Reversing Transparency

TimeWatch Editorial
July 13, 2016

Recently, police departments nationwide have chosen to include as a part of their officers equipment, body-cameras. It was never made clear as to whether these cameras would store the information collected within the camera itself, or if there would be an automatic feed to a server. These cameras were originally intended to provide indisputable proof that the officers actions were well within the law. The number of accusations regarding police inappropriate actions had risen to such a level, that something needed to be done. According to Mike Maciag in his January 26, 2016 article entitled: “Almost All Police Departments Plan to Use Body Cameras” on the Governing.com Website says that:

“Even though every cop will likely wear a recording device in the not-too-distant future, a new report reveals there's little consensus about how to use them. Nearly every large police department in a new nationwide survey said it plans to move forward with body-worn cameras, with 95 percent either committed to body cameras or having completed their implementation. But as body cameras become more common, police will face a host of policy issues they must sort out.”Mike Maciag, “Almost All Police Departments Plan to Use Body Cameras” January 26, 2016, Governing.com website

Remember that the original motivation for the camera was to protect the integrity of the officer while executing his duties, so that any false claims might be immediately rebuffed. This has proved to be easier said than done. Some of the footage has proved the opposite of the intended objective and this has caused some debate regarding the use of the cameras. When should they be turned on, when should they be turned off, etc.

“Because of the varying policies dictating when officers have to turn on their cameras, some agencies are recording far more footage than others. In just under half of agencies surveyed (49 percent), officers record an average of three or fewer hours of video per day. About 10 percent of departments estimated their officers record four to six hours of video per day, and only 3 percent reported an average of seven or more hours per day. Perhaps more notable is that nearly 38 percent of agencies indicated they hadn't yet determined how many hours of video officers were recording, suggesting they may be struggling to track all the footage.”Mike Maciag, “Almost All Police Departments Plan to Use Body Cameras” January 26, 2016, Governing.com website

On June 29, 2016, in an article published on the Atlantic CityLab website entitled: “North Carolina will Bar Public Access to Police-Cam Footage” we have been informed that:

“A controversial bill on the matter has cleared the House and made its way through the Senate Wednesday. Remember that bill that would restrict police body-camera footage from the public , the one that North Carolina’s House judiciary committee passed earlier this month?  Well, it has been approved by the full state House of Representatives and has passed through the state Senate as of Wednesday afternoon. It now heads back to the House for another vote on language added to the legislation. If that is approved, the bill will go to Governor Pat McCrory, who is expected to sign it into law.  The bill renders any footage captured by a police officer’s body camera or police dashboard camera closed from public view. This means that no one will have the right to view the footage—not even the people who are, themselves, captured on the video. If the bill becomes a law, the only way to view such footage will be to get a judge’s approval.” “North Carolina will Bar Public Access to Police-Cam Footage” June 29, 2016, the Atlantic CityLab website

If this becomes the standard for the nation, the supposed transparency will be reversed, and made subject to legal wrangling and editorial suspicion. It matter's little what technological invention is introduced, if the heart of man remains unchanged then the problems will persist. What is needed then is a change of heart. There must be an adjustment of the motivating forces that drive thought and action. The ingrained perception of “others” that has been born in suspicion and mistrust will always bring forth the fruit of hatred and violence. What must first be transparent is the mutual respect for and consideration of others. Then our greatest technological invention will be revealed; humanity.

Cameron A. Bowen