea richie, senior policy council of street wise and safe. and at the end of the row, last but not least, rachel levinson waldmen senior council at the brennan center for justice.

thank you all for being here today. so to start off, i think it helps to talk a little bit about the scope of body cameras and penetration of body cameras. does anyone have a sense for how many body cameras are out there, what the percentages are? i mean, this is something we hear called for consistently. but i think it's hard to give a scope to some of our listeners and readers today. where are we with that? and how long before we actually get to full penetration of body cameras in the united states? anyone. >> well, the last surveys that i saw, which may be about a year or more old, suggested about 25% of the 17,000 or so police departments in the u.s., about 25% of them had some or were -- had some body cameras at least and 80% of the departments were considering adopting them. but we know that uptake of this technology has been happening very quickly.

i wouldn't be surprised if 10 or 15 or 20 years it becomes a standard piece of equipment on every uniformed police officer. >> so we're definitely heading in that direction it seems. what are some of the examples where this is working? there are some cities and states that have implemented body cameras that seem to have more success than others. i'll throw a couple of examples. seattle perhaps is implementing -- i think it's held up as one of the most forward thinking perhaps. los angeles, texas, different areas with mixed reactions. where would you say are some areas that should be held as positive examples or good examples where this is working and some that might be a little bit less? >> i think it's important to ask the question, what do you mean by "it's working." how we perceive this issue is

dependent, i think in large part, on where we stand on the issue. i'm from southern california. that's where my policing career was. and a community near my hometown, the realto police department is often quoted as doing their own randomized control trial with those body cameras which has its own remarkable attributes that a police department on their own would do that. they found dramatic decreases in officer use of force and complaints. so if those are the metrics that we want to use, that is highly suggestive that that's working. there have been other studies that may not have had the same kind of numbers but certainly had decreases in officer use of force and complaints. and so as we think about that on some 5,000 foot level, that sounds like a great thing and i would submit that it is. what we don't know conclusively is why that's happening. why did those numbers go down? is it because the cameras -- there's nothing magical about

these little boxes the cops wear. they're just a little thing, right? they could have done this a long time ago. so is there a civilizing effect that occurs when officers wear those because both they -- and if they tell the person they're interacting with they're wearing the body camera, is it the same phenomena that occurs that when we were kids and we knew that our parents were watching. and if we're in the classroom and the teacher is looking at us we'll behave better. is it something as simple as that or something that relates to other transparency and accountability. and i don't think we know. seattle, as we speak now, is finishing a summit on body wham ras and certainly have pushed the envelope in terms of things like transparency. so if that's how you -- and privacy issues. if that's how you measure success for them, i would hold them up because they're pushing out the images, not in realtime, but pretty close to it on their youtube channel that are blurred

as a way of kind of massive redaction in protecting people's privacy. and so i think people should pay a lot of attention to what they're up to right now because when you begin to, as you said earlier, unpack this issue, you find there are so many issues involving body cameras beyond what we thing there are, everything from privacy to storage, the practical nature, rising expectations. >> i want to piggyback on what jim was saying and how we kicked off the comments. it depends on what we mean by working. issues of use of force going down, arresting going down. there is a study just came out from mesa, arizona, similar to rialto, a set of police officers who volunteered to wear cameras, a set of police officer told to wear cameras and a set that wasn't wearing them at all. it was a comparison of what does their day look like, what are their interactions with the public. similar findings in terms of use of force.

also found the citations given, the number of citations given went up which could be a good thing or a bad thing. then you have to figure out, do you want more citations? the theory is that officers were worried that if there were circumstances where before they would exercise discretion about giving citations, now there might be somebody looking over their shoulder, a supervisor looking over their shoulder saying, you could have given a citation out for whatever it was and you didn't. so those went up. i think there's also, to some extent, a kind of ineffable piece, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out, about what it means generally for the relationship between the officer and the department and the community as a whole. does it help the relationship in some ways, in many ways if uses of force are going down. how does it affect the relationship if there are more citations, but also, how does it affect the relationship to have this camera mediating those interactions in a variety of

ways. and that, i think, is probably something we don't know the answer to yet although we're getting anecdotes from different communities about what that feels like. >> before we started this, i had asked on twitter if people had questions that they wanted the panel to ask. sort of piggybacking off that, one of the questions came from a twitter user who said, how do the cops themselves feel? my brother quit the force and this was a big factor in doing so. i'm just curious. jim, maybe you can weigh in on that. are officers themselves concerned about this? are they giving more citations because they feel pressure from police administrators to implement this? does it make them feel perhaps more secure or more nervous? >> this is a very complicated issue that i wish i had a simple answer to. but the answer is it depends. one thing we don't spend a lot of time studying and policing

research is the policing culture. it's the culture, not only overall, but more specifically the individual department culture that drives a lot of how officers feel about their work, how they perceive their work, do they feel does the administration, the police chief and their supervisors support them and how things are messaged. one of the things around mesa, what's the organizational culture like and the temperament. we talk a lot in policing. i think the most important issue in policing is this issue of police legitimacy and procedural justice. when we talk about that, for instance, and you talk to police officers and say we want you to do that, they'll go, okay, chief, you want us to do this externally, when are you going to do it internally. cops have their own perspective of how they're treated internally, in terms of the

disciplinary process and how things are messaged internally. if the leadership of the department is good in terms of messaging, what's in it for the officer because they're much more likely to say i need that if for no other reason it's going to support my assertion i did the right thing, a way of proving i did the right thing. if it's not messaged correctly, cops will say this is another way for you to monday morning quarterback that very tough decision i had to make in a split second and now i'm going to get hammered. you get into the notion of depolicing where the officers saying i'm doing what i have to do, in the furtherance of my job trying to protect you, you might prosecute me and take away my livelihood and my ability to take care of my family. my experience has been that police officers understand the value of having a recording

device. in my department we had audio recording devices for my whole career. they understood the value of using those because it almost always exonerated the officers. there were instances where it didn't and actually supported the complainant's position on that. but we didn't have problems around the discipline related to that. and i think that some officers are going to say this is terrible and i'm getting out of the business because of it, but a lot of people say it is just the way it is now. as you said a moment ago, in five years this will be standard -- in my opinion, this will be as ubiquitous in a police officers equipment as handcuffs or radio or handgun. it's just going to be part of the job. >> one of the things we often here is this changes behavior on both sides of the camera. it seems to be affecting police behavior. is it changing community behavior? do communities feel -- do people

feel more -- are they aware that this is happening? we're constantly surveilled. in camden there are 120 surveillance cameras in the city alone that constantly are feeding video into a centralized database? does it change behavior on the other side of the camera, for the police officers and the policed, if you will, or the communities they're trying to protect? >> one level is yes. it's obvious and some of the studies back up there's this civilizing effect which to any sort of person who is steeped in privacy and civil liberties is a slightly spooky term. but the deeper question is, you know, what does that look like and what's the shape of that. it's too early to feel the full sociological effects of this. i think it is true, for better or worse, there are more and more cameras, government-run surveillance cameras which we

oppose which watch people whether anybody is present or not. everybody is carrying a video camera in their pocket, on their bicycle helmets, car dashboard and so forth when you're being watched all the time, that's not a good thing for the american public and our public spaces. there will be chilling effects. it might take a while for people to realize how undersurveillanced they are. it may have chilling effects on american life. when you're in the presence of a uniformed police officer, you're already pretty chilled most of the time. you're going to watch yourself in a little bit. in some ways those cameras probably have less chilling effects than most cameras, as opposed to a camera sitting up there and you and your lover are the only two people on the street and there's some camera watching you, that's a completely different kettle of fish. so one of the reasons that we have not been totally against

body cameras -- we're against them if the policies aren't good. but the reason we're willing to accept them p the policies are good is that you're in front of a uniformed police officer and if you do something illegal and there's no camera, you're going to go into court and the officer is going to say i saw him do that. you're going to say i didn't do it. it's still your word against the officer. the officer's word is always going to win. uniformed officer against an accused criminal. now there's a video. if you did something illegal instead of just the officer's word, now they have video to back it up. how much of a difference is that? versus, now if the officer is lying, you have some protection. >> i think that there's some question -- at streetwise and safe we focus and work with youth of color who are obviously some of the populations who are -- the population that's most targeted by discriminatory policing practices body cameras are intended to protect. we specifically work with

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth of color who have experienced homelessness. they're a population at the intersection of a lot of different kinds of discrimination including discriminatory policing. and we've had a lot of conversations about body cameras and this question of will it actually prevent police misconduct, will it prevent the kinds of policing practices they experience on a day-to-day basis. i think they're clear on documentation, but will it prevent things. for them and for many people who are in the larger coalition that we're part of in new york city, united for police reform, there's more questions than answers. and i think particularly you're talking to a community that just watched two police officers choke a man to death on camera knowing they were being filmed, that watched police officers put a seven-month black pregnant woman on a choke hold on camera, knowing they were being watched. can find on youtube countless videos of police officers engaging in abusive behavior.

i think they have really solid questions about whether this really changing the police officer character. they heard from new orleans, a police officer turned up their body camera, walked up to someone, shot them, and turn it back on again. and i think they really have questions about what the policies are going to be and how the programs will play out before they feel confident that it will actually change police officer behavior towards them and think there's still a lot more questions and answers. a lot of cost-benefit analysis that needs to be undertaken as well. >> oftentimes we hear it's communities of color and lower income communities that are the runs more heavily policed and will be more heavily surveilled. is that something you're hearing as well in terms of being a concern for the use of these body cameras? >> very much so. i think people are particularly concerned about the impacts of surveillance given who they are

and what it looks like, for instance, when in washington state the video is almost livestreamed on youtube. if you're a young queer person of color who appears in a particular way, perhaps in a particular context where you feel safe, you don't necessarily want that same footage up on the internet where others might see it who might not be as familiar with you appearing in a particular way. also a concern in washington state was vice raids that went up on the internet. and don't get me wrong. vice raids are a context where tremendous abuse takes place. there is a desire to document that police violence, but it's also a tremendous invasion of privacy. and then to have that footage up on the internet is of triple concern. there's now people who are accused of engaging in

prostitution who were half-clothed in the videos whose videos are up on the internet for anyone to see. i think that's a particular concern folks have. i think the broader surveillance concern, particularly for homeless people who have nowhere else to go and who are constantly in public space. >> can i add on one other piece, just in terms of the contribution of the cameras to accountability, and this is maybe playing off something that jay had said, which is that as we know, what the camera is capturing is what the officer is seeing. it's capturing the officer's behavior only insofar as the officer is saying something or the person recording reacts to something that the officer is doing. you might be able to reach -- obviously would capture something like the sound of a gunshot, things like that. but it's a fairly narrow view -- i've watched a couple of videos from body cameras. depending on where it's warn,

sometimes you're looking at somebody's chest, you can't make out the whole area. i think probably from a privacy and civil liberties standpoint, we have a broader concern about a camera showing a really panoramic view or something that somehow enabled a top-down. but i think it does also speak to the limitations of what you're getting from a camera, a narrow view, and it is really of the person having the intersection of the police officer and not the police officer themselves. >> i do feel that a lot of the examples you gave where there has been accountability, people felt there was some success in being recorded, was community-based recording, what jay was saying about everybody having a camera in their pocket, creating a culture where if there's interaction going down, that people feel concerned about, that we all start recording. there's also questions about what happens with that footage and we need to come up with some agreements about how that is used. i think that feels like a different experience of achieving maybe the same result.

>> it's important that policies are put in place that turn this analogy into one that is an accountability tool and that will shift power to protect communities, especially communities that have bad relationships with their police departments. and there's a real danger that these cameras would become just another means of police exerting power, if they have complete control over which videos get releases, which is a big battle we're beginning to fight right now. a lot of the police departments that support the body cameras want complete control over what gets released. the inevitable result will be when an officer saves a baby from downing, the video will be on the news. but when the officer does something dodgey, they'll keep that under wraps. and also, you know, it's important that other policies be good as well in terms of when the recording is taking place and so forth. i think the suspicions of the clients that you work with may be well-founded. i think if good policies are put in place, they can be a good thing and they can be dealt

with. but we are seeing departments where they have good body camera policies, but they're not enforced. so an officer is supposed to be turning it on but doesn't turn it on and shoots somebody and then says, i didn't have it on and there's no consequences or discipline to that officer, in those cases body cameras are not going to be a good thing. >> is there a consensus of when you turn it on, when you turn it off? is there sort of a broadbased -- or as broad as can be agreement, it should be on 90% of your shift, or if it should be on 90% of your shift or 100% of my shift and i have a tip for you and i don't want to be filmed or i have a sensitive situation, a domestic abuse situation, are there or should there be times when the officer should be allowed to turn it off? do i as the person with the tip or with the sensitive case, do i have the power to tell the officer can you turn it off?

you know, when do you turn on, when do you turn off? >> there's two answers to that. i think it's fair to say there's a broad consensus the cameras should be turned on whenever an officer is involved in a law enforcement action or call for service or any kind of encounter that becomes hostile in any way. there have been some proposals -- and we initially called for this, that basically all interactions with the citizens be taped. it's not really happening. i don't see many departments doing that. we have actually backed off that because the privacy consequences are much worse. there is a danger that, if you give police utter discretion to turn it on and turn it off, they'll turn it off engage in abuse and turn it back on again, edit on the fly. it's important police officers not have discretion but have clear rules about when the video is expected to be on. we have called for officers having -- you know, turning it off if they're interviewing a crime victim, if the crime victim wants it up, entering a private home. if they're doing a s.w.a.t.

raid, we want them on because there are so many abuses in s.w.a.t. raids. or if they are, you know, getting a crime tip from somebody who wants to whisper to the officer and doesn't want it on video, those are reasonable exceptions. you know, if the officer is in line to get doughnuts and wants to chat with people in the community, there's no reason for the camera to be on in that situation. >> i think this highlights who is missing from this panel right now, i have to tell you, our elected officials. so much of this is driven by what state law says or what the mayor says. if i was a mayor and i had a police chief who turned off the camera, shot somebody and turned it back on, i would be looking for a new police chief. so i think this highlights the role of elected officials in laying down state legislation, number one. but also highlights the difficulty for police officers who tend to be very pragmatic in their orientation. just tell me what the rule is.

so right now we're talking about privacy versus transparency. what do you want me to do? do you want me to turn it on all the time or keep it off all the time? i don't think it makes any sense to film victims of crimes. certainly if there's an enforcement activity on the part of the officer, you have to have the camera running because those things can go sideways in two seconds. but if you wanted to tell me about somebody committing a crime or if i'm interviewing you and you're a crime victim, i don't think that camera has any business running. there will be advancements in the technology that automate some of this. in other words, if i pull my gun, my holster would be a smart holster communicating with the camera. i pull my gun and it turns on the camera. if i pull my taser, it turns on the camera. if it has voice recognition capability, if certain key words are used, the camera comes on. you can avoid some of this do i

turn the camera on or off because there is a practicality reality for police officers when they're involved in enforcement activity that the last thing on their mind is pushing that button to turn it on. they're looking at a person, thinking if there's any chance that person might harm them, that's what they're going to focus on first. if we can find a way to automate that and take that off them, that turns them on. other things have nothing to do with the technology with this accountability stuff, turning them on or off and doing all of that. whether we like it or not, all of us have to accept the fact that police officers need a certain level of discretion to do their job. and that discretion and what happens or doesn't happen in terms of transparency issues, retention issues and all that are set in the law. the cops follow what the law is. and if you don't like the law, then the people you need to be taking to are the state legislators to try to get them to change that, and that drives the behavior of the police in large part. there are other issues. you know, it's not that simplistic.

there are other things, i think, the police have been -- the blame for some of these issues have been laid at the front door of the police. i'm not sure where they should be. they should be come place. change the law if that's the problem. >> no doubt. i think one thing there is consensus about across the board is there needs to be, given all the questions, a very thoughtful process before jumping into, as you call it, full penetration. in the wake of the incidents you mentioned and many others, people have sort of in grasping for solutions that would prevent things that many people feel were terrible abuses of people's rights, were sort of reaching for a solution. a company that makes tasers offered one up in terms of body cameras. we want to think about where that's coming from. but i think the uniform -- or at least there's consensus now that we need a broad consultation process. the police executive research forum says once an agency goes down the road of employing

cameras, it's increasingly difficult to scale them back. we need public consultation processes about issues of discretion, around issues of consent, around issues of access to footage, obviously around issues of purposes of footage, evidentiary concerns. as you say, those are in the domain of lawmakers, freedom of information. there's so much in there, what exceptions there might be around domestic violence instances, instances in people's private homes, instances in vice operations, but also some undercover operations around enforcement of lewd conduct statutes is another issue of concern for lgbt communities. domestic violence is an issue of concern of lgbt communities in terms of filming responses. i understand police officers feel those are the more dangerous things to respond to. how do we balance it with the privacy of people who are, one, experiencing some of the most difficult and challenging moments of their lives and secondly may have other privacy concerns in those situations.

there needs to be so much public conversation around this before we jump head long into something that could have so many unintended consequences for all stakeholders on all sides of this issue including police officers. >> can i add an empirical point to the conversation. one is related to jim's point about police officers wanting to know when am i supposed to turn this on. again, the study from mesa, arizona, one of the interesting things they found is if there's basically a requirement that cameras are turned on, 80% of the cameras are turned on or during 80% of those interactions that policy is complied with. if it's discretionary they're turned on 50% of the time which suggests when police officers are given guidance, in these nine circumstances, they go on, then by an large they go on. the other thing is we've been looking at comparing the policies out there. most jurisdictions that are using body cameras are in the pilot project phase. most of them have published policies. we have looked at the guidance that perf, police executive

research foundation put out and different jurisdictions around the country in terms of when they're supposed to go on. i was expecting that most of the jurisdictions would follow the perf guidance which lists a variety of kinds of interactions. there's a decent amount of variation, not widely, but different cities, different departments have decided on different times when the cameras will be turned on which may be totally appropriate. there may be different needs in a given situation. this may be the laboratories of democracy that the states and cities provide to see, okay, how does it play out in terms of effectiveness and community relationships in this scenario, this scenario, this scenario. right now there is some variation across the country in terms of when they're triggered. >> one more thing, i also think what's critical as much as a

consultation process on the front end is a consultation process and evaluation on the back end that takes into account all these things, including the primary purpose of changing behavior, but also how the unintended consequences are playing out for different communities. i feel like that's one that needs to engage all stakeholders. >> i think this discussion also underscores why it's so important for the police and community to co-produce public safety and co-produce good policy around the use of body worn cameras. there's a reason we have 17,000 police departments. it makes sense when you understand communities' desires to customize and tailor the kind of things they want in their communities. in some communities you may have lots of community involvement with the police department

around policy formulation and that results in a different triggering of when you turn them on and off. i think that's appropriate as long as there are guidelines set up and auditing mechanisms to make sure you're really doing that. that's when the transparency comes in. the community co-producing those policies with the police department is where you address these kinds of things that i may be a well meaning police chief or police officer trying to do the right thing in that domestic violence situation but have no sensitivity or understanding about how it's perceived by somebody else and why it's a problem. this is just not a simple issue. it's full of gray areas. i wish it was simple her. >> one area that i think is pretty clear-cut from a lot of police departments is cost. we continue to hear the police departments are having trouble paying for devices, paying for storage and the infrastructure

that goes along with that. washington is starting to put money towards body cameras, quite a significant amount of money and there have been hearings about this. i'm wondering whether or not that money that police departments need in order to implement these cameras should mean that those departments are required to follow some sort of federal guidelines. short of any law, should there be federal guidelines that require police departments they're required to meet in order to access these funds starting to come down the pike. >> there's a model already throughout that dictates that. the department of justice provides funding for police departments to purchase vests for their officers. in order to offset the money, you must have a policy that mandates the officers wear those vests. you can do the same kind of thing.

if you're going to accept our money to buy those cameras, you have to have a policy that has these elements in it. >> the justice department is preparing to distribute the $10 million that president obama announced was going to be provided in grants to localities. they have made some noises about conditioning receipt of those grants on having a good policy in place. the details haven't been worked out yet. it's not clear what that's going to look look and how prescriptive they're going to be. but that was a good thing. i think it's policies -- there's policies in terms of wearing them, in terms of the privacy piece, in terms of the sort of accessibility to the public which is i think a very complicated issue. and then there's also i think a piece about gathering the data. so assuming that a lot of this is happening in a pilot program context and that money is being given for that, what kinds of information are these

jurisdictions gathering? are they gathering in a way that's comparable across departments, across cities to really allow the justice department, the dja groups it's working with two, four, ten to do a retrospective look at how they're being used, do they work, what are the consequences. i think without that it's going to be really hard to make any assessment of kind of are these distributing and how, to kind of a variety of values. >> which is why all this legislation should have a component to it saying we're going to evaluate this. there needs to be funding set aside for the science of this stuff. so you know, how do we know this works two years out, five years out? >> i would agree with all of what's been said and also that there needs to be resources for community members to participate meaningfully in those evaluations in terms of the research and also being able to assess the effectiveness and interactions. i do feel compelled to say on behalf of the young people i have the privilege of working with that one of their first responses to this was how many millions of dollars and why are there still only 200 shelter beds in new york city for lgbt

young people, can we not put some of the money that would keep us out of the crosshairs of policing because there are no other options available to us. i feel like that is a question around the millions of dollars going into this, particularly from folks who are feeling like it might change their dare day today experience. >> i think some police chiefs are calculating the body cameras, if they perform as advertised, may save them a lot of money that they would otherwise spend on settlements of police abuse lawsuits if they can civilize their police officers, that they'll spend much less money overall just because of the cost of the cameras, they'll be paying less money on lawsuits and that money could be used for many other things. >> i want to talk a little bit about, jay, you mentioned this earlier, about accessibility to the videos, who should be able to see them. lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced legislation that would limit how much of that video is available to the public. so who should access these videos? should be able to prevent access to the videos?

should all of these videos be made available to the public? should they be streamed on youtube even if they're blurred out an redacted. are there certain states that have sort of on one side of the spectrum and others that are more lenient in that regard? it's an important questions. it's one thing to record to video it's another thing to make it accessible to the general public or us in the media. >> that's a key question. we've been asked a lot about it by localities that are struggling with this issue. what we've been recommending is that, you know, most of the video that's taken really go into a black box and be held for a certain relatively limited period of time, 60, 90 days and then be deleted unless there's a use of force by an officer, a felony arrest or a complaint of an officer. if this case the video is flagged and kept for a longer time and available to the public through state foia requests. and that video should not retunely be searched, shouldn't

be face recognition, no analytics. even, you know, police management really shouldn't be looking at video unless an officer calls attention to it because we don't want officers to feel like they're being nitpicked by management or that management is out to give them or they have to give way too many tickets which is what the mesa study found because they'll be dinged by their superiors if they exercise any kind of discretion. and so, you know, we think that we're seeing -- what we're seeing out there are some extremes and some of them are set by state open records laws. some states like minnesota, washington state, new mexico have very broad open records laws that basically define all of the video that's captured by all cameras as an open records request. and we think that that is the wrong balance for privacy. all kind of stuff that's not of public importance but is very private to people will be publicly releasable. you'll see tabloid tv seeking the video to run thing for

purulent interests. and on the other side of the -- >> the tmz effect. >> a law was just passed in south carolina and the lapd's policy which allows the public to access none of the footage. it will end up being a police propaganda tool. if there's a shooting of an unarmed person, that's publicly important information and that video should be released. the bystanders will slap it up on youtube. the only video not released is the police video. so you know, that's a delicate balance and neither extreme is the right one. it should not be public releasable unless there's a felony arrest, a use of force or there's been a complaint against a police officer and we think that's the right balance. >> i do think it's critical to have the consent of the person who is filmed be an integral if not determine innocent on that calculous. there is plenty of footage, for instance, of people in various states of undress. there is so much there. but also that i think there's just fundamental privacy concerns. and there's issues of public interest. i think there's a balance where you could do it only with the person's consent or at least where there's a court involved in determining whether the public interest outweighs the privacy concerns and that the court would factor in the consent of the person in the

video. and that raises ten more complicated questions about if all five of us, the police rush in now and something happens, i might want it on the internet and you may not. how do we navigate that. and that raises the issue of blurring people's faces and redaction. and that raises the cost. i would throw in that's an ideal consent. but then it raises many more questions. but i fully agree that we can't have sort of footage flying up on the internet of every interaction. i agree with you that is currently a problem with bystander footage that we need to figure out way to collectively address. >> this raises one other interesting issue which speak to the public release. i think sort of the perception is if there's a video out there, that's going to show us what happened. this is played into. often these videos do exonerate the police officers and sometimes they exonerate the accused. it's a story they tell. one of the things we're seeing from research is not surprisingly different people see videos differently. you take your own biases into watching the video. there's some interesting

research showing interviewing motorists of color who are stopped and white motorists who are stopped. the -- something like 10% of the white motorists who are stopped who saw a police officer walking towards them, saw the police officer's hand on his or her service weapon. about 60% of the motorists of color did. part of the theory is the motorist of color were key to this. this was a salient fact to them, if the officer had his hand on his gun. and with the videos, there's been a variety of studies on this that people will see different things in them, not just maybe see or not see something the police officer should but really come to different conclusions based on what they bring. so i think we'll see that playing out to the extent that videos are released publicly or to the extent they're used as part of a case or a complaint, even if it's a literally only the complainant and people in the police department seeing them, there may be still different narratives that come out of a single video. >> i think it's an excellent point. everybody, all of us need to get more sophisticated in how we interpret videos.

videos are not an objective of what took place. and of course as you said a lot of the body camera videos are just catching somebody's chest. in fact somebody was saying in england they were having a problem that a lot of tall police officers were interviewing women and it was looking straight at their cleavage. but at the same time, this point can be exaggerated. i was talking to a judge and she says, i can't tell you, i have all of these cases, complaints against police officers and what have you. it's one person's word against another person's word. it's completely muddy. we don't know where to start. there are aare the of times where video does more or less tell you what happens. there will be cases where the video doesn't tell you what happens. there will be cases where the video is probably deceiving. there will be cases where the video is clear as day. overall i think it would be petter off than he-said-she-said officer in crisp uniform versus accused criminal. >> this underscores i think the

been a variety of studies on this that people will see different things in them, not just maybe see or not see something the police officer should but really come to different conclusions based on what they bring. so i think we'll see that playing out to the extent that videos are released publicly or to the extent they're used as part of a case or a complaint, even if it's a literally only the complainant and people in the police department seeing them, there may be still different narratives that come out of a single video. >> i think it's an excellent point. everybody, all of us need to get more sophisticated in how we interpret videos. videos are not an objective of what took place. and of course as you said a lot of the body camera videos are just catching somebody's chest. in fact somebody was saying in england they were having a problem that a lot of tall police officers were interviewing women and it was looking straight at their cleavage. but at the same time, this point can be exaggerated. i was talking to a judge and she says, i can't tell you, i have all of these cases, complaints against police officers and what have you.

it's one person's word against another person's word. it's completely muddy. we don't know where to start. there are aare the of times where video does more or less tell you what happens. there will be cases where the video doesn't tell you what happens. there will be cases where the video is probably deceiving. there will be cases where the video is clear as day. overall i think it would be petter off than he-said-she-said officer in crisp uniform versus accused criminal. >> this underscores i think the need to put a lot more resources toward the science and the research around this. because we're all entitled and have our opinions. there's 60 people in here. we all have 60 opinions on when they should come on, when they shouldn't, redemption, et cetera. what we're not entitled to is our own set of facts. we don't know about this field yet. my guess is we're going to have lots of differing opinions about this for quite a while. but the extent to which we -- science can develop good findings about what works and what doesn't work to achieve

mutually agreeable goals is where we will ultimately develop a national coherence around this. and we're not going to do that until then because we're people with different opinions and we all have a different opinion about all of this. >> in a recent senate hearing the issue of hack about of this came up. two weeks ago there was a huge hack of washington's data. hacking is now a standard part of, i think, a lot of the way -- a lot of our lives, right? everything from our health care system to the government have been hacked. so what's to prevent a small town police department from becoming hacked and having these videos, you know, whether they have policies in place or not, to protect privacy, what's to prevent that from happening? i mean, are these police departments really equipped to protect the integrity of that video and that data? >> i think in some ways it's slightly different question which is any police department

equipped. because by and large i think most of the major platforms, the major companies producing body cameras, they manage the information by and large. so i think for most of these the police department sort of keeps ownership but the actual data basically is being sent up to the cloud. so it's a question of cloud safety. is there a way to hack into it or. as most of the hacks happen. or is there a way to get somebody's credentials, to fool somebody into getting access to the information. and then there's potentially a mother load of information which goes to the question of how long is this kept. the less amount of time the video is kept there's at least video, fewer videos to be accessed. but i do think that's an issue. >> this becomes more problematic

when many of the really small police departments who have their hearts in the right place, they're trying to get involved in video technology and cannot afford these big vendors you're talking about. this is expensive technology. so they go online and find a $70 clipable camera, you take the sz card out and upload it to your pc. they know they need to do this but those things are hugely accessible to the hackers. >> there are been police departments around the country that have been hacked where companies previously encrypt their hard drives. and several police departments have had to pay thousands of dollars to russian hackers to get their data back. so it's a very real problem. >> we've talked a little bit about the public and the media being able to access these videos. but what about the officers themselves who are the ones that

are wearing the camera? should officers be allowed to view their own video and if so, when and if not, why? >> i mean i think that officers should be able to view their own video most of the time. they want -- they might want to review how they handled something that they might want to use it for training purposes to refresh their memory about things. the only time they really could not is if there's a critical incident such as a shooting where there's automatically going to be an investigation over what happened. when there's an investigation, you don't show witnesses the evidence you have before you take their statements. i mean no detective would do that. and you now, we have one set of evidence which is what the police officer remembers about what took place and we have another set of evidence which is the video. and neither one is object ty and the memories in the video are always going to be different.

but you take one statement and set of evidence and capture that before you show the video to the officer. so that the evidence doesn't become cross contaminated. if you show the officer the video before you take his or her initial statement, then you are contaminating and literally changing -- studies have shown the officer's memory of what took place. and also if the officer has done something wrong, you're giving them an opportunity to lie most effectively if the camera swings away for a moment, the officer can say that's when he reached in his waistband or what have you. now after giving an initial statement and capturing the officer's initial memory of things, if the officer views the video and want to explain something that was in the video that wasn't in his or her statement, of course they can do that. but this is a very divisive issue where libertarians and many police around the country have felt strongly another way. there's a common since thing of why not let the police officer give their best version of what happened by looking at the video. but because of the contamination of evidence and lying issues,

it's a bad idea. >> and i would argue that should be extended to any criminal prosecution for exactly the same reasons. i'm quite sure that's going to be controversial. it's part of a story and showing it in advance of a criminal prosecution. i have seen, you know, an been part of cases on the defense team where video has very much exonerated defendants. but i still feel like the ability to taylor your testimony in a criminal prosecution to something you've seen before, before you give your initial statement is upsetting the balance of due process and fairness in those situations and for all of the reasons that jay just gave >> this is confusing in the policing community. lawyers that the defend police officers would be able to cite scientific evidence to what we've just heard and have a position about their clients' rights and what makes sense. even within the policing community, half you would say they should look at it, half of you would say they shouldn't. one of the things -- i'll go back again. we just don't understand enough about our memory and how things, how something appears to be the case that turns out later on not to be the case. and because we have such an orientation toward blame in this

society, we fail to say we're not blaming anybody, we want to understand how this works. and i don't know how we get around that. i think there there way to the that in many instances. we had a bad outcome and how do we get to a better outcome. we're not going to blame anyone for that. we don't have a vehicle right now to look at critical incidents without blaming and therefore we deny ourselves huge opportunities to learn from a bad incident that had bad outcomes because we need to make sure that somebody is blamed for whatever happened. i'm not saying we shouldn't hold people accountable. i'm saying it's a difficult model. and if you had some attorneys in here to represent police officers, you'd hear something different from them about what the science says and what they believe is appropriate. >> the police officers are

afraid that, you know, their memory naturally will probably not exactly match the video because that's now the way the human brain works and they'll be a made to look like liars. it's a legitimate concern. but everybody else in the criminal justice system has to deal with that as well, the defendant and the witnesses. police shouldn't get special treatment in terms of being able to see the video before they give their initial statement. and i do think that you know body cameras have a real potential to be an excellent training tool. and you know, doctors have a thing where they all meet once a week and talking about their medical errors in sort of an environment of not blaming but how can i prevent this from happening again, what did i do wrong here. it would be nice to see that evolve as a standard feature in police departments. i had thee three encounter this week and they turned south. let's look at it together and see how i could have deescalated it.

i think it's a real potential that this could be a tool that will get at some of the deeper issues. body cameras are not the solution to the problems of policing in america. they're to some extent a band aid. >> absolutely. >> the real solutions are changing the culture of some departments. somebody said recently they think of themselves as guardians and not as warriors. and that they don't feel like occupying armies in some neighborhoods. and these are deep complex things and body cameras may have a role. but i think that better training and so forth is really the direction that things need to go. >> i would agree with the statement that the footage has huge potential for training officers. so we have footage, we want to use it for training. except the law or policy or community expectation says you can't keep it for privacy issues. you can't keep it. this is where you have retention and erasing of that same video runs head on into the reality. great video for training except we can't keep it. this is where we've got to find a way to meet both of those interests, the video that's very

hard to watch of the texas officer that completely mishandles the incident involving the kids at the pool party is a great training video for thoughtful departments that want to hold this up and say to their officers, see this, don't do this wu but let's talk about how that cop got himself into that place. but that's not body camera video. that's somebody holding up a video. >> i want to emphasize that. in new york city we've been creating of creating a culture of cop watch. there's five of us out there filming and they may be producing the same result. changing everyone's behavior. i've seen a situation where a officer had pepper spray out, i pulled my iphone out, the pepper spray went back in and everything dissolved. and that was it.

i feel like we could achieve many the same results by supporting and coming up with collective agreements of how we do it as community members by and for each other, it could capture the bigger picture. there might be other ways of arriving -- >> we need to be careful as we go down this road. i'm trying not to put my cop hat on for a second. when we want to hold those people accountable, i'm all for that. your example makes sense to me. you have to remember that that these are the same people that you expect to run head long into a dangerous situation that you have called 911 about. so that when we begin to -- and

there's a balance here between holding them accountable and demonizing. the people who risk their lives for perfect strangers. and i personally believe this is a very slippery slope for us as society because you -- everybody in the room and everybody watching this, if you are being attacked by somebody, you are going to call 911 and you want them to get there as fast as they can and save you. that means they're going to use their discretion and ail of the tools available to them. if we're not careful about the messages that we send to those people who again are willing to donate hair lives for your safety -- if you doubt that, i encourage you to go by the national law enforcement memorial where there's 21,000 names of cops who have died in this country protecting their community. we have to be careful of the message we send to those people. there's a balance here, a very clear balance about how we do that we just have to be careful. you're not the people who respond if i call 911. >> there's nothing in what i'm saying -- i think that -- >> we have to be careful when we talk about this. believe it or not, cops are people too. >> i don't think the problem in

our society though is that cops are getting too little difference and respect in terms of their use of force. in many cases the law allows officers to use force when it's completely not necessary but it's completely legal. and there is a problem with unfortunately with excessive use of force and police abuse that i think has remained hidden, has been apparent to especially people of color and low income people but has been invisible to white middle class elites who kind of run things in most cities. and i think the video is playing a role and opening a lot of people's eyes as to what often does happen. and i think that hopefully ultimately we'll move forward to a path of understanding and, you know, that police video cameras will play a disciplinary role in cushing back the officers who might be a little out of control or departments who have bad cultures. but at the same time it has the potential to increase understanding among the public

about what police officers do face, you know. some of these videos they're going to show heroic actions and already have. greater understanding on all sides. >> this is why legislation is to important. if we don't like the law or the court decision that sets the sidelines for police use of force, then we need to change that. and the rules need to change and the guidance to police officers need to change, much like the supreme court decision that said you cannot shoot somebody who is running away from you, right? that was useful to everybody. it changed -- and then somebody who does it is going to jail for the rest of their life. those are the kinds of things that are pragmatic realities. you hear cops say this all the time. tell me what the rules are. ly follow those to the best of my ability. but when the sidelines are this wide and i'm operating within them, then i may not be the problem. it's -- bring in -- narrow the slides or something so i understand the rules better. >> so to bring it back to a point that jay made, i was

interviewing the executive director for the center for media justice recently for a piece on body cameras and she said, i'm quoting, the footage itself even when caught in the act doesn't necessarily translate to accountability. if anybody is going to stand behind body cameras advocating for them they need to stand for comprehensive police reform. that is what you're touching on right now. what does that police reform look like, going beyond the technology. that's something we're hearing also out of cam den. you go to camden, new jersey, they've got a data center, body cameras and two cops on every street corner talking to residents, you know, doing ride alongs with folks. so they're saying that the secret to that has also been a tremendous focus on community policing. but is there more that can be done beyond old fashioned policing and technology in terms of actual police reform and if so, what is that? >> broadly i would say better training and training that's oriented towards teaching police officers how to december escalate effectively. community policing and generally having police officers be part of and in touch with the community they're policing, not being occupying armies and civilian oversight, oversight boards that have teeth, that have power and that kind of thing. and changing the culture of some of the police departments. as i talked about earlier.

and so, you know, we can look maybe look forward to a day where police body cameras no longer seem necessary, perhaps, maybe. who knows. >> i would have to agree that it comes with accountability. and that was where i was going with the example of cop watch videos or having effective accountability after the fact, no matter who is capturing the video of what's on the video. so there may be accountability in walter scott's case. there isn't in eric garner's case. how do we make sure that the footage leads to account about and also change and behavior so we're not just having continuing aspects of accountability but not stopping the behavior itself. that goes to many reform, not just with training and culture but setting the guidelines. there's a list of specific reforms in the president's task force on 21st century policing final report that have things like everything around narrowing use of force to what is absolutely necessary under the circumstances as opposed to what's now permitted by law, about having very specific guidance for instance around use of force against pregnant women or children or elderly people and use of tasers, very specific guidance. very specific guidance around how you engage in stops, whether you can ask for consent to a

search and then how do you make sure that there's informed voluntary consent objectively recorded somewhere. things that will change the way interactions happen between individuals and police officers to balance the power relation a little be and most of all ensure that people's rights' safety are respected. coproducing public safety is also about coming up with reforms in the president's task force on 21st century policing final report that have things like everything around narrowing use of force to what is absolutely necessary under the circumstances as opposed to what's now permitted by law, about having very specific guidance for instance around use of force against pregnant women or children or elderly people and use of tasers, very specific guidance. very specific guidance around how you engage in stops, whether

you can ask for consent to a search and then how do you make sure that there's informed voluntary consent objectively recorded somewhere. things that will change the way interactions happen between individuals and police officers to balance the power relation a little be and most of all ensure that people's rights' safety are respected. coproducing public safety is also about coming up with specific guide posts about how police officers interact with particular communities who are more likely to experience police abuse. whether that's makes sure that police departments across the count have a sexual harassment policy. very few have sexual harassment and abuse policies around police interactions with police interactions to the public. a guidance was put out in 2011 saying you need to have this. and making sure there's guidance around how to respectfully and safely interact with members of the lgbt community in such a way that we're not perpetrating more violence intentionally or inadvertently because the guide posts haven't been clearly set

to give the officers what they need to make sure that everyone's rights are respects. most important is however not with the policies that are written on paper but the enforcement and the accountability for them. otherwise they're just the paper that they're written on. and i think if we move forward with some real policy change and real reform -- as i was saying earlier, it has to involve and be created in partnership with communities who are directly impacted. for instance in new york city right now we are going through a process that's court ordered where the court has said people who are directly impacted have to be a part of reforming what stop and frisk looks like in new york city, what policing practices look like in new york city. and the solutions lie with people who experience it on a day to day basis. that's where we will mo from feeling like our communities are being occupied and there's no accountability for violence against black bodies and communities of color to a different situation. >> i should have said also, demilitarization is a huge part of this.

we're seeing a growing number of police officers and departments a who are trained and equipped like soldiers as opposed to civilian police officers, the honorable tradition of policing for a long time. guardian cops, moving away from warrior cops to guardian cops. >> i think andrea alluded to this. we also shouldn't forget -- this is not necessarily to say anything about the efficacy and contributions of body cameras but to remember that body cameras themselves are a business. that there are companies that sell body cameras, at least for one of them, taser, it's the same company that makes taser, a very different kind of instrument for police officers. there's been questions by no means in a couple of departments, about the relationship between the police department, maybe the chief of

police and decisions being made about body cameras, and that that is an overlay. which again doesn't necessarily speak to whether they will work and what they'll contribute but that there is sort of another issue, kind of in terms of the separate accountability piece of it to pay attention to. >> i want to take the opportunity to ask the audience if they have any questions. and if you're too shy, you can always tweet me. because i ask people to do that and that's fine. we'll take -- and i should say before, jim may need to leave in a few minutes. if he gets up and goes, it's not a commentary on any of the questions. >> that's exactly right. and i'll check to see if there's -- if there are any questions that have come in

recently on twitter. but feel free were jeremy. >> my name is jeremy. and i've been involved in this kind of body camera debate. one thing i don't see a lot of. we got a little bit in this panel. but is asking the question whether police body cameras are the best way to do accountability. i mean, you know, we're having this panel because there's a lot of gray here. there's a lot of issues. issues with privacy for the officers, privacy for the public, surveillance, costs, liability issues, you know in california where the california highway patrol responded to an accident, this woman got decapitated unfortunately. but photos of that got out, were leaked. you know, chp was sued. they had to pay millions of dollars. you have similar potential liability issues here if they become ubiquitous, venn tors are going to push facial recognition. other technology is going to be

more of a surveillance tool other than accountability. the studies, don't know if they can be replicated throughout the country. no studies on long term whether they'll have the positive outcomes as some of the short term studies have shown. i don't feel there's a real grappling with whether it's the best way to do account about as opposed to doing the things that jay mentioned earlier, teaching officers how to handle situations better. a lot of times it's the officers, you know, kind of instigating the situation and they're legally allowed to use force at some point. could you respond to that? i'd appreciate it. >> i think it's important to remember that a police department is a system and that any technology, whether it's cameras or anything else, is never going to be the one thing that solves everything. that's kind of how we think about things in our society. we're looking for that one thing that solving this problem and it's just too complicated. this issue underlying all of this about account about has to do with who do we hire, what are the organizational values, who becomes the police chief, the transparency and the relationship with the community, et cetera. there's all kinds of things. the best account about model is

where the officers hold themselves accountable. i realize that that is, you know, kind of pollyannaish in many ways. if that was the case we wouldn't have to have criminal laws and all of the other things we have. there are many other things that go into an accountability quote unquote system in a police department. what do the supers do. what are the analytics that you can pull out of your own data system that relate to the nature of arrests, where they're made, are there flags that give you the insight into what the officer is doing, do the other officers feel free to tell you somebody did something wrong. in any former agency this happened and i was proud that an officer said to a supervisor that officer that i work with every day did something wrong or in one instance with officer came to us and said i did something wrong and you need to hold me accountable if this. i screwed up. there's a huge different between the mistake of the head and mistake of the heart and how you talk about all of this inside a police department is about culture and leadership and the

intangibles that make the business very difficult sometimes for people. and also create space for misuse and abuse and other kinds of places. i just think this is what we're talking about here is much bigger than cameras. and i think that's what your question alludes to. it's much more than just a camera issue. >> we did just get a question in from twitter from karen doland. she says does the panel know if there are organized trainings for the public to record police interactions and encounters. >> there's a coalition in no, sir called people's justice and a website called cop watch ync that pulls together a lot of the resources out there. the justice committee in new york city and the malcom x grass roots movements have been conducting cop watch meetings for over two decades. and the resources are up on cop watch nyc. and the new york civil liberties union is very helpful and people have used it. but also we all have our phones. >> and we have a number of affiliates that have this app out which basically you use to record and automatically uploads the video to the aclu if you're

worried that your camera la be seized or what have you. and the most important thing that's happened i think in accountability overall may be the right to record. we have had a huge struggle getting police officers to recognize that there is a first amendment constitutional right to take photographs if you're in public in a place where you have the right to be. aclu has done litigation in numerous states around the country on this and the courts have been unanimous that you have a right to record. and we are fortunate lit seeing fewer and fewer police officers try to interfere with that right but it still happens. police officers harass people or worse for taking out a camera and recording. and we've talked about in many cases it's the bystander video that has been more effective than police videos in providing accountability. and to jeremy's question, i

think that the answer is no. camera are not -- i don't know if they's the best tool for accountability but they're not the best way to improve policing in america. but the question is are we better with cameras than without them. that's in some ways a harder question. and that's the question that we're struggling with and ambivalent about. the cameras are happening. it's a wave. the police departments are adopting them. if you're going to adopt them we're going to oppose them unless they're done with good policy to make sure that they serve as a tool for accountability. >> any additional questions? sir, in the back. and then we'll take the gentleman in the front.

>> i work at the naacp. i want to ask a question regarding the feasibility on gun mounted cameras or taser mounted cameras. there's a fear that if the officer shoots that way, that the cameras won't record gun related violence incidents, which is what they were intended to record. >> i don't see any downside to gun mounted cameras. i think when an officer's gun is out that's already a situation that needs to be recorded. and in many ways, the gun mounted cameras would have many view or f the downsides that body worn cameras have because they're not going to be recording most situations. >> and then this gentleman in the front with the tie. yeah. >> jake, center for democracy and technology. i'm curious for your feedback on

use of body cameras in situations involving protest demonstrations, other first amendment related activities with one that creates a higher level sensitivity of recording individuals and there's a greater potential for abuse. we've seen a lot of instances in the last years whether it be ferguson or occupied protest, video with attempts to clamp down on demonstrators have helped stopped protests from being shut down. >> this is interesting. in d.c. especially, there's a pilot program right now. there's a policy for the pilot program. and one of the things that the policy speak to is basically body camera recordings of first amendment activities, first amendment events. the idea is protests, things like that. and the language that specifically written in is that video from those recordings will be kept for longer. will be kept for three years which is much longer than the standard retention period. and i think, although it doesn't say specifically, i think that's coming out of the mass arrests from i think 2000 from the

inauguration from 2002, and this concern that there was major suppression of first amendment rights. it creates that you do in fact have videos depicting people exercising their first amendment rights that are kept for much longer. could be either misused or even are just available, you know, if there's hack organize whatever is it. these things are out. one of the other things we looked at when we were doing the comparison of different policies across the country, to what extent do they speak to these it creates that you do in fact have videos depicting people exercising their first amendment rights that are kept for much longer. could be either misused or even are just available, you know, if there's hack organize whatever is it. these things are out. one of the other things we looked at when we were doing the

comparison of different policies across the country, to what extent do they speak to these first amendment concerns. and it really varies whether they do, is it retention issue, is it sort of a general, you know, poddy camera shouldn't used to suppress first amendment rights. i think it's an important question and i don't think we know yet how it plays out. i think as you're identifying, there could be almost competing interests or the same interests that in some ways could be vindicated in competing ways. one is to keep the footage for as little time as possible and one is to keep it much longer to allow for some record and some accountability. >> many people experienced in in both. it's very chilling whether people are new to protests or been around for a long time. as someone who represents the plaintiffs in the case in new york city in 2004, we saw the importance of civilian video and organized civilian video collection because it enabled us to counter the limited perspective that would come out there the police captured videos. it comes back to me about larger policy questions about how things are policed and then the importance of nonpolice video more so than the police video in some cases. >> any other additional questions?

got one more here in the front. >> hi, cameron cox from d.c. safe, a victim's rights organization. i was wondering some of the research i did regarding the body worn camera policies, a lot has been sold to police officers, ability to assist in victimless prosecutions and things like that. i wonder if you had any ideas as to good model policies and practice to respect the victim's wishes regarding prosecutions and investigations. >> i think i really worry -- i overheard some conversation about this before coming in -- about the use of poddy warn

cameras for victimless prosecution. and i think it takes away autonomy from survivors of violence to make decisions about what kind of accountability that i want that are often formed very much on their own knowledge of what danger that will pose to their lives, an economic life of someone going to prison who they actually need to survive or the potential retaliatory violence. i think if a body camera comes into a volatile situation and there's not clarity of how that goes down, the survivor of violence will bear the brunt. and on top of that you have the video. so i feel that this is one of the areas that feels most sensitive around figuring out consent, autonomy and respect for survivors. and so i think it's one area, like so many other law enforcement incentives that are being advanced as kind of on the backs of survivors of violence a

as this is going to help us and help survives of violence. it could have a lot of blowback and present as significant amount of concern for me. whether that's someone who has more recently has been working around survivors of lgbt violence or lgbt violence, i think people want prosecution over homophobic violence as people do around domestic violence for many of the same reasons. around privacy, safety and self-determination. and that no one is more aware of the consequences of different kinds of accountability than the survivors themselves. they need to be in charge. >> i think we can wrap it up. thank you so much to the panel. and thank you all for being here. >> several live events dealing with health care coming up. in advance of the third open enrollment period for coverage under the affordable care act, the alliance for health reform hosts a discussion on who is still uninsured and why they

don't have coverage. that's at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. then, what happens now that the supreme court decided that millions of americans are entitled to tax subsidies to help them afford health insurance. will there be more legal challenges? and how will the ruling affect u.s. health care? from plymoutholitico, the conversation begins after 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. and later, president obama will speak about health care live from an elementary school in nashville, tennessee. that's expected to get underway at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. lucy hayes was the first first lady to earn a college degree. and during the civil war, soldiers serving under her husband called her the mother of the regiment. to switch from the wig party to the anti-slavery republican party. as first lady, she hosts the first annual white house easter

egg roll. lucy hayes this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies, influence and image" examining the women who filled the position of first lady from martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> former president jimmy carter and former first lady rosalin carter sat down for a conversation including race relations, gun violence mental health and the middle east. they were interviewed at the aspen institute for just over an hour.

when i told president carter that we had an overflow crowd, he said they all came for rosa rosalin. so thank you, mrs. carter, for being here, as well. the 39th president of the united states and mrs. carter, welcome back back. welcome back to aspen. i'll start by a quick story because kathy and i are here because of president and mrs. carter which was in 2002 after you won the nobel prize. you are an honoree in new york. and kathy told me one day, oh, i accepted that dinner.

i'm thinking oh, no, a black tie dinner. she said judy called and president carter's going to be there. i said great. and it was at that dinner they recruited me to come work at the aspen institute. and you were so impressive i decided, yeah, that's cool. >> well, if he's not doing a good job, it's my fault. >> believe it or not, president carter's now 90. and this book is called reflections at 90. now, not only does he not look 90 but we were talking about what he's doing. he said i went to russia last year to go fishing off of this year. so it's a pretty active life both of you have. and i wanted to start, if i may president carter by looking at some of the travels you've done recently in this wonderful book.

and talking about your trip to the middle east that you just came back from. >> a couple of months ago we met with gorbachev, who is the foreign minister. and then also met with putin for about three hours. and asked him questions, and he responded i might say he made a very good impression on us. he was really aware of all the difficult issues. he never turned to his foreign minister for any answers. he gave answers himself. he was quite relaxed, he had a good sense of humor which was a surprise to all of us. >> vladimir putin had a sense of humor. give me an example. >> well, when we were getting ready to leave, he said, by the way be sure to tell your president and the europeans to leave the sanctions on russia because we were surprised to hear him say that. he said, i'm making reforms in

agriculture and also in banking and in my relationship with the oligarchs which i couldn't make. they're growing a lot more food grains and so forth because they'd been importing them from europe, western and eastern europe. and now they are trying to reform agriculture, reform the banking system, just to accommodate. he said, if they could take it off six months later. that would be fine. >> ms. carter? >> well, i was not part of the we. i didn't go, but he was with elders, if you know what they are. >> explain what the elders are. we know, because richard branson had been here. >> i'll have jimmy explain. >> well, a group of 11 people, the best way to describe them is has been politicians. nelson mandela was our founder and his wife is still a member. the former secretary general of united nations, i'm representing the united states in this

region. a former prime minister of norway who is a medical doctor and also was the head of w.h.o. for a number of years. mayor robinson, the former president of ireland. atasari, the former president of finland, the former president of mexico and former president, also, of brazil and so forth. that's the 11 members, and also brajimi who was the chief negotiator for the united nations for about 20 years and the first one that tried to bring peace to the -- to syria. he's a very wonderful negotiator. we meet every six months or so and decide where in the world we can be helpful. we go where we wish. and we tell the truth. we don't have to accommodate voters. and so we can always --

>> let's get back to the middle east question. where did you go in the middle east on your last trip? >> well, we left russia, and the former prime minister of norway and i went to the middle east. we were going to gaza because he had a full-time office in jerusalem and ramallah, in the west bank, which is also in gaza for the last 25 years. still puts the top goal in foreign policy to bring peace to israel. and in the process, to bring peace to israel's immediate neighbor. we still work on that. we've helped -- we have monitored all three palestinian elections, and we still work between the palestinian factions and israel trying to promote peace. >> let me stop. do you think netanyahu wants a two-state solution? >> no. i never have thought so. in fact, i was in europe.

i was in jerusalem on another visit when netanyahu made his speech and said he would accept a two-state solution. i didn't believe him there. and everything he's done has indicated he does not want a two-state solution -- he does not want a palestinian nation next door to israel. my belief is that he wants to take over the entire west bank, except a few tiny spots that he'll leave for the palestinians. >> so you did the camp david accords with the last major peace accord there. what type of solution do you think is possible now? >> well the camp david accords had two different factors in it. one was to bring peace between israel and egypt. and that peace agreement now more than 34 years old has never been violated not a single word has been violated in it. there's still peace between israel and egypt. but the other half of the camp david accords and the one on

which we worked hardest was full autonomy. you might say almost independence for the palestinians. and that part of it has not been honored. so that's what i hope and always hope my successors in the white house will attempt to do and try to bring peace to israel and its neighbors by working between israel and the palestinians. but we've pretty well given up on that since the recent election and israel with netanyahu and an even more conservative or right wing government now than we had before. and he's made it plain in recent days that he does not want a two-state solution. >> you also met with king soloman on this trip. what do you think of america's alliance with the saudis now when it comes to bombing yemen. and how did you find out about the bombing of yemen? >> we were in saudi arabia and

also in qatar and other arab countries in that region. and i went countries in that resupbgion, and we were supposed to meet with the crowned prince and then king salmon and we met with the prince and when we got through with him instead of going to the king's office we were escorted to go back to the hotel, and an hour or two later i got a message from the king saying he wanted to see me the next day, and we found out that night, the reason he could not meet with me because he was planning and approving a very unfortunate decision to attack yemen, and since then saudi arabia has been bombing yemen, which i think is a serious mistake. i met with him the next day to

talk about the issues that i had on my schedule. >> mrs. carter when you go to a place like saudi arabia, what is your role and what do you see your role as advocating for women and things like that? >> this time i did not advocate for women, i did not with the king but i did in dubai and qatar and the other places. we went to seven or eight of those countries, and the main thing i worked on was mental health issues. i have mental health fellowships for journalists teaching them on how to report on mental health issues accurately, and in depth and we have been doing this for 18 years now, and i wanted to get reporters from al jazeera

because they cover the whole area, and the stigma is so bad they shut people up and don't let anybody know they have a mentally ill person but there is a really good program in qatar, and so i did talk to and advocate for women and caregiving and those kinds of things, but not with the king. i sat -- when i go with jimmy like that, i take notes. >> okay. >> i get to go in to see the top officials because i take notes and i wrote down everything he said about why -- >> she also gives me in instructions while i am -- >> yeah and i was reading this book which is a total delight, and part of it -- i will asks mrs. carter about this, and you said when you came back from the navy and doing your business work and agriculture work in

georgia, you pretty much made all the decisions for the family but in '62 when you decided to get into politics it changed your relationship with mrs. carter and she became more of a partner in making decisions. is that right? >> well -- >> we are going to fact check this book. >> i didn't want to come home from the navy. my mother was at home jimmy's mother was at home, and by then i had become very independent, because jimmy was gone all the time in the navy and i was taking care of everything and so i became a total housewife for a few years. i pouted for about a year. and then jimmy asked me to come down and he was his only employer -- i mean, he was the employer and had no employees, except seasonal when we sold seed and fertilizer, and in the fall when we bought the produce

from the farmers, and so he didn't have anybody to keep or stay at the office when he went to see the farmers, and i came down and it became a habit and the schoolhouse was down the street from the highway, from our office, and the children, the little boys would come home in the afternoons after school, but pretty soon after the first -- maybe not that long, i knew more about the books than he did, and i could say shut down the cornmeal, we're not making any money on it. we developed a good partnership that lasted for a long time. >> how long? >> we will have been married 69 years in july. [ applause ] >> what is the secret? >> i will tell you one secret i

learned from this you wrote a book together once. >> that was the worst experience of my life. [ laughter ] >> that almost terminated our marriage. >> we have totally different writing styles. i am a night person and he is a morning person to start with, and i like to work -- i like to ride at night and he doesn't like me to write at night and that's not much of the problem. the problem was trying to remember what we did in the past, there is no possible way. you can remember 95% and we would fight -- we got so that we could not mention it without me crying, and so we started writing ugly notes to each other on our word processors. and he said that -- it takes me a long time to write a chapter because i want it to be just right, and he can write one in an afternoon and he wants to

swap so i see his and he sees mine and he says i figured my chapter -- that i had gone up on mt. sinai and came down with the words on concrete and i didn't want him to change a word and it was true. >> she treated my chapters like a rough draft. >> that was true, too. >> so we decided to give up on the book. so we had gotten a small advance and we gave the advance back and cancelled the book. our editor came down and said look, you have agreed on about 95% of the book but this other 5% you can't agree so let me resolve this for you. we said, okay.

he said these paragraphs, half the paragraphs are rosalynn's and jimmy you can't touch them, and those paragraphs are yours and she can't edit them, and if you read our book a lot of times it has an "r" by the side or a "j." we survived that and that's why we are still married today. >> if i may take you back to world affairs for a moment, which is your presidency was when the iranian revolution happened, and let's go back there, and then also what is happening with the u.s. and iran right now and you kept the dip

diplomats diplomats, and do you think the ayatollah wanted to have that situation with the united states? >> no, he didn't. he was surprised when the young students, i will call them, they over ran the u.s. embassy at about 70 ambassadors there, or diplomats, and he had almost the same amount in washington, and the young students were there about two or three days occupying the embassy, and the ayatollah's son went to the embassy and aligned himself with the students and then and only then the ayatollah endorsed the taking of the hostages. but i never have believed that he originated it or was in favor of it. >> do you think we could and should want to have a restored relations with iran? >> i do. >> through this deal -- >> we visit iran, by the way, and we can go anywhere we want to, but i hope and pray that the

present negotiations on the nuclear deal will be successful. >> do you think if that happens it will bring us back in the period in the '70s where the iranian people were the strongest allies in the region? >> i don't think strongest but tentative allies on a very caution way. we have got a lot to work on. one of the interesting things that putin said the night we were with him, almost to change the subject, was, i had two different sessions in russia this year, in january and in april of this year with representatives from syria to try and resolve the syria issue, and he said it has not been very fruitful. what i think we should do is have the united states and russia sponsor a meeting with the top leaders in the region, saudi arabia, iran and turkey, and we should get those five

leaders to go or their representatives and we can decide together on what to do about syria, and whatever we decide, i sign and the syrian opposition will have to agree to it, and i said that's a wonderful idea and you have made that proposal to president obama, and he said no i haven't. i said do you mind if i make that proposal on your behalf to president obama, and he said please do. so i sent that to president obama, and you may remember john kerry remember went to see putin to discuss that issue, and i don't know what has happened since then. >> what do you think of john kerry as secretary of state? >> i think he is one of the best secretary of states we have ever had, i think he is outstanding. >> what about president obama's success or failures on the world