I
noticed something interesting back when everyone was talking about Snowden and
PRISM and the NSA, which was that the news was starting to show videos of
everything. We saw bold thieves stealing plants and packages from doorsteps,
lazy mail carriers dumping mail in the trash or throwing packages at front
steps. We saw hit and run accidents. We even saw a cat save a child from a dog.
Some
of these videos helped identify criminals, and some were just for amusement,
but they were made possible by the increasing number of people with cameras
installed.
Honestly
I have very ambiguous feelings about it. I see the value in having a video
record to go back to in case something happens, though I would rather prevent
bad things from happening. Also, it's a strange thought to realize how often I
am on camera.
I
suppose the reason people don't mind this is because they are choosing to
install the cameras, not finding out later that the government did it. You may
end up filming people who had no interest in being filmed, but often the only
reason anyone is checking the footage is because someone clipped a little girl
and drove off or followed the UPS truck and stole your package.
We
can lament the end of privacy, or laud the end of crime, but probably both are
premature. You may have footage of all of your neighbors picking their noses,
but not realize it because nothing has happened to cause you to look.
(My
impression is that the same thing happens with most of the PRISM data. Does the
impracticality of using the data make collecting it less problematic? Probably
not.)
You
could also be using video technology to get up-skirt photos of women, and find
that a Texas court considers a ban
on that to be an attack on free speech. There may be a technological solution
to that, or a legal solution to that, but having better people would be the
best solution of all.
I
have been thinking about this in terms of police body cameras. Some people have
said that this will not solve everything, and I agree. I have seen video
footage of abuse. I have also read stories about cameras being shut off shortly
before a shooting.
I
know that, but I also am impressed by the Rialto, California study, and I am not
surprised by those results:
There
was an 88% drop in complaints, and a 60% reduction in use of force.
I
am not against the police. I have friends on the force whom I care about
deeply, and I know people who have done great jobs. I also know that if someone
has a tendency to abuse authority and bully, it's the kind of job that can make
them worse. Also, everything seems to indicate that everyone hates Internal
Affairs. Maybe it's common for those squads to handle things badly, but oversight
and correction is necessary to keep things working right.
I
think body cameras can help. They have already been used to show that a
situation with a shooting was justifiable, which may not sound encouraging, but
there is an element of protection for the police in this as well. A lot of the
reduction in complaints that Rialto saw is probably that better policing was
done, but also that the cameras provide evidence against false complaints as
well.
In
addition it is that check on being a jerk. I doubt that Darren Wilson was
planning on killing Mike Brown. I think Wilson wanted to bully Brown a
little, and probably ticket him; Ferguson has a history of that
kind of behavior. If Wilson had been being filmed,
and if all of the officers were being filmed with that footage used to back up
complaints, and discipline happening, I don't think it would have happened.
I
know that it is a large and complex "if", and cameras are only a
part, but I will take them. I will certainly take them over tanks.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment