There's an adage that states, "The camera never lies". While that may be true, interpreting the objective data captured by a law enforcement body camera is a different story. The perceived promise of total transparency and accountability that body cameras represent is being questioned by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The ACLU sees the urgent need for a nationwide debate to accurately assess the pros and cons of these keystone devices used by law enforcement agencies. The discussion is particularly relevant in 2020 when the events of police brutality garnered enormous public attention and elicited call for reformation.

The Scale of the Problem

This isn't a small-scale conflict. Over 60% of police departments in major U.S cities have incorporated body cameras as a standard part of their uniform. On the surface, body cameras are viewed as a magic solution for the tension between law enforcement and the rest of society. However, the ACLU suggests a different outlook.

The Other Side of the Coin

The ACLU's primary concern lies in the potential abuse of power that body cameras facilitate. These devices can capture private moments in a public setting, such as inside homes, during emotionally charged situations, or during encounters that necessitate a high degree of discretion. For a society that values privacy, free speech, and the right to dissent, this constitutes a significant threat.

To further exacerbate matters, there are no universal guidelines outlining how and when the footage from these devices can be accessed and used. The lack of comprehensive policy standardization leads to erratic behavior that erodes public trust and puts civil liberties at risk.

Affecting the Vanguard of Democracy:Journalists

Body cameras additionally have significant impacts on the journalism industry, a crucial pillar of our democracy. Often, law enforcement officials have discretion about when the body camera gets turned on and off. This enables officers to conveniently "forget" to film certain confrontations. In other cases, footage that could be damning to law enforcement agencies winds up "lost" or "corrupted".

Moreover, as body camera footage can be classified as investigative documentation, it becomes difficult for journalists to access and use this footage with the freedom required to report accurately on events taking place. This deliberate control hampers the lens from which the public receives information.

In the Hands of Corporations

These devices magnify a different problem when it comes to corporations. Police departments often have to contract private companies to manage the massive amount of data these devices generate. Consequently, the proprietary software used by these entities decides who can see the files, when, and how they can be shared.

Under the current framework, corporations like Axon, who control almost 50% of the body camera market, have enormous power in shaping the rules around use of body camera footage. When a corporate entity can have such influence over a fundamental aspect of justice and policing in society, we have got to ask-is that really within our best interests?

In the context of these concerns, it is becoming more apparent that regulation, oversight, and extensive debate need to be the order of the day relating to the use of body cameras. The promise of transparency and accountability seems like a gambit in the face of potential transgressions against civil liberties. Will we make the necessary strides to regulate body cameras better in 2020, or will it become another costly lesson for future generations to study? Only time has the answer.