December 10, 2016 Disclaimer: Please read.
Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.
Putting the Police Under Surveillance
Posted on Aug 21, 2014
By Thor Benson
In some places in America, a black man holding a toy gun or a banana is more likely to be shot by the police than a white man with an actual gun. We live in a country of lethal fruit.
The recent killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown are now widely considered tragedies in the American spirit, as people cry out for explanations of why they were slain, but tragedies can offer possible solutions. The company that created what we call the Taser, TASER International Inc., has a product that could curtail excessive police reactions to seemingly harmless actions by residents.
Companies such as TASER and Vievu offer body-mounted cameras that can be, and indeed already have been, administered to police departments to record officers’ actions and potentially provide evidence of police misconduct when it occurs. We can now monitor the people who monitor us.
Say what you will about tasing, but being electroshocked is far superior to being shot to death. Body-mounted cameras offered by the very company that created Tasers present their own risks and benefits as well, but an accurate record of a police-civilian interaction could help resolve the sometimes mysterious circumstances that end in the death of a person who seemed to present little threat to the officer involved.
Square, Site wide
Most police departments don’t see high-profile cases like what happened with Garner and Brown, but TASER and Vievu have developed products that can possibly prevent such behavior from going unpunished in places where it may occur—or perhaps act as a deterrent before it happens.
TASER’s Axon Flex is a new Google Glass-like product that records audio and video from a camera on the side of an officer’s head. Additionally, TASER has released a website called Evidence.com that will serve as a database where video footage can be stored and organized. Videos that are related to ongoing cases will be kept indefinitely, whereas videos that are deemed irrelevant will be deleted within six months. Vievu offers a similar camera that is mounted on the body and records from chest level.
Recorded police interactions could be used to prove that a police officer employed excessive force or violated the law; the footage could also be used to demonstrate that a claim of such behavior was false. But for Americans concerned about surveillance, police officers outfitted with video cameras could be seen as a violation of privacy, particularly when it comes to homes and other private spaces.
“We have supported the installation of video cameras on police car dashboards, in prisons, and during interrogations,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote in October. That said, Stanley and the ACLU are concerned about the privacy risks and possible failures associated with the use of this kind of technology.
The ACLU’s proposed solution is to prevent police from turning off cameras when they don’t want certain action to be recorded. Stanley and his colleagues also believe people should be notified if video will be taken and that there should be rules for situations in which a police officer is required to record, such as during the pursuit of a suspect. They propose that officers accused of misconduct could have missing footage used as evidence against them.
New and Improved Comments