SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
New Debate on Police Body Cameras Pits Privacy Against Accountability
In face of police brutality epidemic, middle ground between two concerns remains elusive
Sep 11, 2015
As law enforcement agencies around the country continue adding body cameras to their arsenals in response to a growing demand for accountability from police officers, questions and doubts over their efficacy are multiplying in tandem.
The latest challenge regards exactly how and when the public is able to see video footage of police brutality incidents.
In a feature published Friday, the Associated Press reports on the new quest to find middle ground between existing privacy laws--which protect the interests of civilians who did not consent to be recorded--and the heightened demand for responsibility among police officers.
AP's Eileen Sullivan writes:
A policy to release all police-recorded videos could mean footage of the inside of a person's home or a hospital would be available. But if the policy is not to release footage in order to protect a person's privacy, that could mean a video of an officer shooting someone would not be made public, defeating the main purpose of the use of these cameras.
[....] Some departments redact the faces of bystanders or those arrested, or blur a video so much that little is recognizable. Others won't release video if it's part of an ongoing investigation. Some policies allow officers to turn their cameras on and off.
As ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told AP, "Any policy that categorically shields or opens up body-camera footage is probably wrong." But in the face of such uncharted territory, the ideal solution remains unclear.
Further complicating matters is the role of individual state laws on privacy and public records.
In South Carolina, the shooting death of Walter Scott became a central case in the call for police accountability after the officer who killed Scott was revealed to have lied about the incident. Footage from officer Michael Slager's dashcam showed Scott running away from a traffic stop, but only a bystander's cellphone video revealed that Slager had shot Scott in the back.
In response to public outcry over the shooting, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed legislation requiring all officers to wear body cameras. But the new policy also says footage captured by those cameras will not be subject to the state's open records law--even though dashcam footage is.
That means media and members of the public cannot request body camera video or audio under South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law. Instead, police departments are simply allowed to choose whether to release footage.
Giving officers discretion over how to use body cameras or when to give access to recordings "will cause harm," ACLU advocacy counsel Chad Marlowe wrote in an op-ed in May. For its part, the civil liberties group released a policy model (pdf) for the implementation and use of body cameras which they say both promotes transparency and protects privacy.
"There is much we must do to remedy the shortcomings of our nation's law enforcement system," Marlowe wrote. "The implementation of sound police body camera programs is just a small piece of that effort, but if done right, it will likely be an important and valuable step in the right direction."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
As law enforcement agencies around the country continue adding body cameras to their arsenals in response to a growing demand for accountability from police officers, questions and doubts over their efficacy are multiplying in tandem.
The latest challenge regards exactly how and when the public is able to see video footage of police brutality incidents.
In a feature published Friday, the Associated Press reports on the new quest to find middle ground between existing privacy laws--which protect the interests of civilians who did not consent to be recorded--and the heightened demand for responsibility among police officers.
AP's Eileen Sullivan writes:
A policy to release all police-recorded videos could mean footage of the inside of a person's home or a hospital would be available. But if the policy is not to release footage in order to protect a person's privacy, that could mean a video of an officer shooting someone would not be made public, defeating the main purpose of the use of these cameras.
[....] Some departments redact the faces of bystanders or those arrested, or blur a video so much that little is recognizable. Others won't release video if it's part of an ongoing investigation. Some policies allow officers to turn their cameras on and off.
As ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told AP, "Any policy that categorically shields or opens up body-camera footage is probably wrong." But in the face of such uncharted territory, the ideal solution remains unclear.
Further complicating matters is the role of individual state laws on privacy and public records.
In South Carolina, the shooting death of Walter Scott became a central case in the call for police accountability after the officer who killed Scott was revealed to have lied about the incident. Footage from officer Michael Slager's dashcam showed Scott running away from a traffic stop, but only a bystander's cellphone video revealed that Slager had shot Scott in the back.
In response to public outcry over the shooting, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed legislation requiring all officers to wear body cameras. But the new policy also says footage captured by those cameras will not be subject to the state's open records law--even though dashcam footage is.
That means media and members of the public cannot request body camera video or audio under South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law. Instead, police departments are simply allowed to choose whether to release footage.
Giving officers discretion over how to use body cameras or when to give access to recordings "will cause harm," ACLU advocacy counsel Chad Marlowe wrote in an op-ed in May. For its part, the civil liberties group released a policy model (pdf) for the implementation and use of body cameras which they say both promotes transparency and protects privacy.
"There is much we must do to remedy the shortcomings of our nation's law enforcement system," Marlowe wrote. "The implementation of sound police body camera programs is just a small piece of that effort, but if done right, it will likely be an important and valuable step in the right direction."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
As law enforcement agencies around the country continue adding body cameras to their arsenals in response to a growing demand for accountability from police officers, questions and doubts over their efficacy are multiplying in tandem.
The latest challenge regards exactly how and when the public is able to see video footage of police brutality incidents.
In a feature published Friday, the Associated Press reports on the new quest to find middle ground between existing privacy laws--which protect the interests of civilians who did not consent to be recorded--and the heightened demand for responsibility among police officers.
AP's Eileen Sullivan writes:
A policy to release all police-recorded videos could mean footage of the inside of a person's home or a hospital would be available. But if the policy is not to release footage in order to protect a person's privacy, that could mean a video of an officer shooting someone would not be made public, defeating the main purpose of the use of these cameras.
[....] Some departments redact the faces of bystanders or those arrested, or blur a video so much that little is recognizable. Others won't release video if it's part of an ongoing investigation. Some policies allow officers to turn their cameras on and off.
As ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told AP, "Any policy that categorically shields or opens up body-camera footage is probably wrong." But in the face of such uncharted territory, the ideal solution remains unclear.
Further complicating matters is the role of individual state laws on privacy and public records.
In South Carolina, the shooting death of Walter Scott became a central case in the call for police accountability after the officer who killed Scott was revealed to have lied about the incident. Footage from officer Michael Slager's dashcam showed Scott running away from a traffic stop, but only a bystander's cellphone video revealed that Slager had shot Scott in the back.
In response to public outcry over the shooting, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed legislation requiring all officers to wear body cameras. But the new policy also says footage captured by those cameras will not be subject to the state's open records law--even though dashcam footage is.
That means media and members of the public cannot request body camera video or audio under South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law. Instead, police departments are simply allowed to choose whether to release footage.
Giving officers discretion over how to use body cameras or when to give access to recordings "will cause harm," ACLU advocacy counsel Chad Marlowe wrote in an op-ed in May. For its part, the civil liberties group released a policy model (pdf) for the implementation and use of body cameras which they say both promotes transparency and protects privacy.
"There is much we must do to remedy the shortcomings of our nation's law enforcement system," Marlowe wrote. "The implementation of sound police body camera programs is just a small piece of that effort, but if done right, it will likely be an important and valuable step in the right direction."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.