(Police) Officers' body cameras raise privacy concerns

[Omaha Steve]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140315/DACI6K4G2.html

By TAMI ABDOLLAH

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Officers at thousands of law enforcement agencies are wearing tiny cameras to record their interactions with the public, but in many cases the devices are being rolled out faster than departments are able to create policies to govern their use.

And some rank-and-file officers are worried the technology might ultimately be used to derail their careers if, for example, an errant comment about a superior is captured on tape.


This Jan. 15, 2014 file photo shows a Los Angeles Police officer wearing an on-body cameras during a demonstration for media in Los Angeles. Thousands of police agencies have equipped officers with cameras to wear with their uniforms, but they’ve frequently lagged in setting policies on how they’re used, potentially putting privacy at risk and increasing their liability. As officers in one of every six departments across the nation now patrols with tiny lenses on their chests, lapels or sunglasses, administrators and civil liberties experts are trying to envision and address troublesome scenarios that could unfold in front of a live camera. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)


Most law enforcement leaders and civil liberties advocates believe the cameras will ultimately help officers because the devices give them a way to record events from their point of view at a time when citizens armed with cellphones are actively scrutinizing their every move.

They say, however, that the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras' use could potentially undermine departments' goals of creating greater accountability of officers and jeopardize the privacy of both the public and law enforcement officers.

FULL story at link.

[Orrex]

1. I work in a call center, and every second of every call is recorded

I see no reason why every second of a police officer's duty shouldn't as readily be recorded.

The fact that no governing policies are yet in place is inconvenient, but it shouldn't be permitted to undermine legitimate concerns about public safety and oversight.

[Omaha Steve]

15. I'm a uniformed IST at the Omaha Police Dept front desk

Every moment of the lobby is recorded. Every call is recorded. We don't have these types of cameras on officers.

Last year the chief made it clear that no police personnel can interfere with a citizen recording anything we do. I was so proud when that came out. I'm proud of my Dept. period. This while our budget was cut over 5 million $ last year.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014480810

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Maggie O'Brien

Omaha police officers are hitting the streets with a clear directive: Don't interfere with citizens' right to record police action.

The department has refined its policy on the public's use of cameras and video in the wake of a YouTube posting of an arrest that led to the firing of four officers, two of whom are charged with criminal wrongdoing. The March 21 incident highlighted the sometimes contentious terrain that officers and citizens navigate when cameras increasingly capture their interactions.

“Individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, plain and simple,” said Deputy Chief Greg Gonzalez.

The department has long recognized that right. But the revised policy, which cites federal case law, states that citizens cannot be arrested simply for recording police or being near a crime scene.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130511/NEWS/705119930/1685#omaha-officers-told-don-t-interfere-with-citizens-right-to-record-police-activity

[Orrex]

16. That sucks about your budget, and that's commendable about your chief. Still...

The fact that anyone would resist this initiative is preposterous to me, or at the very least it should be a case of "too bad, deal with it."

If it makes sense to use dash-cams for traffic stops, then it makes sense to use cop-cams for interactions in the line of duty.

[NightWatcher]

2. they shouldn't worry, if they're not doing anything wrong...

[Ellipsis]

4. heh.

[NightWatcher]

7. isn't that what they tell us about all the security cameras and invasive surveillance?

[Ellipsis]

10. The "fhoe" is on the other "soot" ain't it?

Pretty soon robo cop will be the reality.

[Autumn]

3. No reason for them to worry.

[MrScorpio]

5. I think that the cameras should be used by all police departments

And, yes, they should develop usage guidelines ASAP

[JJChambers]

6. Hahahahahahah "Tiny cameras" in article and GIANT CAMERA in photograph

Looks like supersized 80s tech

[penultimate]

8. I know, right? WTF?

[Iggo]

9. Tough shit.

We're sick of you beating us and killing us.

Wear the goddam cameras.

[gvstn]

11. +1

[JJChambers]

12. The chest cameras are stupid

In a shooting, the officer'a outstretched arms are going to be blocking some or all of the field of view. If the officer is facing forward but shooting and looking to the side, the camera won't help.

I would like to see google glass style cameras so we can see what the officer sees, as well as gun cameras. I don't mind having a chest camera but I would like to it to be a backup and NOT the default.

I expect that the prevalence of cameras will REDUCE the number of perceived questionable shootings by law enforcement. I think that it is in our nature to question the word of an authority figure who kills a citizen; we need to see what happened to believe what happened. I also believe that most police shootings are completely justified.

[NobodyHere]

13. I get the feeling..

that these cameras will conveniently (for the cop) "break" from time to time.

[Politicalboi]

14. Use something like the google glasses

And let them take them off while in their patrol car as long as it's just cops in the car. If they have a prisoner, then they should have to wear them. We don't want cops not being able to let off some steam to fellow officers while driving.