Privacy vs. Accountability
By Lindsay Pruett
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.
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.
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.
Times Editorial Board. "Editorial: Police body cams shouldn't be surveillance tools." Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2022.
I do think it is concerning how police cams can capture the vicinity of their surroundings and thus, behavior or other individuals aside from the suspect. Like earlier privacy violations we had mentioned earlier with stingrays, I believe that because there is again a lack of consent to be filmed, police cams violate the privacy of people in the public. Particularly in footage that they may not want to be in, it will be interesting to see moving forward how police departments address this issue.
ReplyDeleteHi Ryan,
DeleteI think you bring up a great point. It's definitely a concern if you are being unknowingly filmed.
Good point connecting the cameras back to stingrays. It had not occurred to me, but you are right, both technologies can end up gaining information about bystanders.
ReplyDeleteI think moving forward, as technology continually improves, it will be impossible to be able to prevent an invasion of privacy through its usage.
DeleteI agree with you that the accountability needs of this occupation takes precedence over privacy concerns. With such power and risk as a police officer, there has to be a concrete way to ensure that justice is served and individuals are responding according to protocol. As for civilian privacy concerns, I think that it could be better solved by making it law that footage with identifying information only be released to the general public under a court order or situational determination. There's a lot of nuances to this, but overall, I think privacy can be worked around and accommodated, but body camera usage is necessary for law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI definitely that is a viable alternative, but the real issue is people being filmed in the first place. For example, if someone is getting arrested in a grocery store, and other people are in the video, that might cause issues as opposed to it being generally released to the public.
DeleteTrue, however, I still think it would be difficult to prevent people being filmed in the first place.
DeleteI think that police body cameras do add a layer of accountability. After doing a bit of research, it seems like police force is negatively correlated to body cameras. However, the research is relatively new and may not be reliable yet. Overall, I think that body cameras should be worn by police but with strict regulations and oversight from the government. I'm interested with the idea of a third-party. I think it would need to be some branch of the government. Lastly, I do not think facial recognition should be used, especially in real time. At the moment, facial recognition is too inconsistent and I think it breaches a reasonable expectation of privacy.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the benefits of police body cameras outweigh privacy risks. I think that it's important for there to be footage of how police and suspects are behaving, both to keep police accountable and to have some proof of what happened. Of course, police departments should do their best to ensure that people's privacies are protected. Ryan brings up a good comparison with stingrays, and though I don't think police body cameras are as intrusive as stingrays, it's still necessary to consider how random bystanders' privacies are protected. I liked one of the examples in the readings with blurring people's faces.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns. I think that the biggest factor for me is the abuse of power that we have seen from police officers, and so having the cameras helps to give them a reminder of their place and helps to reduce the abuse of power. I also agree that one way to reduce the privacy concerns is to eliminate facial recognition software from these cameras, so that the police can’t really use them as a tool and more as a mean of supervision. I also think that if the footage needs to be used in court cases, the faces of bystanders can be blurred unless they consent to being involved in the case, such as being an eye witness for whatever is being investigated.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true, but in any case, I think the issue of privacy for individuals far outweighs the scenarios you may find of "police abuse" cases, where there should be video filmed of certain instances. In most cases, general police interactions being filmed, could be seen as an invasion of privacy as it could be deemed as unnecessary.
DeleteBody cameras are certainly a double edged sword in regards to an individual's rights. However, the negative effects of these cameras can be drastically reduced by not adding facial recognition software. Even if a camera is rolling at all times, one does not have an expectation of privacy to not be on camera if they step outside, but I don't think that body camera footage should be publicly released outside of court, and that it should only be used as evidence in criminal or civil cases.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the benefits of the body cameras outweigh the privacy concerns. Police brutality is a serious issue and body cameras are a small step that can be taken to combat it. Also, it seems like it could be useful to have a record of any incidents involving police. I do think there should be regulation on who can see the footage and I don't think there should be facial recognition technology involved. Police should not be able to make an arrest based on footage they obtained without consent, so I think they should still have to find other evidence to get a warrant. There should also be a limited group of people who can review the footage, not the general public.
ReplyDeleteThis was Alex, I'm not sure why it published as anonymous.
DeleteI really do agree with your potential compromises. It is important to state when the video will be released and how. The body cam footage can show a lot an either prove the Cops or the people were the ones at fault. It will also hold cops to be more responsible and maybe will help stop situations from escalating.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jaskehar Sekhon. My computer is dead and I had to do this on IPad. Sorry
DeleteWith recent events shaping the media cycle relating to law enforcement abuses and "he said" "she said" scenarios, I think police need to carry body cameras with them at all times. I think it protects both parties involved in an ideal scenario, as cops will have evidence that the story they tell their chain of command is true, and the person stopped by police will have a record of the stop and be able to report any abuse of power. Both parties should feel mutually protected in the case. However, the collection of the videos and whether they are published to the public is a different story. I loved your questions about third party reviewers, as the flagging system sounds good in paper, in real life would there be bias of effected by the third parties? I think these policies need to be set to create a standard, but that will be hard with each state having their own rules and regulations.
ReplyDelete