While the transparency of government-regulated videos of these encounters may be helpful during an investigation, the very use of them does raise privacy concerns for the public. Continuous recording would be most effective to maintain complete integrity, but there are specific encounters which should be protected.
Sensitive Cases
Many situations involve a victim that may be feeling extremely vulnerable, and most of them likely do not want to be documented in their current state. From domestic violence to sexual assault to cases involving children, how will these videos protect those who have already suffered abuse? People may become less likely to call police officers if they have to worry about their own privacy or protecting the identity of their child. These videos have the potential of making the identity of victims public information.Bystanders
People who simply witness a crime or an accident would be recorded, and they may have no wish to cooperate with police, and should not be forced to be involved. In this area especially the extra concern of facial recognition comes into play. If the body cameras are equipped with such technology, bystanders may be identified simply by being out in public. Whether police are patrolling or on a call, every person who passes risks being identified and their private lives being made public.
Police Privacy
Continuous recording for these officers would help them in many criminal investigation cases, but may feel like quite an infringement during day-to-day practices. If officers are supposed to constantly record, will they be reprimanded or questioned if they turn the camera off for a bathroom break that ran a little long? Or if they simply forgot to turn the device on again afterwards? Will officers even be able to power the devices off? These devices could also limit the officers' capability to speak freely. Chatting with their partner over lunch, conversations may be different if they are concerned about whether or not what they say will be reviewed.
The struggle with these devices is where to find the proper balance between accountability and privacy. What kinds of policies do you guys believe could help officials reach such a balance? DO you believe it is possible, or should these body cams be given up altogether?
For anyone who would like to read it, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discusses some of the potential policies in more depth here.
I am in full support of police body cameras. Steve Rambam, who's video I posted, dropped the fact that when you walk down a block in NYC, your photo is taken approximately 11 times by police and private cameras. As a bystander of a crime or accident then, you cannot help but have your photo taken if you witness a crime in a public place. So I don't think capturing a photo of a bystander should have any affect on the regulation of body cameras.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an easy way to avoid invading a victim's privacy with body cams. That is, any police officer who is carrying a lethal weapon should wear a body cam, and there should be other officers without any lethal weapons, without body cams, who would be available to speak with victims after the crime has occurred. Furthermore, I think the ACLU has the right idea when they say "The use of recordings should be allowed only in internal and external investigations of misconduct, and where the police have reasonable suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime." A policy that prohibits the use of videos that do not contain a crime would be another simple solution to this problem.
I'm generally against the "if you have nothing to hide" argument, but in the case of Police, I believe they really should have nothing to hide, and should be held accountable to that. Once again, I agree with the ACLU that cameras that primarily watch the government are not the same as cameras that watch the public. As a police officer, you represent the law, and you should be more accountable to it than anybody else. I think police who carry a lethal weapon should have a body cam recording what they do all the time, with repercussions for turning it off when it should be recording. If you commit yourself to public service, then you shouldn't be hiding behind a veil of privacy, especially when that could mean life or death for others.
Police body cameras can be very beneficial in determining situations (who is at fault). I think they should be used, with regultions to the use and security of the footage taken.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the body cameras may have a chilling effect on both the officers and those subject to the video. The cameras do provide a useful tool in resolving cases and interpreting what happened (if someone was actually showing agression or not). The chilling effect is beneficial, in some ways, since it discourages people from acting badly in the presence of officers (more likely to cooperate) as well as discourage officers from acting poorly (treating someone negatively or not following specific protocols).
To make this technology effective, it should be secure, so that if someone were to get a hold of the camera they could not access the footage. Also, the footage gained should be periodically erased, only to be maintained where necessary. The information should only be used for law enforcement purposes, such as evidence in a case, or someone who is wanted was spotted in the film (as a way to find someone running from the law).
I don't believe that police body cameras will discourage people from seeking help, if the information gained is used properly. Only the footage relevant to a case should be released publicly (as other evidence would), with the exception of a victim who was granted privacy rights (similar to the ability to work under a false name).
I think that both blog posts raise some interesting privacy concerns about police body cameras that I had not considered before. I believe that police accountability takes precedence over privacy here, as here have been too many disturbing cases of police brutality and use of deadly force to make these cameras optional. I think that as the technology associated with police body cameras improves, being able to edit out people in the background or sensitive subjects for example, the privacy issues will decrease.
ReplyDeleteWhile privacy is important, it does not outweigh police accountability. If the U.S. police force weren't so generally awful and corrupt, body cameras would not be necessary. But since many U.S. police departments have shown time and time again that they are corrupt institutions that have a complete disregard for human life and decency, police body cameras are a non-negotiable topic.
ReplyDeleteBody cameras are integral in making sure the police are accountable for breaking the law and using excessive force. They allow for better judgement of the situation instead of relying on biased reports and make it more difficult for the force to justify slaps on the wrists for members who commit horrible crimes.
I believe body cams or BWCs are an invaluable tool to police investigation. They can set the record straight on what happened in an altercation and record witness' statements more precisely than a police report. The instances where I think BWC use should be limited include recording in private homes, in bathrooms and locker rooms, recording minors, and recording people expressing their First Amendment right in protests or religious gatherings. Unfortunately the cameras don't automatically know when to switch off in these instances so I propose that when an officer must turn off their camera that they be required to record the reason for turning off their camera. This idea is not foolproof, just a thought.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what is recorded I believe that under no circumstances should facial recognition technology be applied to BWCs. That would deny bystanders the right to go about in public anonymously and could be too easily abused, not to mention identifications may not be accurate.
According to my research, the fear of public access to this footage being abused is really unfounded. In many cities the release of footage requires written approval by the Police Commissioner, Chief of Police, or another higher authority and who those records are released to is very limited. Body cam footage cannot be watched by anyone like dash cam footage on an episode of Cops.
Unfortunately, I don't think that any of these safeguards will do anything to mitigate the "chilling effect" BWCs have on otherwise candid witnesses but hopefully it will increase the public's trust in the integrity and transparency of our police forces.
More information I found on BWC policies broken down city by city can be found here:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/police-body-camera-policies-retention-and-release
and here:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/police-body-camera-policies-privacy-and-first-amendment-protections
I find this interest and support for body cameras interesting. I waffle back and forth wondering if it is a good idea for police officers to wear body cameras. On one side, there is the accountability that is supposed to stem from them. On the other, there is panoptic effect on the police officers with how they behave as they could constantly be monitored. Colin Ellard wrote for Psychology Today about the psychological effects of a panoptic structure in our lives and our emotions. He suggested that as humans, we feel a little disoriented and placelessness, while at the same time exposed and vulnerable. More often than not, we feel fear when being watched.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore as we talked in class about facial recognition software, we have fear that our privacy will be violated. That fear is what drives us to not use facial recognition. How does this affect us when we have facial recognition on body cameras? I think the fear compounds off of itself. Not only do we, as the public fear for our privacy from the body cameras, but then the police officer fears not only for the body camera but the awesome power that it holds.
Finally, I think that it is interesting that Alex states that if "you commit yourself to public service, then you shouldn't be hiding behind a veil of privacy." This makes me wonder about other forms of public service. If you are a firefighter do you have to wear body cameras? What about politicians in the area? Or politicians working for the federal government? Park Rangers? State Department Employees? The list goes on and on if we talk about public service even though I do agree that there should be more accountability.
Body cameras can be great tools for police departments. I think that the decrease in use-of-force incidents show that the body cameras are beneficial and help give the police a better image. By simply wearing the cameras it is an expression that the officers have nothing to hide. Although this does come with an infringement of privacy for both the officers and those that the camera is recording. I don’t believe there is much of a problem if the cameras collect footage of people while they are outside since there should not be a great expectation of privacy while in public, however when police enter one’s home this can be an invasion of privacy. I believe there is further concern that evidence could be collected with the use of these cameras without a search warrant being obtained, and if other technologies such a facial recognition are coupled with this technology the situation is further complicated. I believe that these technologies should be used but need to be carefully regulated.
ReplyDeleteThis is posted on behalf of Molly, who had posting difficulties.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the use of police body cameras. In a heated situation it can be easy to incorrectly interpret words or actions by both sides. This is why it is important to have an unbiased account of what happened. There should be regulation that the footage should be sent to a secure place. If only the officers with the cameras had access to the footage they could alter or delete things they don't want others to see. Also if officers know they are being filmed it might encourage them to handle the situation more calmly/ professionally than they otherwise might have. If a person who was going to commit a crime sees that they are being recorded it might deter them from doing so and possible save people from getting hurt. It also does eliminate the need for witness testimony that can be false.