The 21st Century has brought new security challenges where there are a hybrid of threats never seen before. The intersection of threats that are cyber, nuclear, narcotic, and trafficking means that there needs to be a national security infrastructure that can respond to the evolving environment. However, there is a tradeoff to relying on the government to protect and ensure the safety of the public. Mass surveillance is one of the major practices that allow civilian and military institutions to address information that may be deemed a threat. There are a variety of ways the government will track and collect data on individual citizens to monitor citizens. This has created the dilemma of maintaining individual's’ right to privacy or the government …show more content…
There has been a public outcry for disclosure and accountability for police involved in the deaths of unarmed civilians. Many cases like the Trayvon Martin or Freddie Gray cases were all cases where the individuals who died as a result of an interaction with police. The only accounts have been just from the officers involved in the incidents and with their testimony they have been able fully exonerated from any wrongdoing. This has lead to protests in the various cities but more importantly law enforcement has taken the steps to undergo police reform. Citizens have tried to record on mobile devices to shed light on various encounters but it is only a portion of the event therefore it is not a complete account of events. The introduction of police body-cameras have been implemented in areas where the population consist primarily of minorities, whom have been targeted by law enforcement and government surveillance practices (Mateescu, A., Rosenblat, A., & Boyd, d. 2016). Body Cameras will help to document the interactions of police with citizens in an attempt to reduce the police brutality incidents by shedding light on the interactions. In communities where there is less surveillance and incident of crime, body-cameras will be a privacy concern for those communities (Mateescu, A., Rosenblat, A., & Boyd, D. 2016). However, this is no guarantee that police will not be in various fatal incidents with citizens. If and when incidents do occur the police force may continue to behave restrict the disclosure of all essential evidence to ensure that officers are protected from prosecution. Therefore the body-cameras create new issues in regards handling of the video, the judicial process, and availability of video data for such
Police Body Cameras Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians, law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be fitted with body cameras. In doing so it is thought to bring an increase in trust in the community, reduce brutality and crime, as well as elucidate good cops still around. I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s actions when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in courtrooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situation in question.
By law enforcement wearing body cameras can be the first step into taking disciplinary action tour wards police brutality. Body cameras will encourage police officers to be more responsible on handling stressful situation and have more control on themselves, because their actions, he or she are in the public eye. For example study shows, when body cameras where issued police, officers decreased 60 percent of excessive force in the first year initiating of cameras.”(Donovan). The body cameras can control a serious situation
There have been lots of modern technologies introduced in the United States of America to assist law enforcement agencies with crime prevention. But the use of body-worn cameras by police personnel brings about many unanswered questions and debate. Rising questions about the use of body cam are from concern citizens and law enforcement personnel. In this present day America, the use body cameras by all law enforcement personnel and agencies are one of the controversial topics being discussed on a daily base. Body worn cameras were adopted due to the alleged police brutality cases: for instance, the case of Michael Brown, an African-American who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 2014, Eric Garner died as
"Security & Surveillance." Center for Democracy & Technology. Center for Democracy & Technology, 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Whether the U.S. government should strongly keep monitoring U.S. citizens or not still is a long and fierce dispute. Recently, the debate became more brutal when technology, an indispensable tool for modern live, has been used by the law enforcement and national security officials to spy into American people’s domestic.
Since their inception, police body cameras have been a controversial topic as many do not agree on their effectiveness and legality. To the trained eye, body cameras clearly have no negatives other than the sheer cost of their implementation. Some people, nonetheless, do believe that it is an encroachment of privacy for police to record private and/or public interactions even though it is purely legal. While that may be seen as a negative, it is wholly subjective and must be completely ignored when considering the factual analysis of police body camera use that is necessary to verify their validity. When only taking fact into account, there is no way to deny the nearly infinite benefits of body cameras.
Police officers should be required to wear body cameras because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease the amount of complaints against police officers, and lastly it will decrease the amount of police abuse of authority. In addition, an officer is also more likely to behave in a more appropriate manner that follows standard operating procedures when encountering a civilian. “A 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present” (Griggs, Brandon). Critics claim that the use of body cameras is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy.
The struggle for more transparency in policing is an issue that has been waging on for years unchecked, but with necessary body cameras this problem will be able to be solved. With the use of body cameras, police procedure can become public knowledge. This will help prevent things like the Ferguson riots that took place after the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson. Some people argue that the use of these body cameras could violate privacy laws because “Unlike previous forms of surveillance, body-cameras can enter private spaces more easily, and can focus on individuals more effectively” (Freund 95). However, this issue can be easily solved as unlike dash cameras, which are automatic, the body cameras need to be switched on. This allows the officer to use their discretion on when to actively record. This information can repair the already damaged trust between the police and the public. Use of cameras would also decrease the rate at which police receive complaints. According to Brucato “For the police, accountability offers the opportunity to exonerate themselves and their agencies from false complaints” (457). All the frivolous complaints and lawsuits that using a body camera prevents also serves a purpose to save money of the police department. In today 's society people only see the police incidents being recorded through the use of cellphone filmed
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
There has been a great deal of controversy over the recent police involved shootings, and whether or not law enforcement has used excessive force in some situations. With only the word of the police officer or those involved to go on, it can be very difficult to know exactly what took place. In some cases, there may be cell phone video available but a lot of times it is up to the person doing the recording’s discretion what parts they want to record and what parts they don’t. In this case, they would only show what would be beneficial to them and so the recording is then considered bias. In other cases, there would be dash cam video available from the police officer’s stand point. This too does not solve the problem because if the altercation takes place away from the police cruiser than it will be out of site of the dash board camera. So what is the solution to this problem? The answer is equipping the officer with a body camera that will record every second of a situation from beginning to end. This is the only way to get an exact recount of what took place. Police officers should be equipped with body cameras, but should be sensitive to the issues of privacy. The use of these cameras will protect police from wrongful accusations and will improve the process of gathering evidence.
There are at least 6 to 8 complaints made by every 100 officers each year. At least 30 percent of the complaints are for excessive use of force and that doesn’t include all the undocumented complaints civilians make that are failing to be reported. In the past year, police officers have killed more than 776 people. This information has only recently been brought to light. For once the media is not exaggerating on the crimes police are committing; this is happening right here, right now in our own country.
Police officers with their body cameras: a history and back ground paper to answer the question if should all police officers wear body cameras, it is important to first look at the history and back ground of the topic. According to article of Journal of quantitative criminology, writers Ariel, Farrar, Sutherland, Body cameras have been given a new eye opener to people about the excessive use of force against their community members. Arial, Farrar, and Sutherland in the article state “The effect of police body warn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomize controlled trial” describe their observation as:
On August 09, 2014 an incident involving an 18 year old named Michael Brown and Police Officer Darren Wilson sparked an immediate demand for police across the nation to be mandated to wear police body cameras. This incident between these two was also immediately politicalized, racialized, and seemed to galvanize the public’s opinion that police in general were racist, corrupt and untrustworthy.
Many numerous police officers have been given body cameras over the last few months. Due to this, there have been videos that were made public which caused an outcry throughout the country. With the increase in body cameras over the country, there has been many setbacks and potential benefits that
Throughout many years in the United States, there has been controversy over whether or not government surveillance and other technology is a violation of human rights. Ever since the publication of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, there has been an increase in debates on the subject. The novel itself exemplifies what a surveillance-based society is like, providing the reader with a point of view of what could happen to their own society. Discussion over the usage of information that the government has gathered has become one of the foremost topics being analyzed to this day. The information that is being viewed by surveillance would otherwise be private, or information that people would not want to be leaked out. Therefore, surveillance executed by the government and companies has become an infringement to the right of privacy, and United States citizens should take actions upon it before the world reflects the Orwellian vision of the future.