Essay about Camera Phones and Invasion of Privacy

Police Brutality is a big issue in America. There has been many cases in which the Police Officer is put into question. Body Cameras have already been used in other states and it has proven that it reduces Police Brutality. On October 18, Corey Jones a musician was killed by a Palm Beach Garden’s Officer. Corey Jones was having trouble with his car so, he called his brother to come pick him up. The Police Officer didn’t have a body camera nor a police dashboard camera in his vehicle. He was was wearing a baseball cap, T-shirt, and jeans. He was driving in an unmarked 15-passenger van. There were no witnesses at the scene just the Police Officer and Corey Jones.The use of body cameras may invade the public or police privacy, but it helps more in cases because it provides evidence, reveals officers’ behavior, and protects the public as well as officers.

Law enforcement has took hundreds of years to perfect, existing today to provide protection, enforcement of laws, prevent crimes and maintaining order. It has been long argued that requiring officers to wear camera device would have calming effects on both law enforcement officers and the civilians who they encounter. This came to light nationwide after a fatal law enforcement officer shooting in Ferguson, MO., in 2014. After that shooting national law enforcement departments came under fire for excessive force and racial discrimination this continues to grow, boosted by social media. Following a series of high profile law enforcement officer’s shootings, law enforcement departments across the nation turned to wearing body worn cameras, hoping they would limit abuses.

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

Great post-Alethia. When I first became a police officer, the idea of wearing a body camera or having a camera in your squad was frown upon by most individuals in the law enforcement community. Officers did not appreciate the “big brother” feeling of a body worn camera. There was also the assumption that there was someone in a suit and tie or Internal Affairs second guessing how they did their jobs to appease the public. As the time grew closer for my department to begin implementing the body cameras, my personal opinion changed once I understood why we needed them and the benefits. As law enforcement officers faced more intense scrutiny for their positive and negative behaviors, in front of the public and against the citizens, the importance

The question of paparazzi threatening privacy and First Amendment rights is often to situational to argue in a conventional manner, but certainly there are many facets of the issue which can be addressed in a quite straightforward manner. Celebrities who feel they have the right to privacy in public places often muddy the waters of this issue. Oddly enough, those celebrities who have chosen to speak out against what they feel are violations of their privacy most always begin their campaigns with a large press conference. In other words, they gather together those people they wish to not only suppress but also berate in hopes that these people will use their positions and skills to

Over the past few years, there have been many tragedies involving police which have caused people to feel unsafe and weary. Body cameras are a great way to combat this issue because they offer both audible and visual evidence of misconduct. This can be used to keep the public and police accountable for their actions while maintaining an evidenced-based argument compared to the usual testimony based argument. In a Washington Post article by Dunn, he said: "Video provides compelling evidence of police misconduct and can be used to train, discipline, fire and even prosecute officers” (2017). Dunn is valid in saying this because the footage when appropriately handled can be used within the courtroom to help the judge, the public, and officers see

There is a changing climate in Law Enforcement that is heavily impacting police departments across the country. Many police departments presently have a combat decision that affects an already limited budget which is the implementation of a police officer wearing a body camera. Though this change is seemingly inevitable, it can be an investment that alleviates the department and police officer from allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, body cameras can prove to be an invaluable tool for officers and investigators while helping the department become more transparent and accountable to its citizens.

Department of Justice In 2014, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS Office), researched the use of body-worn cameras in police agencies. PERF interviewed more than 40 police executives who have experience with body-worn cameras, reviewed more than 20 body-worn camera policies submitted by police agencies, and hosted a one-day conference in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 police chiefs, sheriffs, scholars, federal justice officials, and other experts discussed their experiences with body-worn cameras (COPS). Among police executives whose departments use body-worn cameras, there is an overall perception that the cameras are a useful tool. One of the benefits listed by the police executives was the fact that body cameras may prevent confrontational situations by improving officer professionalism and the behavior of people being recorded (COPS).

The author emphasizes the importance of video footage and the objectivity it offers. Body-cameras not only assist police, but also helped vindicate officers and law-abiding citizens. Brucato explored the cause and effect regarding the absence of police video compared to civilian sousveillance video of past police incidents. Today’s ubiquitous cell phone surveillance hungry society warrants police ascertain body-cameras as soon as possible. For example: In 1991, news media outlets around the world broadcasted footage of several white police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department beat African American motorist Rodney King during a traffic stop. The video damaged the trust and reputation of police departments across the

Many people grow up to believe that police officers are here to protect citizens and to serve the community. Police officers are sometimes seen as community heroes for stopping a bank robber or saving a child that was in a harmful place and they are praised as a superhero. Many people forget that cops are also human beings and with every human being they have a dark side to them. There isn’t stating that everybody has a bad side but some people do and they could be an officer of the law. Many people say and hear the cops using excessive force or abusing their power but one thing is saying it and another is seeing it. By seeing and capturing what the officer was doing on video we could say that the officer did its duty legally or illegally.

saying that with the body cameras it will help everyone and the community feel more secure. Having them will help stop all the “talk” of what's been going in society and finally bring peace. There have been incidents where police officers have used body cameras, and have actually helped situations be solved in a quicker way. Body cameras have the actually tape with the time that makes everything go by smoother and faster. These facts could be backed up in court to help maybe have it be looked at from both point of views. The article also stated that, “A study conducted of the Rialto, California, police department from 2012-2013 showed the potential of cameras. With half of the police department where in cameras recording each interaction with

I heard the city council of Durham is looking to implement the use of body cameras, this letter is to give you a better understanding of the cameras so you can make an informed decision if this is something you want in your police department.

In the article “That’s No My Phone. That’s My Tracker”, Peter Maass, suggest in a seemingly, unbiased fashion, that unconsciously we are letting ourselves be tracked and investigated by simply using our cell phones, “Every year, private companies spend millions of dollars developing new services that track, store and share the words, movements and even the thoughts of their

Technological Surveillance In an age where instant communication and technology provide easy and ready access to information, the society and the individual is caught between two very controversial principles- open information and privacy. The perceptions and expectations of privacy are rapidly changing as a result of current developments in surveillance technologies. The question is are these new surveillance technologies endangering the values and morals of our democratic society, the society we have worked for many centuries to achieve?

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it