The Use Of Surveillance And Police Officers Carry Out Their Duties

Over the last few years there has been much controversy leading up to the need for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras. This is not only for citizens but also for the officers’ protection. With so much debate regarding police brutality and excessive force body cameras are quickly on the rise. New technology is giving police on a state and federal level a new opportunity to cut back on some of the allegations and negativity we have seen in the last few years. On the other hand it is giving citizens all over the country the safety they should feel when being approached by law enforcement. Our technology has improved significantly over the years and this seems to be something that will benefit everyone.

What is a body camera, a body camera is a small unit that is placed on police officer. It is usually a small unit place on a officers glasses, shoulder, or on the chest. Most unit are self contained but if it were malfunction the are a bit expensive to replace (Erstad). These cameras have to be manually turned on and off (EInvestigators). These cameras can possibly break or malfunction on the job but only in a rare cases (EInvestigators). Some of these cameras take a lot of maintenance to keep running like software and SD cards storage. As these cameras are getting more widespread and so city are making them mandatory to be on police at all times. But with more cameras there is more footage and people want that footage released for the public to have an opinion on. But releasing the footage might cause some controversy and may not be suitable for public eyes. This type of issue causes a lot of problems

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

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

In 2011, it was recorded that the city of London had the highest number of surveillance cameras per resident with 86.2 cameras for every individual. This caused the city to be named as one of the world’s most visually recorded cities. Most people believed that this would allow crimes to be resolved with ease, therefore leading to a decrease in the cities high crime rate. However according to the Metropolitan Police, for every 1000 cameras, less than one crime was solved per year. This lead to a mass debate as to the real use of the thousands of cameras being utilised around the city of London and the

The belief in the beneficial nature of using body-worn cameras in police work is becoming widely accepted. It has come to the point that that even police officers and their unions are supporting the universal use of body-cameras. For example, in Washington D.C., the police union backed a policy change by management mandating body cameras (Mangu-Ward). It is unusual for the police union to support a policy change mandated by management. In this case, that policy change was not subject to union approval. However, the union feels like cameras protect police. The union said that it favors body cameras because they will discourage citizens from filing false complaints against police. People who want to make false complaints will know that there is evidence to show that those complaints are false. In addition, in a

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

The familiarity of such cases is evidence to believe that one case or even many cases of the same caliber did not prompt the decision to fund police body cameras alone but a more influential reason can explain the decision for body cameras. A state of field assessment conducted by the police reform revealed that various forms of technology is being adapted or developed for law enforcement purposes, and there are many specific technologies, both current and emerging, that can benefit law enforcement. The theory that can best explain new emerging technologies that has power to influence political decisions can best be explained by the new media

Marfin stated the different issues presented for the department, such as the individual privacy and cost as she discussed UTPD’s process of implementing this technology. She emphasized this by stating “UTPD began testing different versions of body cameras two years ago, but the implementation of the technology took many years to complete” (par.9). Although the time and cost of the body-cameras brought issues to the department the author emphasizes that UTPD’s main goal is to build trust between the community and the police officers to ensure the community’s safety. Therefore, they made sure to invest in their safety by enforcing body cameras on the officers as explained in the article, ““This is something we believe is important to the UT community and to UTPD,” UTPD Chief David Carter said. “This is something to ensure that people have confidence and trust when it comes to our department.”” (par. 3). Throughout the article the cost of the cameras is highlighted informing how the technology works and what exactly it does to preserve the safety in the community. She emphasizes this statement by saying

Jamar Newsome Abstract Police departments nationwide have began to consider body cameras. Implementing body cameras department wide face many issues due to funding restrictions. Rialto Police Department faced the s

When the government or law enforcement has reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior, different methods of obtaining information and evidence must be used in the interest of preventing violence and decreasing crime. This is seen in the actions of Persistent Surveillance Systems, a security company run by Ross McNutt that utilizes military grade cameras, flown on planes two miles in the sky, to gain a bird's eye view of a region and any crimes that might occur. A controversy over privacy surrounds these methods; people tend to be uneasy with the feeling that they are being watched all the time, and it is easy to draw a parallel to Orwell’s all-seeing Big Brother. However, the cameras overhead are not forcing citizens to conform to a single mold or limiting freedom, they are monitoring for crime, or used to retrace the path of a crime after it occurs, as is the case in a murder in Juarez, Mexico. In this case, the police brought Persistent Surveillance the location of a body, which had been shot with no witnesses. McNutt and his team used the photos taken that day to locate the murder at the time it happened and trace the killer’s path to their current location, in less than a day. Upon further investigation the

The police officials whom Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) asked mentioned numerous ways in which body-worn cameras have assisted their agencies toughen liability and transparency. These officials said that, by furnishing a video record of police activity, body-worn cameras have made their jobs more transparent to the public and have helped decide questions following a meeting between officers and the public. These officials also believed that body-worn cameras are helping to avoid complications from arising in the first place

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

Clark and Homel (1997) mention in this study that they have classified three different forms of surveillance when it comes to the prevention of any given situational crime. In their opinion, the three different types of surveillance contain formal surveillance, natural surveillance, and surveillance by employees. Clark and Homel (1997) explain why the reason they came about with these different types of situation crime preventions is because they are comparing the effectiveness of these surveillances by examination of the outcome of what is

In the modern world there have been a lot of technological advances within societies. Technology concerns about security and surveillance has changed the thoughts of people. This surveillance technology consist of spying video cameras, CCTV security and surveillance cameras, surveillance electronic communications, face recognition and many others. Some people think this technology is okay while others carry a different view.  These people feel that it is an invasion of privacy, especially when it is in a public place. Use of surveillance technology are impinging on our privacy as they are affecting student moral, privacy at workplace, behavior of people, life