Body-worn cameras in US law enforcement: balancing accountability and privacy
Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have emerged as a crucial tool in law enforcement across the United States. These small, wearable devices have made a significant impact on policing practices, accountability, and public trust.
Following concerns about police use of force, in 2014 the Obama administration funded body-worn camera programmes across 32 states. Since then, the Biden administration further pushed for BWCs in federal law enforcement agencies, and in 2021, the Department of Justice mandated BWCs for its officers. Now, it is compulsory for police officers to wear body-worn cameras in no less than seven states, with more states planning to follow suit soon.
BWCs’ address a growing demand for transparency, accountability, and improved interactions between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. They provide objective evidence and help de-escalate tense situations - which leads to fairer outcomes and improved trust. In fact, a staggering 86% of Americans support their use.
With BWCs’ usage spanning across the US, their adoption has not been without challenges.
Surveillance and privacy: what are the increased concerns?
BWCs raise concerns related to privacy, data storage, increased surveillance and officer compliance.
Individual officer discretion to activate or deactivate BWCs in specific situations is a major challenge. Last year, it was reported that between 15-40% of officers in San Diego did not record interactions using their BWC. Likewise, Axios found that among Philadelphia police, over 1,000 officers had neglected to activate their cameras or breached departmental body camera policies, while over 3,000 officers have amassed hundreds of thousands of hours of footage which was mostly unreviewed.
These instances of non-compliance highlight a nationwide challenge of ensuring consistent adherence to BWC policies and the urgent need for comprehensive solutions. For example, in 2021 Minneapolis instituted a ban on officers turning BWCs off during public interactions.
Diverse state regulations dictate when to activate cameras, who can access footage and data retention periods - which can create confusion and grey areas as to what rules apply. But transparency around police practices is key.
In fact, San Diego recently passed a city surveillance ordinance whereby city departments are required to disclose their surveillance technologies, and how they impact communities. In several US states including Maryland and Texas, BWC policies are a legal requirement. However, opinion remains mixed on the success of these policies - for example, in Portland, there have been concerns about whether officers should legally be able to review footage before writing reports on certain incidents.
Balancing the public's right to know through Freedom of Information requests with the privacy of those individuals captured in footage is complex. Given the sensitive nature of video, a lot of footage cannot be released unless it is for specified statutory purposes. More body-worn cameras also shine a light on the potential for increased surveillance of citizens in public spaces, which could infringe on individuals' right to privacy.
There is a need to implement tools that strike a balance between public safety and personal privacy. Anonymisation appears as a potential solution - but it bears its own challenges. Video anonymisation can be a time-consuming and expensive process, and following the National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, agencies must bear the cost of redaction in response to a citizen's request.
Balancing transparency with safeguards
Clear legal guidance: Law enforcement agencies must establish robust policies around BWC usage, activation criteria, data access, data sharing, and retention.
Training: Officers should receive training on BWC deployment, how to prioritise privacy considerations and information on consent practices.
Independent oversight: Independent bodies to oversee BWC usage will bolster accountability and build public trust in the technology.
Technological safeguards: Encryption, secure storage, access controls, and advanced anonymisation techniques should be integrated to protect data from unauthorised access and privacy breaches.
Body-worn cameras represent a necessary evolution in modern law enforcement as they foster more transparency and accountability. Striking the balance with privacy requires collaboration among law enforcement agencies, legislators and technology providers to preserve individuals’ freedom alongside their security.