Question of the Week No. 6

 Congress mandated that the FAA pass regulations integrating the use of drones into the U.S. navigable airspace.  The FAA did so but declined to address the issue of privacy when operating drones.  Various states, including Utah, have enacted laws regulating the use of drones by state and local law enforcement. 

Should  Congress prohibit the use of drones by federal law enforcement for surveillance purposes without first obtaining a search warrant?

Police Body Cameras

Privacy vs. Accountability

By Lindsay Pruett 

Figure 1, GovTech

Introduction

In the last decade, the concept of making cops wear body cameras has gained more and more traction. They have been presented as a means of holding police accountable on the job. In light of police brutality, forcing police to wear body cameras has been argued to help stop that issue. After all, people tend to act better when they know others can see them, right? And even if not, body cameras would provide clear evidence of the actions cops take while on the job assuming they do still engage in police brutality. However, what are the privacy issues that arise when officers are equipped with such devices? What happens when officers are filming civilians whenever they are on duty?  What if they have facial recognition technology installed? Where do we draw the line between police accountability and civilian privacy? 

Unintended Privacy Consequences

There are a variety of privacy concerns regarding police officers wearing video cameras anytime they are on the job. It has to be questioned who has access to the camera footage and what happens if the footage is released to the public. However, what about the victims or perpetrators of crimes caught on camera? What happens to them when the videos are posted publicly? There have been instances of police body camera footage released on social media, exposing civilians in some of their worse moments. A young woman who was questioned for prostitution's face was posted online for all to see because the incident was caught on the interviewing cop's body camera. In that instance, she was the suspect of the crime. Even before a conviction, she was exposed publicly as a potential prostitute to people she knew personally and complete strangers. Another concern comes from bystanders who just happen to be caught on cameras in the background of a police video. People who may not having been breaking the law may suddenly be posted online for all to see.  

Figure 2, Claire Merchlinsky, NYTimes

Facial Recognition 

One of the biggest privacy concerns with police body cameras is if they are installed with facial recognition technology. If police cameras are equipped with facial recognition technology, everyone becomes a suspect. Suddenly every person a cop sees while on duty is being profiled with their information stored for later. It defeats the original purpose of the body cameras, which was to build trust, if they are analyzing every civilian in sight.  Further, the ineffectiveness of facial recognition technology makes it incredibly risky for police use. Research has proven that facial recognition is more likely to return a false match for Black, Asian, and Indigenous individuals than white people. This again defeats the purpose of building trust between civilians and police. Facial recognition technology's inaccuracy with regards to POC individuals makes it unreliable and untrustworthy. It would only heighten existing distrust between civilians and police officers, especially with regards to POC communities. 

Potential Compromises

There are a few ways to mitigate the privacy issues raised with police body cameras. One suggestion is for the footage to only be released to the public if there's an incident flagged in the footage. Further, officers should not be allowed to review their own footage to ensure they cannot alter accounts of events to match. Another suggestion is to have an independent third party review the footage rather than others in the police department. These raise a few questions. How would you determine who the third-party reviewers are? How should footage be released? When it is released, should precautions be taken to ensure the privacy of bystanders caught in the footage? There is no clear answer to these issues. Different cities and states have different laws regarding the use of such cameras, including restrictions on recording non-suspects or in medical facilities. Boston for example allows suspects/witnesses to request the footage be turned off during questioning, requires officers to be mindful of recording in inappropriate places (residences, hospitals, locker rooms, etc...), and the cameras do not include facial recognition technology. 

Figure 3, Olivette

Conclusion

I believe that the benefit of holding officers accountable on the job is worth the potential privacy risks of body cameras. Police brutality is a major issue in the U.S. that needs to be addressed immediately. Cameras would ensure police know they can and will be held accountable for their actions. However, I do not believe such cameras should be equipped with facial recognition technology. That technology is far too unreliable for one. Further it would only worsen trust between cops and civilians, thereby defying the original purpose of the cameras all together. Boston's restrictions with regards to police body cameras seem reasonable and efficient in particular. Overall, police body cameras are a good tool for holding cops accountable but they need to be equipped with a variety of privacy provisions. 

Do you believe police body cameras are worth the privacy risks? Why or why not? Does your answer change if the cameras are equipped with facial recognition technology? 

Sources

Bureau of Justice Assistance. "Body-Worn Cameras: Privacy Perspective." YouTube video, 6:41.     August 18, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oaI4mPor1Y. 

Chin, Caitlin and Lee, Turner Nicole. "Police surveillance and facial recognition: Why data privacy is     imperative for communities of color." Brookings Institution, April 12, 2022. 

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/police-surveillance-and-facial-recognition-why-data-privacy-is-an-imperative-for-communities-of-color/. 

Newell, Bryce Clayton. "Body cameras help monitor police but invade people's privacy." Penn Live,     June 24, 2021. https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2021/05/body-cameras-help-monitor-police-but-can-invade-peoples-privacy-opinion.html.

Newell, Bryce Clayton. "Police body cameras can be a positive accountability tool, but they also invade     our privacy." University of California Press, May 28,     2022. https://www.ucpress.edu/blog/56318/police-body-cameras-can-be-a-positive-accountability-tool-but-they-can-also-invade-our-privacy/.

"Police Body Camera Policies: Privacy and First Amendment Protections." Brennan Center for Justice,     July 19, 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/police-body-camera-policies-privacy-and-first-amendment-protections. 

"Pro and Con: Police Body Cameras." Encyclopedia Britannica, June 8, 2021. 

    https://www.britannica.com/story/pro-and-con-should-police-officers-wear-body-cameras.

Times Editorial Board. "Editorial: Police body cams shouldn't be surveillance tools." Los Angeles     Times, May 31, 2022. 

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-31/facial-recognition-undermines-police-bodycams.