Summary Of Privacy Vs Privacy

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

In today 's society, one highly debatable topic is whether or not law enforcement agents should wear body cameras. Most cameras used by law enforcement agencies across the country record audio and video, therefore, the cameras see and hear nearly everything a law enforcement officer does. There are many advantages to law enforcement personnel using body cameras while on duty because it holds the officers accountable, is used to document the contact made between the officers and the victims and/or suspects, supports the “use of force” action, keeps the officers and citizens honest, and the videos can even be used for training for other officers.

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

I selected an article about police body cameras. The article cited several studies, as well as the authors’ ideas and thoughts. The article, titled Police Body Cameras, is part of the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and prepared by Matthew Feeney in 2015. The theme throughout the article is that the use of body cameras will reduce police misconduct. Although we all hope this is the case, we must also look at the other issues involved with the wearing of body cameras. In an effort to gain citizen buy-in and obtain their opinions, they conducted surveys. Interestingly enough, most people did not want the officers to record them, unless it was during an enforcement encounter, such as a traffic stop or arrest situation.

A camera’s job is to record what the officer says or does and that is why some officers don't want to wear it. In fact, officers who are denying the use of body cameras are bad officers because when it comes to the reality, they wouldn't refuse it unless they were hiding something. In the article “Following Horrible Tragedy,’ South Carolina mayor pledges body cameras for all police” by Wesley Lowery and Elahe Izadi the author said “The mayor of the south carolina town where a white officer was filmed fatally shooting unarmed black man called the incident a horrible tragedy” (Lowery & Izadi, 2015). In other words, the video showed that the suspect was unarmed when he ran away.

This article describes how the increase of body cameras will help reduce police misconduct by recording police-citizen encounters, and serving as evidence of what happened. This article also talks about the complications that it contains. One of the complications are the privacy concerns, many people say they don't want their police encounters to be all over social media. It also says that body cameras are not the only thing that will make officers behave, it says they also need reforms of use-of-force policy and training. Even though there are many privacy concerns experts have said that those concerns can be resolved with the right policies. This is a great article to use because it appeals to

According to the article Fourth Amendment Implications of Police Worn Bod Cameras by Erik Nielsen, the body cameras will have the same regulations as police surveillance which can be used in public areas. “Such recordings taken without a warrant or probable cause will likely violate the Fourth Amendment when analyzed according to either the common law trespass standard or the reasonable expectation of privacy test.” Which leads to believe that officers must follow these rules in order to uphold the rights of the Fourth

Police body cameras are becoming more common in major cities around the us, and are meant to lower aggression and complaints brought upon the department's. Though the cameras are only becoming a big topic there have been many studies and debates in whether or not the cameras should be mandatory for all departments. The main and most talked about disadvantage of the cameras is the questions it raises about privacy of cops and the public. On the other hand one of the upsides are how much they will help in court cases by lowering costs and time spent. When in court the cameras can either show is it is a case of police brutality or if the cop handled the situation properly.

Body cameras footage has proved valuable in the investigation into police misconduct. “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body-worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera's so that everyone else can be able to tell their story better than someone who does not have these cameras”. For example, the student in south Carolina who was pull off her chair by a police officer, because she refused to give her phone. Other students, however, recorded the situation on their phone. They claimed that the student hit the police officer, which resulted in the officer removing her from her seat. However, the student who was pulled out of the chair said she only hit the police officer because he hit her. First, the police officer had been wearing a body camera it would have proved the actual events.

Police video footage of the public may present issues under the Fourth Amendment and under state and federal laws regulating the interception and recording of communications. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers may generally record whatever they can lawfully see and hear, without violating the Fourth Amendment. Some critics of body-worn cameras have warned that by routinely recording the activities of citizens that unfold in front of a police officer, government would be engaging in a Fourth Amendment search. Such a search is generally off limits under the Constitution, unless police get a warrant based upon probable cause, or can otherwise prove the search is reasonable. Under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that police officers are not required to “close their eyes” to action that is visible to everyone else.

According to the Article the cons of police officers wearing body cameras will cause little more controversial encounters between civilians and police officers. When police officers wear body cameras it can violate the civilian’s rights to privacy .Another concern is the cost of this technology will cost about billion dollars plus the department will have to pay for software updates storage and a personnel to manage the recordings. The police departments tried to find ways to cut down the cost, such as downloading the videos on YouTube so everyone has access to the website, which doesn’t have any privacy protection. According to the Freedom of the press their major concern is the police officers not knowing the rules and regulations when it

The body cameras the police wear capture everything the police, inside a home, or just the innocent people do. Some people argue that the police have the ability to turn off or choose when they are rolling. What they are not thinking about are about some of the rules or policies the police have. The police should not wear cameras to protect the privacy of everyone. States have laws for what footage can actually be released. These laws are for videos recorded in the police car or any other form of recording (Sullivan). This law should apply the same for body camera footage. If the government were to make policies for the releasing of body camera footage, there would be no purpose to have the cameras. Why this is, is because releasing footage

One reason law enforcement agents should wear body cameras is to hold the officer accountable. Holding the officer accountable, will ensure the officer adheres to policies and procedures during an encounter with victims and suspects. Body-worn cameras are poised to help boost accountability for law enforcement and citizens. And unlike many new police technologies, the cameras share preliminary support from both law enforcement and social justice groups. The cameras may be particularly beneficial for Black and Latino men, who are likelier to shoulder the harms of any police

Polices wearing body cameras is very important for society today, not just for the United States but also a cross the world. Today all the new covered about law enforcement is just negatively and it comes with video showing police officers interacting with citizens. (Lina Park personal interview), said that she visited Vietnam and China in 2014, while on her car traveling from city to city’s, her vehicle was stopped by the police in both countries. They noticed her as a visitor and a citizen of the United States; and they assumed that she would have some money and would probably slip some cash under her car registration. They kept her there for about an hour or so, making issues with her driver license, saying that she is not allow to drive with United State license in their countries, she knew something was up. Park and her friends had their smartphones out, recording the conversations between the officers and themselves. She said that his mood changed after she had the camera on, and the officers let them go nicely and did not make any more problems. This isn’t just happens in some foreign country, it also is happening in the United States. (Journalist’s resource Pra 5) from Justin and Jacob Young of Arizona State University had shown officer worn body cameras making less arrests then officer who did not wear cameras, “Officer assigned to wear cameras issued 23.1% more citations for ordinance violations than those who did not

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.