Sonoma County, Following A Global Trend: Article Analysis

Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about police body cameras. Some people agree that body cameras should be used by all police officers, while others disagree and believe that they shouldn’t be used at all. There are some cons to having body cameras but all of the pros outweigh it. Police body cameras should be used in all towns no matter how small because the people will act less aggressive towards officers, they provide truthful evidence that cannot be altered with, and the videos can be stored so if something were to happen, they could be brought up and checked as sort of like a surveillance device.

I agree with the advantages in your reply to police cameras about it improving police and citizen behavior. However, I'm not so sure about some of the other reasons. A recent study from Rialto, California shows that there were more complaints after officers started wearing body cameras as opposed to when they weren't. (Feeney, unknown). When I think of officers using body cameras I think of the case of Justine Damon. She was fatally shot by police in Australia. Both officers were wearing body cameras but neither of them had theirs turned on. (Berman, 2017). So, whether the picture was clear or no is not an issue if it's not turned on. There are many quirks that still need to be worked out with this system. The implications

They are not going to solve the problem. It is one of the steps.” Although I agree with Al Shipp’s point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that cameras are not going to solve the problem. Cameras don’t necessarily mean no crimes, they are still going to happen, more are just going to get caught. Some people can know they are on camera and still choose to break a law or commit a crime. My view, contrary to what Shipp is arguing is that these cameras are catching people and decreasing the number of crimes. There would not be many crimes caught without these cameras and would not be proof of knowing who committed the crime.

Although the cameras keep track of people for most of their lifetime outside their homes, the surveillance is necessary to regulate citizens and prevent them from doing criminal activity. Cameras control a large part of people’s lives, with purpose “to enforce good laws... to track the government’s political enemies, to gather ammunition for blackmail, and so on,” (Volokh 9). Cameras do not watch everyday activities to observe where one needs to go, but they are there to examine the cities for thieves and vandals. While these cameras appear in almost every part of the city, and people are unaware of what information of theirs is being taken away, the government or city does not scrutinize and judge people for everything they do. Unless a recent crime has occurred and the police requires its usage to track down the suspect, only then would a footage be released for the public regarding the criminal. Otherwise, other trivial and personal information about where one goes is not revealed. Whether the information is recorded or not, it does not affect the normal citizens who live in the area who have done nothing

Police could wear the cameras to help record evidence for crimes. The body cameras would help the process go faster, but may not get the finer or smaller details needed. To solve that problem, all the police have to do is write down the details, or zoom in on the object or thing.

Bill Vaughn said, “They could help prove accusations of officer misconduct,” (Blad 1, 15). “In 2014, an officer in Albuquerque captured the fatal shooting of a homeless man by officers who did not appear to be threatened. The two officers have been charged with second-degree murder and are expected to stand trial soon,” (Galles 1). Cameras can put the public on their best behavior. “When officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better,” (Knickerbocker).

The presence of body cameras make the community that they are in a safer and better place. Body cams can make

Body cameras can hold police officers accountable for their actions, both the good and the bad. “Continuously wearing body cameras would hold police accountable for their appropriate, and inappropriate, conduct” (Buam). Also when the citizens make accusations they could pull the video from the camera and see whether the police officer did what they said they did or not. “Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse

Although many citizens believe that all the cameras would create problems, their main use is

Cameras have the potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect police against false accusations of abuse.

Furthermore, as opposed to popular belief, body cameras can not only lead citizens to act lawfully, they can also provide amenity for both officers and citizens. Throughout history, times have arisen where an officer has acted out of the law. Body cameras can ensure that officers acting unlawful are punished for their wrongdoings. (The Police Foundation) A a result, this can assure citizens that they are not the only ones being punished for acting out of the law. Officers and citizens will also be more likely to act within the law, knowing that they are on camera. (Weisburg) In response, studies have shown, that citizens have developed comfort towards officers equipped with body cameras. (Fullerton Police Department) This new found trust has the ability to change the mentality of a community in an affirmative manner. (Mims) This alone could help revive a community such as Ferguson, that has been in shambles ever since Michael Brown was killed. In addition, Officer Drumond a highly respected officer at Sherwood said “I support body cameras and find it very comforting that everything I do is on camera”. (Weisburg) If body cameras can give officers a sense of comfort it can help improve their work ethic as well as keep them relaxed while on shift. This can lead to trust between officers and the community. Ultimately, body cameras have the ability to restore trust in a community as well as keeping both citizens and officers safe and acting within the law.

With the increasing emergence of traffic cameras around the nation, there has emerged a debate about whether the cameras are effectively functioning to keep drivers safe or whether they are just another source of revenue for cites. Facts have proven that the purpose for the traffic cameras is simply generating more money for the cities. The estimated amount of money that the city of Denver will be making in 2011 from these cameras (Kaminsky)—excluding the ones recently put up—a grand estimation total of seven million dollars… “According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety more than 550 communities in the United States use red light cameras.” (Urie) Research shows how the cameras are not improving safety for drivers, and for

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

Before the technological age, there were thousands of years in which the only way to record an image was to painstakingly spend countless hours painting it onto a canvas. Now, we have the ability to record video, in amazingly high definition, with a camera lense that is remarkably small. With the boom that technology has had, we have not been able to keep up with the laws that surround it. One such controversy, is the use of mass surveillance. We have been unable to decide if it is ethical to breach everyone's right to privacy in the name of supposedly preventing crime. After a careful analysis of the benefits and liabilities that mass surveillance brings, it was found that mass surveillance is a breach of people’s right to privacy, and is impractical in preventing crime.