by Evan Koser

I will concede now that generally speaking, calls to cam-up officers come from a genuine place of concern and stem from a belief (backed empirically) that cameras put cops on their best behavior. But to believe body cameras are a cure, a band-aid, or even a ‘first step’ is naive thinking at best. From the first linked study out of Rialto, California:

"…findings suggest more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force compared to control-conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens’ complaints in the 12-months prior to the experiment."

Despite these ameliorative efforts, it is quite clear who the cameras are meant to protect—and it’s not you or me. While departments throughout the nation have moved to adopt body camera programs, that has not prevented them from tampering with and even suppressing this evidence. Cameras cannot strike at the root of police brutality—an officer could simply turn his camera off and claim malfunction.

Good Intentions

Although some assert that mandating body cameras for police is well-intentioned, I challenge readers to show me a single government initiative presented as “ill-intentioned.” Advocates of a nation-wide mandate cite the Rialto study and laud body cameras as an objective way of record-keeping and as protection against police brutality. Beyond the realm of corruption, already documented in such programs’ infancy, privacy concerns are also at issue here:

But when [Police chief] Farrar told his uniformed patrol officers of his plans to introduce the new, wearable video cameras, “it wasn’t the easiest sell,” he said, especially to some older officers who initially were “questioning why ‘big brother’ should see everything they do.”
He said he reminded them that civilians could use their cellphones to record interactions, “so instead of relying on somebody else’s partial picture of what occurred, why not have your own?” he asked. “In this way, you have the real one.”

So here we see officers are not only concerned with the protection of their privacy, but also clearly frame the recordings as though their lapel footage is objectively the “real one.” This can create all sorts of problems, one police department in San Diego claims their lapel footage is “not public record". On 7/11/16, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed a bill into law that makes police dashboard camera and body camera footage exempt from the public record. Clearly police (in the course of their duty as public officials) believe their records to be the definitive source. But don’t take our word for it, Chief Farrar already said as much.

Diminishing Force

Findings may show that use-of-force incidents have diminished, but such a decrease isn’t prompted by a change in attitude; it’s prompted by a fear of being caught. Lapel cameras also give the community a false sense of security, as evident by the drop in filed complaints. These studies also indicated that citizens are far less likely to file reports with the department in question. This placebo effect occurs when people believe the system is doing a better job policing itself. People see the camera and have less incentive to report something wrong when it does happen, believing the camera alone is enough to hold the officer accountable. I presume as much based on the fact that people rarely want to involve themselves in the bloated bureaucracy that is petitioning a ticket or filing a complaint. The individual sees it as simply too much effort for a typically small gain.

In the wake of the grand jury decision in Ferguson, the White House predictably issued its new edict: funding for federal training and equipping of officers nationwide. But a federal initiative becomes a federal mandate, and the last thing this country needs is more nationalization over the police force; this is an escalation of the panopticon.

If you thought having CCTVs on every street corner and stoplight was bad enough, just wait until they’re walking around wearing a badge and carrying a gun they can use with impunity and the judge is telling you that you can’t submit your video evidence because it’s not "official” thanks to the “Protect Our Police” Act or some bullshit legislation which 'strikes a balance’ between our liberty and our “security”. Even when they’re wearing cameras, you probably won’t have access to the footage.

Privacy Violations

As they record their own duties, the police are also often recording what citizens are doing – perhaps storing that, perhaps making it searchable. If the film is there and is being stored for some period of time, someone else will want to use it. We know this occurs already: the NSA has eagerly shared its surveillance data with other departments including the DEA, the FBI, and even other countries like Israel and the UK.

Every person you see on the street likely has a recording device in their pocket, but they are not recording every step they take or corner they turn. On-duty police officers could (though officers admit they can turn their cameras on and off whenever they please), and that means they’re recording everything, not just the incidents of police brutality; every traffic stop, every j-walker, every on-foot patrol.

They’re not just going to dump and delete that video data at the end of the day, they’re going to process and analyze it. Someone is going to get the bright idea that they can ‘make the community a better place’ by noticing “patterns” in surveillance data and pushing for the appropriate legislative reform (Minority Report anyone?) It’s hard to say for certain what could come of this (because the possibilities are limitless), but we have already seen how lapel cameras can be abused. It’s not just the police brutality or traffic stops being recorded — it’ll be every house call, every domestic dispute, you name it.

State of Surveillance

We are on the dawning of a brave new world. It’s not a stretch to say that eventually cameras may be required on all federally-funded property. After all, if its good for police, its good for you. The NYC Housing Authority (among others) has already affirmed the apparent crime-deterring value of CCTVs. It’s true that courts have determined we have no expectation of privacy in public spaces, but that doesn’t mean people will not carry on intimately regardless. Suppose you and your spouse get into a heated argument on the subway and an officer-cam happens to record you both…suppose its used against you later as documentation of your 'delinquent’ behavior. Just think about the observations you make on your commute to school or work every day–you see a lot of interpersonal disputes and now so will the cops.

Body cameras are still a relatively new phenomena among ‘peace keepers’, but they are fast becoming the norm. Although it is quite clear that documentation of the police in the course of their duty has been shown to generally lower the levels of use-of-force, we should not lose sight of the new obstacles posed by lapel cameras. Restricted public access, lying cops, and data tampering are not scary hypothetical scenarios—it’s already happening.

The same people telling us that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear are now concerned for their privacy. For now, body cameras on officer seems to be a boon to our civil liberties, but there will still be a trade off in the long-run. As for the issue of an officer’s privacy—they have very little. In their capacity as public officials (in the course of their public duty), their rights are far more limited. Despite numerous attempts to curtail or even criminalize a private citizen’s right to record altercations with police, U.S. courts continue to uphold this right under the first amendment.

Ultimately, forcing officers to wear cameras will not necessarily fix our social problems. It might curb instances of police brutality or lower the number of complaints lodged, but it does absolutely nothing to strike at the root of discontent between illegitimate peace keeping activities and social strain caused as a result.