Body Cameras and Our Privacy Rights
This article was archived from the previous WordPress site. Formatting and media should be close, but may not match the original post perfectly.
In this age of technology, practically anyone can now capture photographs and videos with devices not much bigger than a piece of gum. Thousands of pictures can easily be gathered in minutes. We are all creating a digital footprint that can last forever on the internet. In light of the recent criticisms of police arrests, body cameras for police officers are becoming a hot topic in Hartford.
On one hand, this data is helpful for investigation purposes, but on the other, it can become a scary invasion of privacy. The legislature saw this play out with the Sandy Hook tragedy where investigators took photos of the gruesome crime scene. Those photos became a disclosable public document under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. As a result, the legislature, under some criticism, passed a law to protect those images from disclosure. While one can argue that all public documents should remain public under all circumstances, it fails to acknowledge the proliferation and ease of data collection and the privacy rights of the victims.
Some are now advocating for body cameras on police officers. If Connecticut chooses to take this course of action, we must begin a dialogue about privacy rights and data collection. These cameras may capture people at their worst or most vulnerable times. Whether it is a domestic event, car accident or traffic stop, I’m not sure people would want to see their images plastered on YouTube, Facebook or any other social media website. In addition, while these cameras may be inexpensive, what’s more concerning is how towns and cities will purchase and maintain the servers necessary to store the massive amount of videos.
One of Connecticut’s largest police unions in Hartford recently expressed concerns over how these cameras will be used as well. Unlike the NFL booth reviews on referee calls, second guessing an officer’s reaction may have an adverse impact on public safety and turn the public into Monday morning quarterbacks on situations that we don’t truly understand. The Hartford Police Union has raised some compelling issues pertaining to the use of body cameras. To name a few, a camera does not follow the eyes of the police officer, thus recording things that the officer may not see; cameras’ recorded images are two dimensional; cameras can pick up images better in low light than the human eye; and camera speeds differ from the speed of life.
In Graham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court found that "[t]he 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." When the public views the actions of an officer, we cannot judge it from a “what would I have done perspective.”
Body cameras may seem like a sensible solution to protect the rights of the public and police officers, but I believe the state must address these serious privacy issues before cities and towns take on this endeavor. I don’t believe any of us would want images of a loved one being arrested or injured, plastered all over the internet and paid for by our tax dollars. We must be careful of what we ask for.
Vincent Candelora
State Representative for the 86th District