The in-house designed Assion hardware will be replaced with something less stupid from outside hardware suppliers.
The in-house designed Evidunce server farm will be outsourced.
The dreaming-in-Technicolor business model is being rejected by customers and they're forced to offer less insane financial terms.
Early adopters must be frustrated and disappointed.
Tom Smith-4-Brains has left the building.
They've made huge losses.
WIN!
Taser International tasers itself and kills its 'Protector' garbage
ROTFLMAO.
Taser International takes a self-inflicted $1.4M financial hit. [LINK]
See previous posts below. May I say, "Saw it coming."
Taser International takes a self-inflicted $1.4M financial hit. [LINK]
See previous posts below. May I say, "Saw it coming."
As predicted - no iPhone version of Taser's Protector
I told you that it wasn't going to happen.
Taser International has released a list of the target phones. iPhone is notably absent from the list.
Told ya so.
Taser International has released a list of the target phones. iPhone is notably absent from the list.
Told ya so.
Is Apple *really* going to allow Taser's "Protector" on the iPhone?
The article here [LINK] shows a picture of Taser's "Protector" running on an Apple iPhone.
Thing is, I had assumed that they meant various semi-smart phones, obviously (?) excluding the iPhone.
I've not seen any 3rd party iPhone apps that have ever been permitted, by Apple, to have that much control and 'root kit' like access to the iPhone such that it would be able to perform the functions being advertised.
For example, iPhone apps, excluding Apple's own, can be deleted. Or the iPhone could be 'Restored' using iTunes to its original software configuration. Or the Safari browser can access any number of webmail services.
Apple is going to approve an iPhone app to lock out every possible bypass and or deletion method??!!?? Why does my BS detector go off at this point?
Either they're in bed with Apple (I believe that Steve Jobs has better taste), or perhaps someone is engaging in a bit of pump-and-dump.
Thing is, I had assumed that they meant various semi-smart phones, obviously (?) excluding the iPhone.
I've not seen any 3rd party iPhone apps that have ever been permitted, by Apple, to have that much control and 'root kit' like access to the iPhone such that it would be able to perform the functions being advertised.
For example, iPhone apps, excluding Apple's own, can be deleted. Or the iPhone could be 'Restored' using iTunes to its original software configuration. Or the Safari browser can access any number of webmail services.
Apple is going to approve an iPhone app to lock out every possible bypass and or deletion method??!!?? Why does my BS detector go off at this point?
Either they're in bed with Apple (I believe that Steve Jobs has better taste), or perhaps someone is engaging in a bit of pump-and-dump.
"Taser adds mobile phone monitoring tool to its arse..."
Sorry, the headline got truncated...
Taser adds mobile phone monitoring tool to its arsenal
Thing is, one of the fundamental assumptions is that the kid's phone is the one provided by the parent and loaded up with this special spyware-ish application. In other words, the kid is old enough to be 'sexting', but young and stupid enough to be unaware that she can simply purchase another phone for $50 and tell Daddy to stick his 'Taser Phone' up his aresenal.
It's a pretty thin market slice... Perhaps not of those idiot parents that would be stupid enough to sign-up, but of the children that are old enough to need the service and young enough not to instantly bypass it by any of a dozen methods.
Another false assumption made by techno-dummies is that "not everyone will have the technical skills to be able to bypass it." The mistake here is forgetting about, oh, what's it called? Oh yeah, the Internet.
All the kid has to do is Google the correct search terms, download the application, and follow the instructions. And they can do these steps at their friend's house.
The good news is that the service will take cash from moronic parents, provide it to Taser International, and they'll (sooner or later) pass it along to victims (or their surviving families) of the X26 tasers. It's a good cash flow pattern.
Taser adds mobile phone monitoring tool to its arsenal
Thing is, one of the fundamental assumptions is that the kid's phone is the one provided by the parent and loaded up with this special spyware-ish application. In other words, the kid is old enough to be 'sexting', but young and stupid enough to be unaware that she can simply purchase another phone for $50 and tell Daddy to stick his 'Taser Phone' up his aresenal.
It's a pretty thin market slice... Perhaps not of those idiot parents that would be stupid enough to sign-up, but of the children that are old enough to need the service and young enough not to instantly bypass it by any of a dozen methods.
Another false assumption made by techno-dummies is that "not everyone will have the technical skills to be able to bypass it." The mistake here is forgetting about, oh, what's it called? Oh yeah, the Internet.
All the kid has to do is Google the correct search terms, download the application, and follow the instructions. And they can do these steps at their friend's house.
The good news is that the service will take cash from moronic parents, provide it to Taser International, and they'll (sooner or later) pass it along to victims (or their surviving families) of the X26 tasers. It's a good cash flow pattern.
Yahoo confused video with audio
"... In Fort Smith, an officer with a camera was cleared of any wrongdoing in a Nov. fatal shooting after video showed he repeatedly told an armed suspect to drop his weapon. ..." Yahoo
No. The language used above is imprecise.
The *video* showed next-to-nothing. Left ear location of the robocop camera, combined with right handed situation, led to a video that clearly showed a blank wall. Is this going to happened half the time in situations where the robocop needs to take cover?
No, it was the *audio* that allowed one to hear what the officer said.
I'm just pointing out that this "textbook" cases isn't exactly the conceptual design success story as it's being made out to be.
No. The language used above is imprecise.
The *video* showed next-to-nothing. Left ear location of the robocop camera, combined with right handed situation, led to a video that clearly showed a blank wall. Is this going to happened half the time in situations where the robocop needs to take cover?
No, it was the *audio* that allowed one to hear what the officer said.
I'm just pointing out that this "textbook" cases isn't exactly the conceptual design success story as it's being made out to be.
Taser Head-cams - to protect who?
Gizmodo explains some of the background for the San Jose trial. [LINK]
I think that the cameras should be colored hot pink rather than black.
I think that the cameras should be colored hot pink rather than black.
Perez Hilton: Taser International's new camera system may be back-firing
Perez Hilton is reporting that the officer-worn camera system, called AssOnline or something like that..., is backfiring.
Reports say that Taser International has given the new technology a spin in San Jose, CA where cops have been mounted with the "bluetooth-sized" cams, but the cameras have caught "violent run-ins with civilians" which has sorta-kinda angered the public. [LINK]
What did I friggen tell you?
Reports say that Taser International has given the new technology a spin in San Jose, CA where cops have been mounted with the "bluetooth-sized" cams, but the cameras have caught "violent run-ins with civilians" which has sorta-kinda angered the public. [LINK]
What did I friggen tell you?
How to defeat unwarrented surveillance cameras
The vast majority of surveillance cameras are sensitive to near-IR (infrared just below the visible spectrum). Your TV remote control probably uses one or two near-IR LEDs on the front.
If you have a cellphone camera or a video camera, aim your TV remote control LEDs at the camera and look at the recorded image or video. Human eyes see nothing directly, but the camera will record the near-IR light from the IR LEDs.
So to defeat cameras at close range, you need to embed dozens of high output IR LEDs into a hat (for example). The LEDs need to be cycled on and off at a frequency that will maximally confuse the camera's autoexposure circuit. This would be at approximately 2Hz (on-off-on-off, each second).
Even at close range, the humans will see nothing except a row of plastic beads embedded in your hat. But the camera clipped to his ear will record nothing except a blur of pulsating lights. It'll obviously work much better at night, but with the ultrabright LEDs available today, even daylight conditions are probably within the realm of possible.
I cannot comment on the legality of this technical response to close range suveillance cameras.
If you have a cellphone camera or a video camera, aim your TV remote control LEDs at the camera and look at the recorded image or video. Human eyes see nothing directly, but the camera will record the near-IR light from the IR LEDs.
So to defeat cameras at close range, you need to embed dozens of high output IR LEDs into a hat (for example). The LEDs need to be cycled on and off at a frequency that will maximally confuse the camera's autoexposure circuit. This would be at approximately 2Hz (on-off-on-off, each second).
Even at close range, the humans will see nothing except a row of plastic beads embedded in your hat. But the camera clipped to his ear will record nothing except a blur of pulsating lights. It'll obviously work much better at night, but with the ultrabright LEDs available today, even daylight conditions are probably within the realm of possible.
I cannot comment on the legality of this technical response to close range suveillance cameras.
San Jose expected to pay $4M per year?
San Jose is the first big US city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International, which is paying for the experiment. Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4m million department-wide each year. [LINK]
Do the math...
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - San Jose police are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public. ... Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift. ...Taser International ... is paying for the experiment, but the price could be [EXTREMELY] high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers. [LINK]
"Evidence.com will charge $5,700 per officer over a three year period to use the videocam system." [Information Week, Dec. 19, 2009]
Hmmm...
1400 times 5700 equals about EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS. For fricken cameras. Don't worry. The $5700 is probably a high-ball number to make the real price look low. I smell unwashed salesmen at work.
The business plan for this critically depends on forcing the clients to upload their video to an off-site storage system IN ORDER TO MAKE IT INTO A "SERVICE", instead of a simple hardware purchase.
What about the bandwidth?
Clients will have to pay for Internet bandwidth too to help the OEM with THEIR business plan!
"...2 to 2.8 GB per day per officer..." Call it 2.5 GB. About 200 days per year on the street. 2.5 GB * 200 * 1400 = 700 TB upload per year. YMMV. Call it 'hundreds and hundreds' of TB. Upload.
Ouch. That's not likely to be free.
Stand-by for an alternate system that allows local storage of only the necessary video clips beyond a scheduled deletion scheme. It's not that complicated to imagine that a better, locally controlled, system could also be significantly less expensive. I've seen DVD-R disks for $0.14. RAID arrays aren't that expensive. One could hire a lot of staff for millions of dollars per year.
The basic issue is that uploading the video and being forced to download it later is awkward and, frankly, stupid.
"Evidence.com will charge $5,700 per officer over a three year period to use the videocam system." [Information Week, Dec. 19, 2009]
Hmmm...
1400 times 5700 equals about EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS. For fricken cameras. Don't worry. The $5700 is probably a high-ball number to make the real price look low. I smell unwashed salesmen at work.
The business plan for this critically depends on forcing the clients to upload their video to an off-site storage system IN ORDER TO MAKE IT INTO A "SERVICE", instead of a simple hardware purchase.
What about the bandwidth?
Clients will have to pay for Internet bandwidth too to help the OEM with THEIR business plan!
"...2 to 2.8 GB per day per officer..." Call it 2.5 GB. About 200 days per year on the street. 2.5 GB * 200 * 1400 = 700 TB upload per year. YMMV. Call it 'hundreds and hundreds' of TB. Upload.
Ouch. That's not likely to be free.
Stand-by for an alternate system that allows local storage of only the necessary video clips beyond a scheduled deletion scheme. It's not that complicated to imagine that a better, locally controlled, system could also be significantly less expensive. I've seen DVD-R disks for $0.14. RAID arrays aren't that expensive. One could hire a lot of staff for millions of dollars per year.
The basic issue is that uploading the video and being forced to download it later is awkward and, frankly, stupid.
OMG - $160 per month per officer, not $100
"Evidence.com will charge $5,700 per officer over a three year period to use the videocam system." [Information Week, Dec. 19, 2009]
What is the point of such high pricing? Is it an IQ test?
What is the point of such high pricing? Is it an IQ test?
Security to "help" protect evidence
"...Security: To help protect evidence from being altered, or accessed by unauthorized people..." - from a recent press release about Evidence.com.
"...help protect..."
Not "...protect...", but "help" protect.
Any criminal charge against anyone with a good lawyer could result in questions about chain of custody of the evidence. Sent back and forth over the Internet. Stored in some undergroud lair buried under a dormant volcano. Big sign on the wall, "Just Trust Us". Defence lawyers are going to have a field day with this.
There's gonna be a lot of frequent flyer miles earned as Company staff attend trials all over North America (in their dreams), and spend the next twenty years trying to have their stupid 'Whitepaper on Internet Security' accepted. This will be the brochure that describes the system features that "help" to prevent evidence from being altered.
You can see this train wreck coming. Judge will ask why the only original copy of the video evidence was sent to some off-site location, and then retrieved over '...the Interweb thingy."
"...help protect..."
Not "...protect...", but "help" protect.
Any criminal charge against anyone with a good lawyer could result in questions about chain of custody of the evidence. Sent back and forth over the Internet. Stored in some undergroud lair buried under a dormant volcano. Big sign on the wall, "Just Trust Us". Defence lawyers are going to have a field day with this.
There's gonna be a lot of frequent flyer miles earned as Company staff attend trials all over North America (in their dreams), and spend the next twenty years trying to have their stupid 'Whitepaper on Internet Security' accepted. This will be the brochure that describes the system features that "help" to prevent evidence from being altered.
You can see this train wreck coming. Judge will ask why the only original copy of the video evidence was sent to some off-site location, and then retrieved over '...the Interweb thingy."
Taser International claims success from nothing
The Register (UK) - Corporal Brandon Davis of the Fort Smith Police Department shot dead Eric Berry, 41, on November 11 after responding to a call for help from Berry's wife and finding Berry "brandishing" a handgun which he refused to put down. ...As viewers will note, Brandon was wearing the headset above his left ear and standing in a doorway aiming his pistol in his right hand around the jamb: as a result, Berry's actions can't be seen. ... [LINK]
Watching the released video as shown at the above link, it is insane nonsense to claim that the *video* shows anything. The *audio* is okay, and I've got no real complaint with the officer's actions (although one wonders why they couldn't just back away and evacuate the area - anyway...)
If this is a 'success', then I'd hate to see a fail. It seems clear that the OEM's habit of offering equipment that is sometimes (often?) unreliable and/or ineffective continues.
Statement (corrected) "...we are proud [that] the Axon audio was helpful..."
Right now they're scheming - Maybe each officer should have two units?
Watching the released video as shown at the above link, it is insane nonsense to claim that the *video* shows anything. The *audio* is okay, and I've got no real complaint with the officer's actions (although one wonders why they couldn't just back away and evacuate the area - anyway...)
If this is a 'success', then I'd hate to see a fail. It seems clear that the OEM's habit of offering equipment that is sometimes (often?) unreliable and/or ineffective continues.
Statement (corrected) "...we are proud [that] the Axon audio was helpful..."
Right now they're scheming - Maybe each officer should have two units?
Police Brutality: Five Cop Thugs Sacked
See also: [LINK]
I sometimes wonder if the law enforcement community have an underlying assumption about their relationship to the law. They seem to be more than happy to be equipped with video cameras, but then they sometimes get caught on tape breaking the law. Do they have an underlying assumption that they never break the law? Or worse, do they confuse themselves with 'The Law'?
I've got nothing against video, but let's be honest... Sometimes the video evidence will be used against the police themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but the police had better change their culture of protecting their brothers.
In the incident above, the Chief said he is going to work towards figuring out who knew what, when.
I sometimes wonder if the law enforcement community have an underlying assumption about their relationship to the law. They seem to be more than happy to be equipped with video cameras, but then they sometimes get caught on tape breaking the law. Do they have an underlying assumption that they never break the law? Or worse, do they confuse themselves with 'The Law'?
I've got nothing against video, but let's be honest... Sometimes the video evidence will be used against the police themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but the police had better change their culture of protecting their brothers.
In the incident above, the Chief said he is going to work towards figuring out who knew what, when.
Dash-cam prevents assault ? Not...
BETHLEHEM, Pa. - Pennsylvania state trooper Mark Edward Shutkufski, 37, is facing charges of simple assault, official oppression and harassment for allegedly punching and pointing a stun gun at motorist Brian McCasland's face. State police officials say the assault was caught on his cruiser's video camera... [LINK]
Video camera which did not do anything to prevent the attack. And provides ammunition for a civil case.
I've nothing against video recording systems, but procure them for the right reasons.
Video camera which did not do anything to prevent the attack. And provides ammunition for a civil case.
I've nothing against video recording systems, but procure them for the right reasons.
Video surveillence fails to prevent insane outburst of violence
Stun-gun salesmen may use the argument that video recording schemes actually prevent abusive behaviour by law enforcement officers.
Watch the video linked here [LINK].
I think that YouTube's business model is safe. Even with cameras rolling, some police are still going to be stupid.
If the salesmen claim that video recording equipment will prevent such stupidity, they're just being salesmen.
Free advice: Lease, don't buy. Make sure there's an escape clause. Don't lock yourself into any long term contracts. Make them earn your money every day. Or don't bother.
Watch the video linked here [LINK].
I think that YouTube's business model is safe. Even with cameras rolling, some police are still going to be stupid.
If the salesmen claim that video recording equipment will prevent such stupidity, they're just being salesmen.
Free advice: Lease, don't buy. Make sure there's an escape clause. Don't lock yourself into any long term contracts. Make them earn your money every day. Or don't bother.
Evidence of what?
Taser International's nightmares continue.
Now that the taser / death question has been pretty much resolved (*), it'll be about time to start examining if more video equals less taser abuse.
Strange that Taser International first develops a weapon and training scheme that seems to encourage abuse, misuse, and overuse, and then (surprise, surprise) they start selling a video system to record the events.
* See the blog at Excited-Delirium.com. Search for "Braidwood".
Now that the taser / death question has been pretty much resolved (*), it'll be about time to start examining if more video equals less taser abuse.
Strange that Taser International first develops a weapon and training scheme that seems to encourage abuse, misuse, and overuse, and then (surprise, surprise) they start selling a video system to record the events.
* See the blog at Excited-Delirium.com. Search for "Braidwood".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)