The. Cameras are Rolling

 

by Pa Rock

Citizen Journalist

I recently posted a piece in this blog dealing with "Flock" cameras, those small, black rectangular panel devices sitting atop posts and on signs along America's highways.   Flock cameras rapidly record license plate numbers and help police monitor traffic, spot traffic violators or even wanted criminals, and occasionally even stalk track down persons of personal interest to cops - such as ex-girlfriends - and monitor their travel.   The use, and especially the misuse of Flock cameras, is becoming so controversial that some legal jurisdictions are taking them down.

Many jurisdictions also employ body cameras for officers to wear while they are on duty that record interactions with the public and the activities and behaviors the officers employ dring the performance of their duties - and some even have "dashboard cams" in patrol cars which record activities like car chases, street fights, and arrests. 

When body and dashboard cams are used they provide valuable evidentiary information that can be of tremendous assistance in the prosecution of crimes.  Unfortunately, sometimes during critical incidents these devices are inadvertently turned off and courts must rely on the testimony of law enforcement officers, victims, bystanders, and alleged perpetrators.   That causes doubt over verdicts that could have been "open and shut" if officers had followed protocol and had their cameras operating.

And sometimes filmed evidence is provided by people who are just observing, bystanders filming the encounters between police and possible criminals with their smartphones.  Some policing agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, try to prohibit the public from filming arrests by informing them that it is "illegal" to film their activities and accusing the people with cameras and recording devices of being "security threats" and committing "harassment."  Observers armed with cameras have faced physical threats, been ordered to surrender their phones, or detained in custody for not complying with orders to turn their cameras off.

Dan Rather, an esteemed national television journalist from my generation, wrote a book about his life in broadcast journalistm that was titled "The Camera never Blinks," a title based on the obvious fact that what appeared on the video really happened.  (Those were the days well before the onset of Artificial Intelligence - aka AI.)  

Police today are well aware of Mr. Rather's admonition and what it means, and are very conscious of the power of video evidence.  (And yes, there are experts in the field who can sift AI enhanced videos from the real-deal film footage.).  Some cynics would certainly argue that the reason police cameras are sometimes turned off at critical moments is to advantage police by not making a record of their behavior during enocunters with criminals or the public.  Those cynics would also be likely to argue that certain segments  of the American police force at certain times would deem it far more appropriate and legally efficient if the judges and juries would take the word of law enforcement officers and be satisfied with that.

But if somebody steps forward with evidence relative to a crime, and even if that somebody is just a bystander or onlooker, judges and juries tend to want to see it to ensure they have a full 'picture' of what actually took place.

Yesterday there were some news stories on the internet about a new source of "evidence" in criminal matters, the product of META Glasses, ordinary looking eyeglasses which can make audio and video recordings of what the wearer is observing.  Some META Glasses' evidence has already been used in court trials, but police have concerns.

Of course they do.

The police argument against these devices is that they can be used inside of police facilities to record weaknesses in jail security - and also to identify and then "dox" officers who might not want their identities or profession known in the community.    Police organizations are arguing that allowing META Glasses to be worn inside of law enforcement facilities or around officers pose a risk of terrorism, attacks against officers and facilities, jail breaks, and all manner of mayhem.

It sounds like a modern day rehash of a much older battle between those tasked with keeping society orderly who sometimes get overly zealous in their work -  and those concerned with the erosion of personal freedoms and human rights, but who may sometimes also push limits.

Cameras are less deadly than guns, but they can also be highly effective in helping to stamp out criminal behavior.  If everybody, including law enforcement officers, assume cameras are rolling somewhere nearby all the time, that should serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior.  Those cameras never blink - unless, of course, they are turned off.

Smart glasses offer one more avenue for the pursuit of justice as well as an additional level of self-protection.

(Note: As of this morning, META Ray-Ban (Gen 2) Smart AI glasses with matte black frames and clear lenses are available at Amazon.com for $379 per pair.  According to the company's website, more than 5,000 were purchased over the past month.)