As the direct cost of video recording plummets to the insignificant, there is widespread support for more cameras in law enforcement, from interrogation rooms to dashboards to the cops themselves. From the standpoint of those who generally support law enforcement, we are confident that in the vast majority of cases where police misconduct is alleged, a recording will refute the allegation. The most powerful example of where a video could have done a world of good, of course, is the recent Ferguson, Missouri debacle. We now know that "hands up" was a lie and this was a fully justified use of force, but that would have been known from the beginning and the story would never have been more than a local incident if there had been a video recording.
Where the video does indeed show that the cop is a bad apple, it will be valuable in weeding him out, leaving us with a better police force.
But what about other people inevitably captured on police video? By the nature of police work, the videos will very often record people in the worst moments of their lives. Should those videos be public? Might a video of a college student being arrested while sloppy drunk be used in an attack ad 20 years later when the now-mature upstanding citizen runs for public office? Could videos be used in extortion schemes similar to those we saw with "revenge porn," except that unlike the revenge porn the person shown had no choice in the making of the video in the first place?
Where the video does indeed show that the cop is a bad apple, it will be valuable in weeding him out, leaving us with a better police force.
But what about other people inevitably captured on police video? By the nature of police work, the videos will very often record people in the worst moments of their lives. Should those videos be public? Might a video of a college student being arrested while sloppy drunk be used in an attack ad 20 years later when the now-mature upstanding citizen runs for public office? Could videos be used in extortion schemes similar to those we saw with "revenge porn," except that unlike the revenge porn the person shown had no choice in the making of the video in the first place?
Could we have a screening process to decide what needs to be released and obscuring faces to protect people's privacy, as the reality cop shows do? That is a possible solution, but it costs money, and that could defeat the whole project.
Ryan Foley has this article for AP. There is an accompanying summary of pending state legislation on the issue.
Ryan Foley has this article for AP. There is an accompanying summary of pending state legislation on the issue.
There are other issues too. When will the cameras be activated? By whom? Will they turn on automatically, for instance, when the officer leaves his car, or when he is on a signal of some kind? Or will he have to turn the camera on himself? In an emergency? Really? Remember that if an officer fails to activate a camera, it will be presumed he/she was hiding something. But if every time an officer exits the car, the camera comes on, there will be a huge problem managing the archives that result.
Next, assuming the decision is to video more, not less. Imagine that you and your co-workers are recorded by cameras in your daily work-life. Sooner or later, you're going to forget the cameras are on, and say something politically incorrect to each other, about that last customer, or about your boss, or the mayor, or the President...you see where this is going. It might be some harmless jest, or what passes as a complement regarding (not to) an attractive person. Or it might be a common use of a stereotyped image fitting some behavior you have just witnessed.
This is all just human nature. But now, for the cops alone among professions, private conversations are going to become public. This will not elevate the quality of the police service.