Terrorism: The Right To Privacy

Both National Security and individual privacy were massively affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In a matter of minutes, four airplanes were

First advantage in law enforcement agents wearing body cameras is to hold the officers accountable. “Holding the officers 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. Successful implementation of the cameras will require careful policies that respect and protect both the police and the public.

Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.

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

The PATRIOT Act abuses the privacy of American citizens. It has denied the nationals of this nation of a portion of the essential rights that were guaranteed to them in the Constitution. The rights that the PATRIOT Act puts into jeopardy are intrinsic and it is the responsibility to secure our inherent rights. The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was marked into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. After the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon the United States has created relief controls

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.

Body cameras are proven to make policemen act better while they’re are on duty. “Police officers "tend to behave a little better"(Kon, Body Cameras for Police Officers). if they know their behavior is being recorded on camera” stated author Tsin Yen Kon. Police will act better cause they know they are being “watched”. Just like when a student has a parent to sit in their class, they act very well, police do the same. Police will also act right, because they don’t want to lose their jobs or get fired because some careless mistake that they made while on camera. “When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better” (Knickerbocker). Brad Knickerbocker, the author, explains how both sides of the camera, police, and criminal will have an effect on their behavior because they know that they are being watched, and recorded. When people know they are being watched, it is like they get scared, because they don't want anything to be used against them. Although cameras will make police act better, people will still think that police brutality will still happen.

Rialto, California is an example of a city with positive results from the use of body-cameras. In Rialto, police began wearing body-cameras a little less than three years ago. As a result of officers wearing body-cameras, citizens’ complaints against police officers dropped 88 percent and use of force by police officers dropped 60 percent from the previous 12 month period when body-cameras were not in use. Rialto’s police chief said, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if the citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett).

One widely accepted idea is that body cameras for police to wear will help to observe what actually happens in traffic stops with police and serve justice to civilians and police officers. According to the article, “Should Police Wear Body Cameras?”, in May of 2015 the Obama administration started a $75 million dollar program to test how effective body cameras are, with hopes to give out 50,000 body cameras in 2018 to police officers (Majerol 6). Body cameras is a solution that is extremely considered and is already taking some effect. Moreover, research shows that body cameras can keep tense police encounters calm, help behavior of both the officer and civilian, and the footage that comes from the cameras can serve as evidence ( “Should Police Wear” 7). Research proves that body cameras can have an effect on police brutality and will help fix the issue. However, there are other techniques that can possibly help fix the issue such as training. “An officer also needs training on dealing with community members in nonthreatening ways and better communication skills” ( “Police Need Better” 1). Training will help officers work on making police encounters less tense and make sure excessive force is not a go to. Lastly, according to analysts, changing hiring practices in the law enforcement could make sure that unbiased officers that are focused on being close to all communities could help lower the amount of police brutality cases (“Police Need Better” 2). If police departments really focused on an officer’s beliefs involving the topics of race or religion, officers that are not willing to be fair to all would not be hired and in turn prevent more police brutality cases from happening. To conclude, officers wearing body cameras and police departments changing hiring practices could help stop more police brutality cases from

Historically speaking, authorities of the law were never in a position where their professional duties and their character as a public servant of the law were demeaned in a way that there needs to be constant surveillance of them and the people whom they come into contact with. There was never a need of documenting every encounter you had with a civilian before. In this day in age, things have certainly changed, and the past has always been something society likes to change and make better even if it raises concerns. Due to all the violent police stories that has surfaced in the past decade, the idea of having police officers wear video cameras as a part of their uniform while on duty has resulted in a radically divergent account of society’s future. The law may uphold cops to wear cameras while working, but is this really the best decision? This topic is very controversial and may create issues with cops and the civilians they try and protect in the future.

a) In a 2012 study, it was found that officers that were required to wear cameras while on the job were more cautious and their use of excessive force fell by 60 percent, while public complaints dropped by 88 percent. (Rory Carroll, 2013)

Several studies, such as those done by Barak Ariel, et al. have demonstrated a very strong connection between the use of body-worn cameras and reduction of complaints (Ariel et al., “The Effect”) (Ariel, et al., “Contagious...”). There is also an argument to be made for the relationship between the police and their communities. If the departments invest in things that make the public feel safer, such as body-worn cameras, then they will in turn be safer, as their communities will not feel threatened by their presence, but protected.

In February 2012, the Rialto California police department started supplying their officers with cameras they could clip on to their uniforms. At any given time, about half of their active duty officers wore these cameras. They found, in a twelve month period, that the department overall "had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against the officers". (Stross, R. 2013, April 6). They also had a 60 percent decline in the use of force by officers. They also found that officers wearing a camera were half as likely to use force as oppose to officers not wearing one. This is clear evidence that police wearing body cameras is a good

At the beginning of the study, police commanders were apprehensive, they felt that body-worn cameras might cause officers to center their time on dispatched calls, instead of networking with citizens. This was found not to be the case, suggesting that body-worn cameras allow officers to record suspicious events on the street before starting contact with a suspect. This could give more explanation and confidence to initiate encounters. Overall, officers are actually more active when wearing cameras, without aggregating their use of aggressive strategies that threatened the validity of the organization, like unwarranted stop and frisks and misdemeanor arrests (Stanley, 2015). Monitoring police behavior and demonstrating accountability are in the community’s interest as well as police departments’. Achieving this will require great attention to the transmission of recorded information honestly, as conflicting stories may come into play regarding how the content of officer recordings are conveyed to the

There are three main points supporters argue in this debate of why police should be mandated to wear body cameras. First, supporters state that police body cameras can help solve police brutality. The first police department in the United States to implement police body cameras was in Rialto, California, and according to Al Jazeera America, "The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use of force incidents plummeted to 60 percent" (Demetrius and Okwu 2). These supporters think if we were to implement police body cameras for all police departments in the United States, then these effects on police brutality could be attained nationwide. Second, supporters believe that body cameras will punish corrupt police