Good Argumentative Essay On Police Worn Body Cameras And Privacy Concerns

Following the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines

It appears that every year crime is at an all-time high. Citizens are beginning to fear for their safety more than ever before. Strangely, however, is that now they are beginning to fear for their safety from the very people put in charge of their protection: the police. Efforts have been put forward to guard citizens against rogue police officers, as well as to keep officers honest, though not all attempts have been favorable on behalf of citizens. One such method instigated in recent years, the use of body cams, has made citizens as well as officers wary of their personal privacy and how much control over it they still maintain. Though there are many disputes surrounding the use of body cams stemming from both citizens and police officers, the essential argument from both sides is nobody likes being watched.
Police officers, of course, are instituted into positions of power in order to protect the people. As such, the people should feel protected by such officers. However, with the increase in police brutality in recent years, necessary precautions to watch authorities became necessary, hence body cams. Unfortunately, this has led to unrest concerning personal privacy. Civilians, for example, have deep concern for their personal privacy, as they believe they have done nothing to deserve being watched. According to, “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera,” many civilians distrust the cameras, believing they are simply another device to allow dishonest officers another opportunity to perpetrate more violence . In the meantime, innocent civilians are being spied on thanks to the technology, which has not been received well by the public.
There is also concern from many members of the police force. According to general statistics included in, “Personal Rights in the Age of Omnipresent Cameras,” officers who require supervision only make up 4% of the force . It appears to make the use of body cameras on all law enforcement officers unnecessary, especially when many are required to be turned on at all times. They capture all conversations, everything the officer sees, as well as everywhere they go. Many officers have argued while they do not mind being documented on the job, they should not have a camera recording them while, for example, using the bathroom or making a personal phone call to a family member during a break . These are all situations wherein arguably nobody should be documented, regardless of circumstance. While officers arguments concerning these situations may be valid, supervisors insist cams typically remain switched on, having experienced too many negative situations to allow the innocent luxuries such as this.
While the arguments made by civilians and law enforcement are valid, there are many arguments for body cams, even if they do limit an individual’s personal privacy. For example, some state that body cameras inhibit an individual’s right to the first amendment. However, in, “First Amendment Right to Record Police: When Clearly Established Is Not Clear Enough,” it is established that society as a whole has all but relinquished any semblance of their First Amendment right pertaining to this faction of privacy when civilians began recording many actions police officers undertook . The mere recording of crimes perpetrated by police officers ushered in a new era of surveillance that allowed body cams to be used. Slaughter does bring up preventative measures that may quell the nation’s fears, however, by suggesting a national standard be put in place not only for body camers, but also for recording officers while they are on duty . While the suggestions are sound, many are still left unsatisfied with them. Understanding that anything in the hands of the government can be used at any time for the gain or benefit of the law enforcement, civilians are certain there is nothing to gain from being watched. There is a fundamental lack of trust between civilians and law enforcement, as well as the government. “Too Much Information: Visual Research Ethics in the Age of Wearable Cameras,” explains the paranoia that can accompany the suspicion of always being watched, especially by an untrusted source . The authors explain that even though there are plans to make body-worn cameras less of a privacy concern, there is little that can be done about the disruption in trust, which is the inherent issue with the cameras. Intrinsically, people do not want to be watched, nor do they want to share potentially private information with an untrusted source.
In sum, while body-worn cameras may keep untrustworhy police officers in line, they are causing privacy concerns for both civilians, as well as law enforcement. Typically cameras are not turned off while the officer is on duty. Therefore, everything they see, hear, and do is recorded. This leaves every civilian they come in contact with on video; it also leaves every private interaction the officer may have during intervals off duty on camera. These are viable breaches in privacy that concern many citizens. They do not want to be watched, nor do they want to share personal information with untrusted sources. Many believe, logically, law enforcement should do their job and protect citizens without being watched. The very act of needing to watch law enforcement eliminates any current or future trust the population could have in them, also making it difficult to take their complaints concerning privacy violations seriously. The primary concern, still, is nobody likes to be watched. However, the issue is fully the fault of the law enforcement.

References

Miller, L., & Tolliver, J. (2014). Implementing a Body-Worn Camera. National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Mok, T. M., Cornish, F., & Tarr, J. (2014). Too Much Information: Visual Research Ethics in the Age of Wearable Cameras. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 59-65.
Slaughter, M. (2015). First Amendment Right to Record Police: When Clearly Established Is Not Clear Enough. John Marshall Law Review, 48-62.
Stanley, J. (2014). Personal Rights in the Age of Omnipresent Cameras. Technology and Society Magazine, 13-18.