Video Surveillance on Police Mounted Body Cams

In an age where almost anyone is able to record their daily lives with smart phones, the question of whether on-duty police officers should use body mounted cameras has come under debate. Many have concerns about the potential abuse of the cameras in regards to the privacy of citizens.

How the Cameras Work

Many law enforcement departments in big cities use a certain brand of mounted body cam that comes with many features, such as low light/night vision and a 30 second buffer window where officers are able to begin recording 30 seconds before the camera gets turned on. The camera itself is a small, cigarette-sized device which can be clipped on to glasses, hats, and clothing, and has a battery life of about 12.5 hours. These cameras run at about $1,200 per unit. There are other brands of body mounted cameras, each with other unique features and different designs, and can cost anywhere from $300 up to $1,200 and beyond. Many officers wear these cameras mounted at eye level or on their chest.

Another cost associated with using these cameras is the cost of storage and retrieval of the footage. Most of these body mounted cameras record footage in HD quality (either 720p or 1080p) which creates big file sizes, especially if these cameras are run all day. Many hard drives are needed to store that much data, and careful databases need to be maintained by a technician(s) so that footage can be stored and easily retrieved.

What Cameras Do and Don’t Do

The ability to record information to be used as evidence is a very appealing idea, and in many cases can help officials review the facts of a situation as many times as they want. Cameras act as an unbiased tool that captures events, and can also act as a mediator in events by de-escalating them: if the citizen and the officer knows that the events between them are being recorded, things are less likely to get out of hand. However, the use of the camera is still at the officer’s discretion and can be switched on and off based on the officer’s perceived need. Events such as the Saratoga Springs shooting of Darrien Hunt (the 22 year old with the Japanese sword) show that even though the officers had body mounted cameras on their person, they failed to turn them on when involved in a possibly dangerous situation, thus preventing the following lawsuit from having video evidence from the officer’s physical point of view. Another thing to consider is that even when body mounted cameras are in use, they can still be misleading. Cameras record through a lens that is controlled by the officer wearing the camera, and although the actual recording is accurate, it may not be everything there is to present an event in the way it unfolded. For example, camera lenses generally aren’t wide enough to capture what an officer sees in his/her peripherals, and the low light/night vision capabilities of the cameras can generally see more than the officer can in dark settings.

Privacy Concerns

In some states, the video recorded by officers is public information. When officers enter a house and have a camera rolling, there is a potential for invasion of one’s privacy in the home by allowing for the public to view the private contents of someone’s home. This raises the issue of what to do with the video once it is recorded. Do we allow the public to see everything the officers can by utilizing a cloud storage system that holds all the video evidence? Or do we let the officers and public officials pick and choose what video is made publicly available based on current criminal cases and lawsuits?

Another concern is whether these cameras should utilize biometrics such as facial recognition technology. The ability for officers to identify anyone that the camera captures could prove useful in fighting crime. If an officer can know who someone is based on a camera recognizing that individual’s face, the officer could locate and track suspects and criminals faster and easier.

My Thoughts

When it comes to body mounted cameras, I think they are a step in the right direction. They allow nearly unbiased hard evidence of an event that can prove useful in cases. However, I think they are a very powerful tool that should not be used lightly and should have heavy restrictions and/or guidelines put in place so that their use is regulated by the government and made known to the public. I think that everyone has the right to know if they are being recorded or not.

Cameras would also help ease the tension that currently exists between police officers and citizens by being a “third party” or mediator of an event. Even though it is possibly for the officer to manipulate the use of the camera, they cannot manipulate the actual audio-visual recording of what is happening. That way, both police officers and citizens have a check placed on them so one group doesn’t feel like they are being taken advantage of by another.

As far as the use of facial recognition technology and body mounted cameras, I feel that these two things would cause too many problems and invade too heavily on the privacy of a citizen to allow for these to be used together. The ability to know exactly who everyone is places too much power in the hands of the police officer.

One thing to keep in mind with this issue is that there is already a precedent for recording possibly private information: cell phones. Nearly everyone has a cell phone that has the ability to record video of the things around them, whether they are at a friend’s house or happen to witness a crime. So if some may be concerned about police officers recording daily events on the job, I would urge them to think about how many regular people around them are recording their own daily events with their cell phones.