I knew a wise judge who once said that once drug-testing middle-schoolers who wanted to play in the band was normative, privacy as we once thought of it was dead.
8
David, good thought piece, but I think you are overlooking the fact that society and the norms of society are ever in flux. We are in a period of drastic changes to how we live, interact, and understand the world around us. It is like we are seeing the world for the first time, and we realize that it isn't as we expected. But when we change how we view the world - through a lens instead of through a police officers recollection in this instance - we will amend how policing is done. No longer will advantaged whites be given the benefit of the doubt, but no longer will disadvantaged minorities be given the detriment of the doubt. The norms, and possibly the law, will need to adjust to this new reality. Whites will be incensed enough for being pulled over, ticketed, and locked up for marijuana possession to go to their pocketbooks to sue for legal changes. These legal changes will benefit those minorities that have historically born the brunt of enforcement. Society will adapt, and our justice system will change. There will be a period of transition, but if handled properly will provide a framework that will lead to better results more often then the current, biased and flawed system. It will still err, but will err less often, which is the best we can do at this point. It is better than nothing.
9
Right now, I can look up and see the ceiling camera in the hallway of the office building where I work. We have employee badges that we swipe to enter our workspace, the elevator, a stairwell, the cafeteria.
No one should be unnecessarily watched and recorded. Some cops do bad things. Some make honest mistakes. Some make choices they later come to regret in a fast-moving, complicated situation where they don't have all the facts. And most will never do any of the above.
Then again, Wall Street traders should wear body cams. (Their calls are already recorded.) Bank CEO's. Wait, any CEO's! We all know at least some of those guys are criminals. Also soldiers. And nurses. And teachers! Everyone! You may not leave the house without your GoPro on!
No one should be unnecessarily watched and recorded. Some cops do bad things. Some make honest mistakes. Some make choices they later come to regret in a fast-moving, complicated situation where they don't have all the facts. And most will never do any of the above.
Then again, Wall Street traders should wear body cams. (Their calls are already recorded.) Bank CEO's. Wait, any CEO's! We all know at least some of those guys are criminals. Also soldiers. And nurses. And teachers! Everyone! You may not leave the house without your GoPro on!
3
Based on anecdotal and first person experiences, many members of our police force have problems interacting with civilians.
Some are openly abusive, some are frustrated with their jobs and take it out on the public. Many are drunk with the power a shield and gun gives them.
Often times, it's the officers own attitude that brings out the worst in the people they deal with.
Cop-cams will certainly force officers to show more respect to the public. That respect may lead to a lessening of the antagonism people feel when dealing with the police.
There are certainly downsides to the cameras. As a society, we will need to consider very carefully what encounters should be released into the public domain. In particular, recordings taken within the confines of a person's home should be granted significant protection to protect the privacy of those within the home. The release of those recordings to the public should only be allowed with the consent of the recorded.
Some are openly abusive, some are frustrated with their jobs and take it out on the public. Many are drunk with the power a shield and gun gives them.
Often times, it's the officers own attitude that brings out the worst in the people they deal with.
Cop-cams will certainly force officers to show more respect to the public. That respect may lead to a lessening of the antagonism people feel when dealing with the police.
There are certainly downsides to the cameras. As a society, we will need to consider very carefully what encounters should be released into the public domain. In particular, recordings taken within the confines of a person's home should be granted significant protection to protect the privacy of those within the home. The release of those recordings to the public should only be allowed with the consent of the recorded.
7
Social trust? Clearly it will come as a surprise to Mr. Brooks that even the most law abiding African Americans have little trust in the police. This is not new. Not all police are trigger-happy, fearful racists. But they are out there and no one wants to be DWB (driving while black) when that one trigger-happy-fearful-for-their-life cop pulls up. Then who's fearful for their life?
10
No one on here seems willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
By disproportionately targeting minorities for arrest - even for minor violations - by enacting and then selectively enforcing absurd anti- drug laws, and by sentencing minorities more harshly - often based on testimony by corrupt law enforcement types, the US is committing slow motion genocide.
Do the math - extrapolating from the Ferguson report - and we are deluding ourselves if we think Ferguson was an isolated instance - the police are essentially destroying black communities by incarcerating or criminalizing or just plain killing black men. The despair, the belief that nothing one does makes a difference, all of those absent or handicapped black men, how can any community survive that?
I have seen first hand and studied reports of the disparate treatment of whites and POC. If there were a playbook on how to destroy a community, then it would look just like America in the years post-Reagan.
And David is worried that the police might be less inclined to give "nice" people the benefit of the doubt or sweep the problems of said "nice" people under the proverbial rug.
Good.
By disproportionately targeting minorities for arrest - even for minor violations - by enacting and then selectively enforcing absurd anti- drug laws, and by sentencing minorities more harshly - often based on testimony by corrupt law enforcement types, the US is committing slow motion genocide.
Do the math - extrapolating from the Ferguson report - and we are deluding ourselves if we think Ferguson was an isolated instance - the police are essentially destroying black communities by incarcerating or criminalizing or just plain killing black men. The despair, the belief that nothing one does makes a difference, all of those absent or handicapped black men, how can any community survive that?
I have seen first hand and studied reports of the disparate treatment of whites and POC. If there were a playbook on how to destroy a community, then it would look just like America in the years post-Reagan.
And David is worried that the police might be less inclined to give "nice" people the benefit of the doubt or sweep the problems of said "nice" people under the proverbial rug.
Good.
10
I agree completely. Good luck getting off with just a warning once this goes into effect. Cops will know that they are being scrutinized constantly, which will only cause them more stress, and take away any incentive to be a nice sympathetic human being. But the bigger point is, how pathetic have we become as a nation that we need this? What ever happened to common sense and human decency? Our own police can't be trusted to be honest, to the point that they have to be filmed at all times; what does that say about us? Instead of world leaders, we are the world's children.
7
What happens when police wear cameras isn't simply that tamper-proof recording devices provide an objective record of an encounter...though some of the reduction in complaints is apparently because of citizens declining to contest video evidence of their behavior...but a modification of the psychology
of everyone involved.
The effect of third-party observers on behavior has long been known: Thomas Jefferson once advised that "whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching."
of everyone involved.
The effect of third-party observers on behavior has long been known: Thomas Jefferson once advised that "whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching."
3
Interesting, but it would have been more helpful to take on the "one of our own" mentality of police forces nationwide. This mentality is harmful and damaging to ethics and needs to be rooted out. It is a military vestige that has no place in the paramilitary.
7
Mr Brooks, I don't know what universe you inhabit. In my 65 years I have never had an interaction with a police official that was "like intimate friendship." I'm not a young African American male or a criminal. I'm just an upstanding country doctor. Of course I don't trust them.
24
There are approximately 35,000 police officers in New York City alone. It is completely and utterly impossible that all the footage obtained with "cop-cams" will be viewed on a regular basis. What the cop-cams offer is another data-point (hopefully objective) that will provide evidence when it is needed. Therefore, it is a fallacy that cop-cams will insult families, or that cops will lose their discretional ability. For their own protection, police officers should welcome the addition of cop-cams. While the potential for misuse by those who own the footage is possible (and punitive action for such misuse should be clear), what is clear is that civilians (and some of us more than others) need this for their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
10
David, I appreciate your thoughtfulness but this doesn't compute. Oh, I guess it does if you are white. But everyone else is in danger of police brutality. The only difference between a cop and a bad guy is that the cop is legal. Yes, there are some fine cops. But I think there are far more bad ones that exist because of lack of statistics and all the cover-ups. Cops are afraid of prison/jail and they protect each other by their code of silence and setting people up etc.
I don't want to have a kabaya moment with the police. I want them to film me and everyone else and do their jobs honestly.
I don't want to have a kabaya moment with the police. I want them to film me and everyone else and do their jobs honestly.
1
All public officials and especially politicians should be the ones without any privacy. I want everything.. cameras, phones tapped, emails and text messages searchable. Then, just maybe they'll learn what it is to be a public servant.
3
I agree with these thoughts on privacy. I do not agree that we should put cameras on cops. Strapping the public eye to every lawman is a quick fix to a slow, creeping problem that has been sapping public trust in cops for decades. There is a vicious cycle at work here. Police officers experience things on a weekly basis that many people would consider a life changing incident. Seeing dead bodies, child abuse situations, and fatal fires is not as easy as TV makes it look. Then, take the ever threatening situation of that one guy that could have a gun in his lap when you pull him over. My point is that, when you add all that to a public opinion that is less than favorable toward cops, you run a very high risk for cynicism, paranoia, and yes, even racism. Thus the cycle. To draw off of an earlier Brooks article, I believe we need to surround our service men with a common set of morals. Don't take this as radical, but Churches need to embrace local law enforcement. The kind of life experience typical for a police officer, demands an individual that is humble, honest, and moral. These are the characteristics that preachers, priests, and church goers invest in. Neighborhoods need to rally for police presence. Citizens need to praise accountability and honesty when they see it. Parents need to teach respect. In other words, our society needs to give respect and support, all while demanding accountability. Privacy is an unnecessary sacrifice.
3
David,
Please consider that in several states the cop-cam may be filming
a citizen who, say, has parked in the fire lane but is carrying a concealed weapon. This citizen has the privacy of hiding his or
her weapon. Such a person is not "bearing" arms in a well regulated
militia, and may be paranoid or in a bad mood. We need evidence
if concealed weapons become common.
Please consider that in several states the cop-cam may be filming
a citizen who, say, has parked in the fire lane but is carrying a concealed weapon. This citizen has the privacy of hiding his or
her weapon. Such a person is not "bearing" arms in a well regulated
militia, and may be paranoid or in a bad mood. We need evidence
if concealed weapons become common.
2
David Brooks, you raise some valid concerns. Perhaps as an alternative, citizens should be able to reserve the right to wear a body cam for any and all interactions with law enforcement.
7
And fewer people will be murdered or assaulted by the few bad cops. The good ones will still be humane and helpful where possible.
3
This column is unreal, chiefly because it ignores the role of police. Police were the agents of the union busters over the decades. Police have been the agents of racist policies in the South. It is the police who remove the homeless from public areas. It is the police who arrest a black Harvard professor who is locked out of his house. The police are among the most manipulated groups in our society, frequently against the public. Obviously, most police are decent persons--it is their bosses who are to be rebuked. Even so, it is the personal relationship between police and public that is the casualty. How could Brooks not see this?
3
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
One may define prejudice as the granting of second chances. If you like someone and they transgress, you give them a second chance. If you don't like them, you don't give them that second chance. What this says to me is that with these cameras, people from the favored demographic groups (white, wealthy, female) will be more likely to experience what people from the less favored demographic groups (black, poor, male) always have in encounters with police. That is, they may not be granted the second chances (getting off with a warning) that define prejudice.
One may define prejudice as the granting of second chances. If you like someone and they transgress, you give them a second chance. If you don't like them, you don't give them that second chance. What this says to me is that with these cameras, people from the favored demographic groups (white, wealthy, female) will be more likely to experience what people from the less favored demographic groups (black, poor, male) always have in encounters with police. That is, they may not be granted the second chances (getting off with a warning) that define prejudice.
5
I think we have to make a choice. We all like privacy but we also like to be free of crime and in particular to be free from the abuses of law enforcement when they occur. Cameras have aided and assisted that process. I feel we should give up privacy because we have more to gain than lose from accountability and transparency of those people who hold power over us. It is time that officers who commit wrongdoing fear the honest officer than be enabled by dishonest ones.
2
Cameras make sense, but we must be careful not to overreact so much that the policeman does not hesitate to defend himself when endangered and when he let's dangerous criminals escape out of fear of being accused of being trigger happy.
The key is balance and that is easier said then done.
The key is balance and that is easier said then done.
3
The cop-cams are needed because so many cops are not trustworthy.
The biggest problems related to policing are caused not by failures in training but by deficits in recruitment.
The psychology of most cops is different from that of most civilians. It is an occupation which attracts people who have a tendency towards self-righteousness and brutality. It is almost impossible to train these men and women to be more empathic and respectful.
The one area which could be improved via training is the tendency of police to hold themselves above the law. Here, too, the cop cams would help. When a police officer makes a traffic stop and the driver is a cop or someone who has a cop shield in the window or in the wallet, then that person should not automatically be given a pass. Cops need to be trained to treat off-duty police the same way they treat ordinary civilians.
The biggest problems related to policing are caused not by failures in training but by deficits in recruitment.
The psychology of most cops is different from that of most civilians. It is an occupation which attracts people who have a tendency towards self-righteousness and brutality. It is almost impossible to train these men and women to be more empathic and respectful.
The one area which could be improved via training is the tendency of police to hold themselves above the law. Here, too, the cop cams would help. When a police officer makes a traffic stop and the driver is a cop or someone who has a cop shield in the window or in the wallet, then that person should not automatically be given a pass. Cops need to be trained to treat off-duty police the same way they treat ordinary civilians.
7
Privacy is important, but we know that the preverbial picture is worth so much more than just a thousand words!
During World War II, there was rumor and some knowledge of the horrible genicde being conducted by Nazi Germany against the Jews, but it was the actual photos taken by U.S. Soldiers and war correspondents when we liberated these death camps that shocked the world of the vast unspeakable human executions and extermination that went on for years by Nazi Germany.
During the Vietnam War our own government tightly controlled the release and flow of war news for many years. Slowily actual information began to leak out and questions began to appear about where and how we were fighting the North Vietnamese and the destruction we were causing in both the North and the South as well as in Cambodia and Laos. Then the actual photos started to appear in newspapers and film appeared on the nightly TV news and we and the world were shocked by the complete utter destruction and huge death tolls resulting from this war of lies.
Photos and film did the same for the Kent State shootings, the march from Selma to Mongomery, the Democratic convention riots in Chicago, the 9/11 terrorists attacks, the Boston bombing and now the police executions of poor black males.
True freedom and equality comes at a cost and with great responsibilities. I'm willing to give up some privacy to help ensure freedom and equality for all.
During World War II, there was rumor and some knowledge of the horrible genicde being conducted by Nazi Germany against the Jews, but it was the actual photos taken by U.S. Soldiers and war correspondents when we liberated these death camps that shocked the world of the vast unspeakable human executions and extermination that went on for years by Nazi Germany.
During the Vietnam War our own government tightly controlled the release and flow of war news for many years. Slowily actual information began to leak out and questions began to appear about where and how we were fighting the North Vietnamese and the destruction we were causing in both the North and the South as well as in Cambodia and Laos. Then the actual photos started to appear in newspapers and film appeared on the nightly TV news and we and the world were shocked by the complete utter destruction and huge death tolls resulting from this war of lies.
Photos and film did the same for the Kent State shootings, the march from Selma to Mongomery, the Democratic convention riots in Chicago, the 9/11 terrorists attacks, the Boston bombing and now the police executions of poor black males.
True freedom and equality comes at a cost and with great responsibilities. I'm willing to give up some privacy to help ensure freedom and equality for all.
10
Privacy is something others don't need to know. It allows people not to be judged for things that should not concern them.
However, many public interactions are a valid public concern. Anonymity has its benefits but it also empowered many jerks and psychopaths.
Interaction with police is a public official business. It should be routinely recorded by all sides. The more the better.
All cars should have built-in 360 degree video cameras.
BUT
1) Recording must be encrypted such that only the person making recording can unlock it. Nobody should be forced to provide their recording in accordance with the 5th amendment not to incriminate self.
2) The law should should forbid publishing any accusation, shaming, embarrassing videos without review and assessment by government authorities and chosen community elders.
However, many public interactions are a valid public concern. Anonymity has its benefits but it also empowered many jerks and psychopaths.
Interaction with police is a public official business. It should be routinely recorded by all sides. The more the better.
All cars should have built-in 360 degree video cameras.
BUT
1) Recording must be encrypted such that only the person making recording can unlock it. Nobody should be forced to provide their recording in accordance with the 5th amendment not to incriminate self.
2) The law should should forbid publishing any accusation, shaming, embarrassing videos without review and assessment by government authorities and chosen community elders.
1
Uh, black men don't see society as "humane and trusting." That's a privilege that you get and they don't. They are not trusted, and their lives are worth less. And cops are, by definition, public servants. So, it's a public job. no one suggested they should wear the cameras off shift or in their own homes, where they can think and be what they want (within limits). And as far as taping people on the worst days of their lives - if nothing worth disputing happens, agree to delete the footage after a specified time period. And require cops NOT to share the information, upon penalty of law. Will some still leak, sure. But might it curb the flow of dead black men? It could help, but I'm not too sure.
7
If the proposed cop-cams can save even one life its worth the investment. Privacy is no perk to people holding public office and conducting public affairs.
6
I am not sure about Mr. Brooks reasoning on why cameras on police would cause any more loss of privacy than we have already lost. There are cameras recording most everything we do in public.
Social problem? The police are not going to have "intimate" conversations with any one they stop. The police do not socialize with those they are sworn to protect unless they live in the same suburb with the other officers. That is one of the problems, they don't move out of their own social circles.
If that is not enough then don't forget that everyone is always shooting videos with the phones and many subjects are not even aware of it.
Social problem? The police are not going to have "intimate" conversations with any one they stop. The police do not socialize with those they are sworn to protect unless they live in the same suburb with the other officers. That is one of the problems, they don't move out of their own social circles.
If that is not enough then don't forget that everyone is always shooting videos with the phones and many subjects are not even aware of it.
6
My first thought after reading this column was, 'written by a white man from the middle class'. I was so saddened by that thought. Even a white women from the middle class when pulled over by a policemen should never, ever lower her window more than three inches to pass license and registration. Never, never exit the vehicle. Years ago, this instruction was given to my sister by a friend who is a policeman. He said he cautioned his own daughters to be careful in this way.
15
Privacy?
What we need is the Supreme Court to issue a 9-0 Miranda-class landmark ruling affirming that there is a broad, presumptive right of citizens to film police officers at all times and under all circumstances and any interference in our rights by police officers is subject to aggressive, criminal prosecution.
Such filming should come to be seen as our civic duty. No, I'm not interested, nor do I trust, "cop cams".
What we need is the Supreme Court to issue a 9-0 Miranda-class landmark ruling affirming that there is a broad, presumptive right of citizens to film police officers at all times and under all circumstances and any interference in our rights by police officers is subject to aggressive, criminal prosecution.
Such filming should come to be seen as our civic duty. No, I'm not interested, nor do I trust, "cop cams".
4
I have no idea who the police in my neighborhood are and they have no idea who I am. I might see a cruiser roll by once in a while, though its occupants remain a mystery. The cop on the beat, even divested of its nostaligic haze, did more good by their mere physical presence than a fleet of cruisers. Cameras are necessary because the bonds between public and police have long been eroded and every transaction is impersonal.
5
As someone who has had positive experiences with police officers I was disappointed with the comments today. I do not often agree with Brooks but today I felt he made some great points. He agrees that it is best for the police to wear cameras and explains why he wishes this was not the case. There are downsides to the increasing use of cameras and we should acknowledge them.
4
The idea that videos from police body cams will "inevitably get swapped around" is overblown. There are laws against tampering with evidence and there would be pretty severe punishments for police personnel if they were to swap around videos. Police are trained about maintaining chain of custody for evidence and willfully releasing evidence is cause for termination in every police force. Police and evidence custodians would face sanctions including immediate jailing for contempt of court, getting fired and potentially criminal charges. I doubt it would really be a frequent occurrence.
Given the obvious need to improve police professionalism, being on camera is necessary and will promote honesty and civility for both police and citizens they interact with. I think this will turn out to protect police as well as citizens.
Given the obvious need to improve police professionalism, being on camera is necessary and will promote honesty and civility for both police and citizens they interact with. I think this will turn out to protect police as well as citizens.
13
I think police and privacy are an oxymoron in this particular article. One’s sense of privacy evaporated after 9/11. We are practically surrounded by cameras of all kinds on a daily basis no matter where we go. You never know if someone is recording a conversation or an encounter with an i-Phone or the new Apple Watch. The only expectation of privacy these days is in relationships, a physician, psychiatrist or clergyman where confidentiality still means something.
As trite as this may sound, the job of a police officer is to protect citizens and to uphold/enforce the law. Wearing a cop-cam will provide an open and straight forward record of the officer’s encounters. Not only does it help safe-guard the officer from any allegations potentially made by a citizen, the same safe-guard applies to the citizen against potential actions by an officer. Privacy does not come into play here in any way.
My daughter-in-law is a police commander and she supports the notion of the cop-cam. The men and women in her department are more conscientious and effective officers because they realize everything word and action in front as well as behind the cop-cam is being recorded. They are more cognizant of their actions and realize the consequences of any potential infraction or deliberate disregard for the law.
I think if Mr. Brooks exchanged the word privacy for security, this column would then be more spot-on.
As trite as this may sound, the job of a police officer is to protect citizens and to uphold/enforce the law. Wearing a cop-cam will provide an open and straight forward record of the officer’s encounters. Not only does it help safe-guard the officer from any allegations potentially made by a citizen, the same safe-guard applies to the citizen against potential actions by an officer. Privacy does not come into play here in any way.
My daughter-in-law is a police commander and she supports the notion of the cop-cam. The men and women in her department are more conscientious and effective officers because they realize everything word and action in front as well as behind the cop-cam is being recorded. They are more cognizant of their actions and realize the consequences of any potential infraction or deliberate disregard for the law.
I think if Mr. Brooks exchanged the word privacy for security, this column would then be more spot-on.
23
This brings to mind a case in Brasil where two cops took three poor, dark-skinned teens up into the woods and shot two of them. The third one got away. The only reason this case came to light was because the cops forgot about their car camera and were recorded while they killed two teenagers.
It has always struck me that in the UK (I watch a lot of police shows) they are always taping the interviews with the witness, noting the date and time the interviews are started and ended, who is present. I can only imagine how many "confessions" in the US have been wrought from harassed suspects without the scrutiny of camera and recording.
This very lack of transparency has allowed police abuse to continue for far too long. We may be moving into a period of less privacy, but it's obviously necessary so this kind of cruel, and dare I say, evil behavior is exposed and not hidden behind the wall of police authority.
It has always struck me that in the UK (I watch a lot of police shows) they are always taping the interviews with the witness, noting the date and time the interviews are started and ended, who is present. I can only imagine how many "confessions" in the US have been wrought from harassed suspects without the scrutiny of camera and recording.
This very lack of transparency has allowed police abuse to continue for far too long. We may be moving into a period of less privacy, but it's obviously necessary so this kind of cruel, and dare I say, evil behavior is exposed and not hidden behind the wall of police authority.
6
You went from why me and my old lady need our private time together, to why I need my private time with, for example, officer Uber Rant or officer Shotaman Indaback without, for me, fully connecting the dots.
So I'll skip to my conclusion:
Any time I interact with a cop, I want the transaction to occur on the public record. You want to interact with a cop without video and audio recording, well, it's a free country ... I suggest you make an appointment, like you would with your therapist. Me, I'll conduct my business with the cops in the public square.
So I'll skip to my conclusion:
Any time I interact with a cop, I want the transaction to occur on the public record. You want to interact with a cop without video and audio recording, well, it's a free country ... I suggest you make an appointment, like you would with your therapist. Me, I'll conduct my business with the cops in the public square.
9
Putting a camera on a police officer may change the interaction between the officer and the public, but will protect the officer as much as it does the public. Everyone comes to the table with baggage except the camera. And while the camera will never see every angle, it will indeed be the most objective party in the room.
3
David, I couldn't agree with you more.
2
David Brooks' convoluted thought processes are agonizing to read about. He's for police body cameras, but agin 'em because they'll disrupt the intimacy of police-citizen interactions. Aieeee! Mr Brooks has transported himself right back to the Applebees salad bar of his dreams- that world where happy white men are excused from their tickets by jolly, friend-seeking policemen. Brooks recently remarked that he was paid to be a pompous blowhard. No truer analysis possible. At least once, he got it right.
5
It's not convoluted, it's a little thing called nuance. He's acknowledging that there are positive and negative aspects to the cameras. It's amazing how many people see a complex point that isn't black and white, and conclude that because it's not dumbly pro or con, it must be convoluted or incoherent.
2
Cameras are nearly everywhere today, either watching the front of office buildings or stores, or in most peoples pockets (phones). "Privacy" was over about 30 years ago, so give that up. What we are now seeing, although is surely nothing new, are videos of cops abusing their right to use force, using excessive force or actually killing persons who are not a threat to them or anyone else. If copcams reduce these unnecessary injuries or deaths, then so be it. The friendly officer on the street interactions are not most peoples experience with police, and maybe never were except in David's vision of small town America portrayed by Hollywood. I had a patrol car follow me home for several miles on a rural road late last Saturday night, and it made me nervous. I am a mature white male, had not been drinking, or was doing anything wrong, but flashes of police brutality passed through my head. If he had pulled me over, I would have preferred he had a camera watching his actions as that may have made me somewhat safer. If I was a black male, definitely so. Bring on the cameras, and make leaks of embarrassing clips from the police a serious crime for them.
7
What I hear you saying is that the presence of a cop cam will necessarily lead to transactional, inflexible, and presumably, unempathetic interactions.
II think you ave set up a straw man to make your point. You take your prediction of future police/citizen flat affect, soul deadening robotic interaction, as an axiom from which, you then proceed to a nicely written proof of the consequences of your premise. You then, are the insightful bearer on the dreaded news of "Unintended Consequences".
What if we start from the premise that municipalities wish to improve the overall effectiveness of their police force? In that case, cop cam video becomes part of the officers performance review as follows:
1. Any instance of serious illegal behavior of the officer leads to immediate dismissal and prosecution.
2. A pattern of behavior that leads to an escalation of violence over the review period leads to dismissal.
3. A pattern of behavior that is normally at least transactional but occasionally results in unnecessary escalation of violence leads to probation.
4. A pattern of behavior that is normally just transactional is deemed to be merely adequate.
5. A pattern of behavior that is empathetic is deemed superior.
6. A pattern of behavior that is empathetic and demonstrates flexibility and problem ownership leading to deescalation and smiles all around is deemed outstanding and results in promotion and a big fat bonus.
How about we work towards "Intended Consequences"?
II think you ave set up a straw man to make your point. You take your prediction of future police/citizen flat affect, soul deadening robotic interaction, as an axiom from which, you then proceed to a nicely written proof of the consequences of your premise. You then, are the insightful bearer on the dreaded news of "Unintended Consequences".
What if we start from the premise that municipalities wish to improve the overall effectiveness of their police force? In that case, cop cam video becomes part of the officers performance review as follows:
1. Any instance of serious illegal behavior of the officer leads to immediate dismissal and prosecution.
2. A pattern of behavior that leads to an escalation of violence over the review period leads to dismissal.
3. A pattern of behavior that is normally at least transactional but occasionally results in unnecessary escalation of violence leads to probation.
4. A pattern of behavior that is normally just transactional is deemed to be merely adequate.
5. A pattern of behavior that is empathetic is deemed superior.
6. A pattern of behavior that is empathetic and demonstrates flexibility and problem ownership leading to deescalation and smiles all around is deemed outstanding and results in promotion and a big fat bonus.
How about we work towards "Intended Consequences"?
3
If you didn’t call the police, there’s little you’d be wise to say to one other than yes, no, I don’t know, I don’t understand, is that an order? (even more so if someone called the police on you). And people should think carefully before calling the police (whether for good reason or simply when stumped by one of life’s puzzles) about what they want them to do, how things will appear to a police officer who after six months on the job has heard enough incredible, shaggy-dog, Alice’s Restaurant–type stories for a lifetime, and what the future may look like after the state intervenes. The best privacy is not to involve the police.
1
As long as you are strapped with a loaded weapon, expecting trust between us is naive. Give me a weapon too, and the general character of what seems evident in many of today's police officers, then we'll find a whole lot of trust is created. But since that's unrealistic, we'll have to fall back on simply hiring trustworthy people to be our police. And that is what is not happening. It's not cameras that make police oppositional, it is the general militaristic arming and and lack of training. If the people no longer have any faith in law enforcement, cameras are the last line of defense, not a violation of privacy.
9
I think Mr. Brooks makes too much out of his notion of privacy. To me, the basics of privacy are simple. It is primarily for me to choose my lifestyle without prying by neighbors and well-meaning guardians. Another compelling need is for not revealing my self-selected body parts. So, I see no harm cops wearing camera as long as it can be turned off during his/her personal interludes. I don't see harm in camera capturing a high-five to a neighborhood kid or a friendly flirt with a teenage admirer or a harmless civic minder to a grown-up. But, in all these instances i don't see how anyone's privacy is being violated.
3
Why couldn't police body cameras be treated like airplane black boxes -- there to be used in case of a tragedy, but otherwise recorded over on the next flight. Body camera recordings could be archived for a period, then disposed of if no need for them had arisen, with, as others have suggested, strict rules prohibiting viewing, circulating, posting, etc., except for evidentiary purposes.
6
Laws and restrictions and requirements are always imposed when freedom becomes license. The issue isn't as much about freedom and distance as it is about integrity and honesty.
2
"Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don’t trust him." With regard to police, Mr. Brooks, that ship sailed a long, long time ago. While the ever-greater encroachment on privacy wrought by surveillance cameras, cellphones, trashy tabloid media, etc. is tragic and, I'm afraid, irreversible, I hope you will agree that police officers needlessly murdering (or beating, or framing, or sodomizing) civilians is a far more egregious invasion. Body-mounted cameras would not be necessary were it not for these numerous murders and all other instances of police misconduct -- most of which, throughout our history, were most certainly not captured on video -- and the infamous blue wall of silence that has long protected such betrayal.
5
My dear David, you are charming.
But, have you been stopped by a cop? Ant any point in your rather select and careful life? Your turn of phrase "less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional" is, really too, too much.
Maybe in your tony neighborhoods and carefully manicured circles of life, cops are intimate and personal. But get real.
Get out and jaywalk in urban D.C. Or drive through the Bronx at night with a cracked and burned out tail light. Be a passenger in a nice car driven by a black dude. Just step out a bit into the real world. You'll see what a fantasy notion of 50s suburban cops you've managed to cling to.
But, have you been stopped by a cop? Ant any point in your rather select and careful life? Your turn of phrase "less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional" is, really too, too much.
Maybe in your tony neighborhoods and carefully manicured circles of life, cops are intimate and personal. But get real.
Get out and jaywalk in urban D.C. Or drive through the Bronx at night with a cracked and burned out tail light. Be a passenger in a nice car driven by a black dude. Just step out a bit into the real world. You'll see what a fantasy notion of 50s suburban cops you've managed to cling to.
9
David thoughtfully expresses some legitimate concerns, but I think the halcyon days of friendly or "intimate" relations with police are long gone. Sheriff Andy from Maybury was an ideal, but that ideal has evaporated in today's harsh and confrontational world. I think there is only upside from having these cameras on cops for all their on-duty encounters with the public. First, the cop behaves better: he watches his tone and manners and attitude--that alone is huge. He makes sure that he doesn't taser, baton, gas, punch, elbow, kick or shoot you without legitimate legal cause. He basically does his job by the book, because if he doesn't, he is subject to complaint or/or indictment. Second, the citizen behaves better. He realizes that if he is unruly or confrontational, that conduct is preserved for court. The citizen quite simply has to watch himself and comport. Third, a lot of things are said that are incriminating, and a lot of events happen which are best digitally preserved , rather than merely having the officer testify as to what he heard or saw (most people today don't trust uncorroborated police testimony in any event). But having and audio/video recording pretty much makes simple for the jury. So, David's nostalgia on this point is off point: the "serve and protect" ethos has been gone for decades, The new ethos is "behave and document."
4
I guess that is why they call this section the "Opinion Pages", because that is all this piece amounts to. If we were to look at this matter in a more rational scientific manner we would say that the author has proposed a hypotheses that if cops were forced to wear body cams then (he reaches the conclusion) for example that "cameras will undermine communal bonding". Proceeding scientifically we would then have to test this hypotheses to determine if it holds water. We would have to collect data, analyze it and try to determine whether the hypothesis is correct or not. That is the scientific method. In the opinionator method all it takes is for someone to come up with an opinion and then off the top of his/her head give more opinions about why his/her first opinion is correct. This unfortunately happens in all walks of life, the most egregious example being politicians whose unfortunate opinions can lead to absurdly stupid laws. As they say everyone is entitled to their opinion but not the facts because the facts can only be discerned through rational analysis.
3
I think the positives outweigh the negatives. We need to have transparency of interactions between the police and the public. Many officers never see themselves in the wrong regardless of their actions. As far as Mr. Brooks concerns about privacy, he makes it sound as if the body cameras will be constantly invading your privacy. Also, some communities already have a oppositional relationship with cops due to the lack of accountability.
Until the police change their attitude of "us vs them", it will be very difficult to build good relationships with anyone. With or without body cameras. Black or white.
Until the police change their attitude of "us vs them", it will be very difficult to build good relationships with anyone. With or without body cameras. Black or white.
A well ballanced article, but I think the stated negatives associated with bodycams far outweigh the positives. This is an excellent example of how new technology is fully embraced by our society with hardly any critical cost-benefit analysis, much less an openness to constraint. A great book on this subject, by the way, is NYU professor Neil Postman's "Technopoly." It strikes me that Police officers will increasingly become dehumanized robots which will serve to desensitize us for future dehumanizing, computerized, robotic forms of control... and, yes, also security. The problem with humans is their humanity?
2
Yes, I agree with Mr. Brooks' assessment. Putting cameras on police officers has benefits and drawbacks, as all important decisions do. Each solution creates new problems which await our attention and resolution.
That said, these times - and the reality of racism which brings us to this point - trumps the need for privacy.
Hopefully we will become a more liberal, enlightened, and tolerant society in the days and years ahead (isn't that what we always strive for?!) and this need to watch while the awful power of authority is in progress, will abate. But it is needed now. Even the Supreme Court, that supposed bastion of enlightenment, doesn't think racism exists to the degree that voter rights should no longer be monitored/ protected. So for now, we need this.
That said, these times - and the reality of racism which brings us to this point - trumps the need for privacy.
Hopefully we will become a more liberal, enlightened, and tolerant society in the days and years ahead (isn't that what we always strive for?!) and this need to watch while the awful power of authority is in progress, will abate. But it is needed now. Even the Supreme Court, that supposed bastion of enlightenment, doesn't think racism exists to the degree that voter rights should no longer be monitored/ protected. So for now, we need this.
2
Yes, putting a camera on someone shows a lack of trust. In fact I do not trust the police officers in my community because they have never made the slightest effort to get to know the people who live here. They can't rely on people here to cooperate or to give them information because they have done nothing to create that sort of relationship. I don't know what kind of community Brooks lives in, but in many communities throughout this country, including mine, the officers responsible for law enforcement have absolutely no connection to the community and really have no right to expect to be treated as if they do.
3
Do we expect someone on the street to give a cop a "confidential" tip knowing that he is being recorded doing so? My understanding is that information picked up from these informal contacts is an extremely important part of police work.
It's interesting that cops seem to be the only people who society thinks need to be continuously monitored. What we need is to require career criminals to be equipped with continuous monitoring.
It's interesting that cops seem to be the only people who society thinks need to be continuously monitored. What we need is to require career criminals to be equipped with continuous monitoring.
2
Re: Phil - It is not just the police. Given the advent of educational software and tracking technology, it is now schoolchildren who are in danger of being constantly monitored. Check out the BOSS app. here:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/orwellian-nightmare-unleashed-on-schoolkids/
Who owns that data and what can be done with it? Let's address those questions rather than blindly adopting technologies that purport to be effective in education. All we know for sure is that these technologies effectively make money for the tech companies, their lobbyists and their cronies in government.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/orwellian-nightmare-unleashed-on-schoolkids/
Who owns that data and what can be done with it? Let's address those questions rather than blindly adopting technologies that purport to be effective in education. All we know for sure is that these technologies effectively make money for the tech companies, their lobbyists and their cronies in government.
1
Talk to the NSA. The government seems to believe that WE all need to be monitored; far better that they - our employees, after all - should be monitored.
1
A thoughtful and profound insight into personal privacy and our inner selves. I don't expect to see much sympathy for it.
2
"A thoughtful and profound insight into personal privacy and our inner selves. I don't expect to see much sympathy for it."
That's 'cus for many people concern for their "inner selves" takes a back seat to just not getting shot.
That's 'cus for many people concern for their "inner selves" takes a back seat to just not getting shot.
4
True to form, Brooks doesn't even mention — let alone address — the growing, clear empirical evidence that, where they are tried, body cams reduce use of force and civilian complaints against police.
It's also appalling that Brooks writes about this with obvious insensitivity to the fact that people who don't look, sound, or earn like him have vastly different experiences with the police. He warns that cops will be "less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care." With a straight face, and with no apparent awareness about the demographic inequities of the distribution of those benefits — and the very different distribution of the harms (e.g., harassment, unjust arrest, injury, and death) doled out by out-of-control cops.
If body cams mean wealthy white folks get proportionately more citations for minor offenses, and poor minorities proportionately fewer, I'd call that progress. Much more importantly, though, if the daily indignities and real threat of injury or death will likely be lessened for the least advantaged among us, then how dare Brooks even consider the hypothetical and exceptionally minor worries about how cops interact with people like him?
Somebody at the Times, please explain why someone who can't even be bothered to conduct basic research (I'm talking Google, not LexisNexis), continues to be given a megaphone for his poorly-informed, counterfactual, tone-deaf opinions.
It's also appalling that Brooks writes about this with obvious insensitivity to the fact that people who don't look, sound, or earn like him have vastly different experiences with the police. He warns that cops will be "less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care." With a straight face, and with no apparent awareness about the demographic inequities of the distribution of those benefits — and the very different distribution of the harms (e.g., harassment, unjust arrest, injury, and death) doled out by out-of-control cops.
If body cams mean wealthy white folks get proportionately more citations for minor offenses, and poor minorities proportionately fewer, I'd call that progress. Much more importantly, though, if the daily indignities and real threat of injury or death will likely be lessened for the least advantaged among us, then how dare Brooks even consider the hypothetical and exceptionally minor worries about how cops interact with people like him?
Somebody at the Times, please explain why someone who can't even be bothered to conduct basic research (I'm talking Google, not LexisNexis), continues to be given a megaphone for his poorly-informed, counterfactual, tone-deaf opinions.
7
The people whose lives might be saved by cop-cams are hardly the ones worried that these cams will ruin their chances to get "cut some slack" by the officer deciding not to write that ticket. No, that group would be people who look like Mr. Brooks, who risks losing a break so that others might not lose their lives. His last few columns have been so good, but now we're back to privilege protesting that its perks could get cramped. Sigh.
4
The age-old question: who polices the police?
Equally scary, who polices the Congress of the U.S.? - don't tell me that the voters vote the bad ones out. Incumbents are re-elected overwhelmingly, and Republicans fight vigorously against any form of ethical oversight.
On a similar note, many philosophers and religionists believe that people behave differently (better?) if they believe that their sky-god is watching them every minute of every day. My inference from this is that there are an awful lot of atheists in positions of authority, and esp. in politics.
Equally scary, who polices the Congress of the U.S.? - don't tell me that the voters vote the bad ones out. Incumbents are re-elected overwhelmingly, and Republicans fight vigorously against any form of ethical oversight.
On a similar note, many philosophers and religionists believe that people behave differently (better?) if they believe that their sky-god is watching them every minute of every day. My inference from this is that there are an awful lot of atheists in positions of authority, and esp. in politics.
1
Here's an idea: if Police have to wear body cameras, then I suggest everyone who carries a gun should be required to wear a body camera. Maybe this nation of gun-lovers would come to its senses at last.
4
The treatment of many POC and low-income residents of any color by some police officers is not the best opportunity to interject one's nostalgia about the lost age of privacy. Mr. Brooks seems completely disconnected from the reality of so many communities where the relationship between law enforcement and people on the street is as far from "intimate friendship" as you can get. He also doesn't seem fully aware of how dangerous a police officer's job can be: it IS oppositional and transactional, unless you're walking the streets of some gated community. Mourn the lost language of privacy, but write a different column and don't anchor your argument on cop cams.
1
Mr Brooks as you seem to see all the facts yet somehow manage to get to the wrong conclusion anyway. You twist them into the pretzel you want rather than accept what they lead to without your "help".
The camera is not a sign of distrust it is a sign that we all know that human frailty affects us all and the cops authority to Cite, arrest, inflict physical harm & take life is so important we have to do everything we can to make sure it is applied properly. Any cop who would feel "distrusted" by having to wear a camera is not suited to the job.
The privacies you mention are personal privacies that one accesses and uses at home and while off from work. On the job we all have boundaries and regard what we are doing as separate from our personal lives even when we are friends with our co workers.
The camera is not a sign of distrust it is a sign that we all know that human frailty affects us all and the cops authority to Cite, arrest, inflict physical harm & take life is so important we have to do everything we can to make sure it is applied properly. Any cop who would feel "distrusted" by having to wear a camera is not suited to the job.
The privacies you mention are personal privacies that one accesses and uses at home and while off from work. On the job we all have boundaries and regard what we are doing as separate from our personal lives even when we are friends with our co workers.
1
If both parties are on camera, and they treat each other with civility and honesty, I see no problem. David's fear is unfounded; and smacks too greatly of pro-cop and any price.
1
What Mr. Brooks writes today made me think again in a whole new way about just what has gone wrong in America.
People are coming to distrust each other, more and more, being divided into this group and that group, against some other group or groups.
This is the net result of years of politicization of issues that were never that proper as subjects for government interventions with laws of any kind at all.
It happened almost accidentally starting with movements in the 19th Century for various rights, and passing various amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution, thus changed, allowed government to depart from working as limited government, serving the best interests of everyone, with democracy not in danger of being degraded into egalitarianism and oligarchy.
So while people are being divided into groups, any unity, and fulfilling of the motto: 'e Pluribus Unum', is lost upon the nation.
And in its place, our Republic becomes a country that in effect, idolizes 'Big Brother', 'believing' in only the overriding 'religion' that it stands for, rather than respecting the flag as simply representing the Republic it's supposed to stand for. Trust among the people, based on something beyond the sphere of worldly matters, is sadly replaced by that kind of encroachment against life itself.
People are coming to distrust each other, more and more, being divided into this group and that group, against some other group or groups.
This is the net result of years of politicization of issues that were never that proper as subjects for government interventions with laws of any kind at all.
It happened almost accidentally starting with movements in the 19th Century for various rights, and passing various amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution, thus changed, allowed government to depart from working as limited government, serving the best interests of everyone, with democracy not in danger of being degraded into egalitarianism and oligarchy.
So while people are being divided into groups, any unity, and fulfilling of the motto: 'e Pluribus Unum', is lost upon the nation.
And in its place, our Republic becomes a country that in effect, idolizes 'Big Brother', 'believing' in only the overriding 'religion' that it stands for, rather than respecting the flag as simply representing the Republic it's supposed to stand for. Trust among the people, based on something beyond the sphere of worldly matters, is sadly replaced by that kind of encroachment against life itself.
1
Cop-crams will produce a small decrease in police shootings coupled with huge increases in resisting arrest charges, plea bargains and guilty verdicts. Defense lawyers are going to hate it.
6
We have a deep and wide problem in this country with the conduct of police officers and with the criminal justice system generally. Putting cameras on police officers not only has a serious downside, it is putting a bandaid on a massive, open bloody wound. Won't do.
There is no doubt in my mind that police officers will, very quickly, find a way to game that system. Who is to say a camera can't be damaged or destroyed during a difficult or violent arrest? Oops, my camera got dislodged and lost. Oops, my camera fell in the river. The bullet hit me right in the camera? Maybe.
We need to consider all of the other measures before turning every police encounter into a video show. Better and longer, more in-depth training of officers. Check. Consistent retraining throughout their careers. Check. Doing away with Tasers so they can't so easily and quickly use violence against citizens? Yes. Doing away with full pension payments for life after only 20 to 25 yrs. of service (no full retirements at 48 or even 54, partial, yes).
Police work is psychologically battering. When a person also has sense of resentment over whatever bad has happened in life, combined with the deference from citizens many police demand, it is very easy for an officer to turn into a bully, ready to fire or Taser. We need to find ways to help officers deal with this battering and, at the same time, weed out those who never should have become officers in the first place. Cameras won't solve these problems.
There is no doubt in my mind that police officers will, very quickly, find a way to game that system. Who is to say a camera can't be damaged or destroyed during a difficult or violent arrest? Oops, my camera got dislodged and lost. Oops, my camera fell in the river. The bullet hit me right in the camera? Maybe.
We need to consider all of the other measures before turning every police encounter into a video show. Better and longer, more in-depth training of officers. Check. Consistent retraining throughout their careers. Check. Doing away with Tasers so they can't so easily and quickly use violence against citizens? Yes. Doing away with full pension payments for life after only 20 to 25 yrs. of service (no full retirements at 48 or even 54, partial, yes).
Police work is psychologically battering. When a person also has sense of resentment over whatever bad has happened in life, combined with the deference from citizens many police demand, it is very easy for an officer to turn into a bully, ready to fire or Taser. We need to find ways to help officers deal with this battering and, at the same time, weed out those who never should have become officers in the first place. Cameras won't solve these problems.
2
" Cop-cams insult individual dignity because the embarrassing things recorded by them will inevitably get swapped around. "
Mr. Brooks tells us so many bad things about these cameras it made we wonder why he wrote at the beginning: " ... I’ve come to believe that it would be a good idea to put body-mounted cameras on police officers. I now believe this for several reasons.
First, there have been too many cases in which police officers have abused their authority and then covered it up."
In other words, Mr. Brooks came to 'believe it', which isn't really the case at all. He saw through it.
So many people today 'believe' exactly what politicians have a consensus, i.e. both main parties, in telling us to. And that is exactly what various influential think-tanks, or special interest groups, would want us to 'believe'.
One wonders if they do most of their thinking (hence the name: think-tank), in order to get us to stop doing any thinking on our own!
Mr. Brooks tells us so many bad things about these cameras it made we wonder why he wrote at the beginning: " ... I’ve come to believe that it would be a good idea to put body-mounted cameras on police officers. I now believe this for several reasons.
First, there have been too many cases in which police officers have abused their authority and then covered it up."
In other words, Mr. Brooks came to 'believe it', which isn't really the case at all. He saw through it.
So many people today 'believe' exactly what politicians have a consensus, i.e. both main parties, in telling us to. And that is exactly what various influential think-tanks, or special interest groups, would want us to 'believe'.
One wonders if they do most of their thinking (hence the name: think-tank), in order to get us to stop doing any thinking on our own!
I agree with both of David Brooks's points: necessary, but regrettable.
If you have police come once to the home to impress a defiant (and quickly compliant) family member that rules are rules, that interaction doesn't need to be recorded or more widely shared. But a record-it-all policy might be applied.
If you have police come once to the home to impress a defiant (and quickly compliant) family member that rules are rules, that interaction doesn't need to be recorded or more widely shared. But a record-it-all policy might be applied.
3
David:
Once again you pontificate from a perch of privilege. Perhaps in the neighborhoods within which you live and work you can imagine that
"Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you. When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
But, then again, you are a white, educated, upper middle class, professional man. Most of the recent victims of undue police violence we have learned about are none of these. The lack of trust comes not from the presence of a camera, b ut rather from a history of confrontation, violence, condescension, discrimination, all swirling in an atmosphere of guilty until proven innocent.
This did not come about overnight, nor is it the result of new video technology. The lack of trust comes from a long history of abuses, which have been coming back into public awareness since the election of President Obama, as well as the rise of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.
The incidence of such abuse has now come into growing public awareness because of this newer technology. Would we have ever known about the recent incident in South Carolina had it not been for a cell phone video?
Once again you pontificate from a perch of privilege. Perhaps in the neighborhoods within which you live and work you can imagine that
"Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you. When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
But, then again, you are a white, educated, upper middle class, professional man. Most of the recent victims of undue police violence we have learned about are none of these. The lack of trust comes not from the presence of a camera, b ut rather from a history of confrontation, violence, condescension, discrimination, all swirling in an atmosphere of guilty until proven innocent.
This did not come about overnight, nor is it the result of new video technology. The lack of trust comes from a long history of abuses, which have been coming back into public awareness since the election of President Obama, as well as the rise of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.
The incidence of such abuse has now come into growing public awareness because of this newer technology. Would we have ever known about the recent incident in South Carolina had it not been for a cell phone video?
4
I laughed out loud when I read Brooks's statement, "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional." I intend no slight against police, but I've never experienced an encounter when any I would characterize as intimate and friendly. If an officer is inclined to be friendly, why would the camera make him or her less so. Also, use of cameras does not preclude officer discretion in giving tickets, etc, although the officer might have to explain discretion that seems unfair (eg, giving warnings only to attractive young women or only to whites or, that matter African Americans). In my experience, though, the days of letting drivers off with warnings is long gone.
There should be procedures in place so that police contacts that generate no law enforcement action are not ordinarily publicly available and are erased after a time. However,even without cameras, encounters with police are not private; there are notes and police reports, etc.
There should be procedures in place so that police contacts that generate no law enforcement action are not ordinarily publicly available and are erased after a time. However,even without cameras, encounters with police are not private; there are notes and police reports, etc.
2
About forty years ago as I recall Phil Caruso, then head of NYPD PBA, objected to requiring uniformed officers wear name tags. He demonstrated that these were unsafe by showing that when exposed to the flame of a cigarette lighter, the tags caught fire.
In order to assure privacy of police perhaps it would be a better idea to require potential perps to wear cameras instead. I'm sure this could be crowd-funded if the Koch brothers and NRA don't volunteer to pony up. But if we insist of robocoping our uniformed officers, please include a sleep switch to enable them to keep up the cooping tradition.
In order to assure privacy of police perhaps it would be a better idea to require potential perps to wear cameras instead. I'm sure this could be crowd-funded if the Koch brothers and NRA don't volunteer to pony up. But if we insist of robocoping our uniformed officers, please include a sleep switch to enable them to keep up the cooping tradition.
1
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship". We are WAY beyond the time when the relationship between police and citizens was an "intimate friendship" if it ever was. (If it was, it was between well-off white folks and white cops.) It is also common for officers to "forget" to turn on the body cams in certain situations. We already see that. Expect to see an increase as body cams become more widespread. In a less than perfect world, where minorities are routinely treated differently, we need body cams on all our officers. It is the only way that we can build any kind of a reasonable relationship between minorities and police officers.
4
We expect police officers to be trustworthy and faithful to their oaths and the worst way to insure trust is to treat people as if they are untrustworthy and faithless because it focuses their attention on being watched, second guessed and what they say and do to be unreliable. For people who call the police for help, it means that their privacy is forever compromised just as Brooks describes. Police know that almost all people they encounter already are mistrustful of them and usually conceal facts and lie to them even when it is not to their interests to do so. On the other hand, police over time become isolated from the communities they serve and tend to form tribal affiliations of loyalty towards other police that results in their protecting fellow officers from disciplinary actions and prosecutions. The incidents which have been captured on camera over the last year pretty much illustrate the pros and cons of police wearing body cameras at all times. But it really is not the better solution in the long run. If the cameras can be used to determine which methods and techniques work better rather than to just be another tool for litigation and disciplinary action it might prove to be a very beneficial policy but we will see.
2
Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death between 16 and 34 - I am forced to wonder how all of the surveillance lovers would react to mandatory auto cameras on your dashes.
I may have spoke too soon - for the masses that leap to sacrifice their privacy on social media - 'proby no biggy'
I may have spoke too soon - for the masses that leap to sacrifice their privacy on social media - 'proby no biggy'
2
Cop cams may be necessary right now. But I wonder if we are starting at the wrong end of the problem. The push for this new technology is because we have begun to lose faith and trust in those who are supposed to protect us. The number of killings of black American men has escalated which is leading to a desire for more information about the events leading to those deaths. What if we started with the question of the basic problem which, in my mind, is the training and mind set of the police person? How are cops selected and educated? A common complaint about cop stories is the culture of Blue Loyalty. That is, no cop wants to complain about or accuse another cop of misbehavior.
If this is a deeply held culture, it will take more than cameras to remedy the problems. In the field of organizational change, two of the most important factors involved in change management are the culture and history of the organization. If there is a culture in the department of disrespect for minorities (and accepted or allowed by the superiors) then new officers are enculturated into that environment and the resulting behavior is OK
If this is a deeply held culture, it will take more than cameras to remedy the problems. In the field of organizational change, two of the most important factors involved in change management are the culture and history of the organization. If there is a culture in the department of disrespect for minorities (and accepted or allowed by the superiors) then new officers are enculturated into that environment and the resulting behavior is OK
4
Dear David,
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
I'm glad you get some compassion.
However, if you were black and stopped for a "broken tail light", you would be asked to show your id very slowly, to stick your hands out the windows, to exit the vehicle sir, and to prostrate yourself on the asphalt no matter the weather, no matter your clothes. No matter the reason or cause, you would be ticketed. Remember, your officer has a quota. And at the slightest resistance, you would be handcuffed, sent downtown and your vehicle impounded.
Do not get angry! (If there is no witness with a camera.)
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
I'm glad you get some compassion.
However, if you were black and stopped for a "broken tail light", you would be asked to show your id very slowly, to stick your hands out the windows, to exit the vehicle sir, and to prostrate yourself on the asphalt no matter the weather, no matter your clothes. No matter the reason or cause, you would be ticketed. Remember, your officer has a quota. And at the slightest resistance, you would be handcuffed, sent downtown and your vehicle impounded.
Do not get angry! (If there is no witness with a camera.)
2
Mr. Brooks disconnect between himself to the daily life in poor neighborhoods rivals that of the income inequality between his community and the communities he claims would suffer from body cameras.
The trust between officer and poor black communities has been lost since the earliest days of Jim Crow. When you consider the footage of the Walter Scott murder this distrust is justified.
In situations where it is the citizen’s word against law enforcement’s the citizen almost always loses. When the confrontation takes place in poor communities the individual’s word holds little hope.
There are other solutions than body cameras to reducing deaths such as Walter Scott’s. Better training that places deadly force as a truly last resort solution to saving the life of another is a first step. A new generation police officers are coming from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan where killing was the only solution. Better psychological screening and support of all police especially our vets can only help those charged with protecting communities.
Until law enforcement has a come to Jesus moment and realizes that they are becoming the problem and not the solution to peace in the streets, the body camera is the best answer to epidemic use of deadly force in America.
The footage shot by Feiden Santana is truly a transformational moment in the conversation of race and law enforcement. In my opinion, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
The trust between officer and poor black communities has been lost since the earliest days of Jim Crow. When you consider the footage of the Walter Scott murder this distrust is justified.
In situations where it is the citizen’s word against law enforcement’s the citizen almost always loses. When the confrontation takes place in poor communities the individual’s word holds little hope.
There are other solutions than body cameras to reducing deaths such as Walter Scott’s. Better training that places deadly force as a truly last resort solution to saving the life of another is a first step. A new generation police officers are coming from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan where killing was the only solution. Better psychological screening and support of all police especially our vets can only help those charged with protecting communities.
Until law enforcement has a come to Jesus moment and realizes that they are becoming the problem and not the solution to peace in the streets, the body camera is the best answer to epidemic use of deadly force in America.
The footage shot by Feiden Santana is truly a transformational moment in the conversation of race and law enforcement. In my opinion, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
2
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
A: Let's try it and see if it works.
B: Hopefully, even if it's recorded, a cop can still let someone off with a warning instead of a ticket - as long as his/her superiors have the same kind of common sense that the cop has.
A: Let's try it and see if it works.
B: Hopefully, even if it's recorded, a cop can still let someone off with a warning instead of a ticket - as long as his/her superiors have the same kind of common sense that the cop has.
A good, but sad, set of conclusions. My social psychology dissertation, published in 1958, "Surveillance and Trust" (Journal of Personality) concluded that surveillance feeds on itself - the more one monitors a target person, the less information gets about the target's trustworthiness; subsequent research by others, like Lee Ross, indicated that the target suffers similarly - the more I am under surveillance, the less info I get about my own trustworthiness
2
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. "
This bit of damage was done as soon as we started outfitting our police like military--dressed in black, armored cars, helmets, a belt full of weapons. They're intended to be intimidating, and so they are. A camera doesn't exacerbate this, it mitigates. With a camera, at least I know they're accountable and will strive to be objective.
This bit of damage was done as soon as we started outfitting our police like military--dressed in black, armored cars, helmets, a belt full of weapons. They're intended to be intimidating, and so they are. A camera doesn't exacerbate this, it mitigates. With a camera, at least I know they're accountable and will strive to be objective.
4
Unfortunately Mr. Brooks is out-thinking himself on this issue. The police are public servants, trained to our standards for safety and respect for the rights of the public. The fact that they need to wear cameras speaks to their inability to behave legally--this isn't just about "abusing their authority," but committing murder and other crimes. When the police behave better than the criminals they are supposed to go after, then may be the public will trust them again. Certainly it will take the Black community even longer given their targeting by the police. Mr. Brooks's arguments seek to water down the real issue of criminal behavior by police as being some sort of sad tale about the loss of privacy. It all ends up sounding like a veiled apology for the police.
3
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks, it's our elites, including sworn officers, whose lack of wisdom, honesty, integrity, and even simple human decency pushed society to this point. Each morning's paper tells us of another wretched abuse of power from law enforcement, including not just uses of excessive force but of altogether too frequent criminal misconduct and abuse by prosecutors, asset forfeiture abuses, virtual bribery of judges, prison privatization scams and so on and so on.
All the while, the majority of this systemic rot throughout the law enforcement system is perpetrated by individuals who see themselves as good patriots and Christians with strong family values who pay their bills on time and who are fighting the good fight. Body cameras aren't going to clean all this mess up. But neither will introducing a "community and inner life values curriculum" in schools.
All the while, the majority of this systemic rot throughout the law enforcement system is perpetrated by individuals who see themselves as good patriots and Christians with strong family values who pay their bills on time and who are fighting the good fight. Body cameras aren't going to clean all this mess up. But neither will introducing a "community and inner life values curriculum" in schools.
1
I don't know about the lost language of privacy in this context. David makes some very good points about privacy (and I would add silence as another important requirement to "a zone where half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions can grow and evolve". In this context and in so many other of our interactions with other human beings, perhaps we need to speak about the lost language of trust. We as citizens (ALL citizens) should be able to trust police officers to serve and protect us. Just as we should be able to trust our leaders in DC to act in our best long term interest, but that's a whole another topic.
3
I would like to see more studies before I decide. There are a couple of studies which indicated that there were fewer confrontations when police wore cameras. However, these results are likely because it changed the citizens' behaviors. However, there are still too many unknown variables--a big one being what effect wearing a camera will have on police officers' quick reactions if they need to protect themselves. Because of the cameras, their attention will be divided, much like drivers' attention is divided when they talk on a cell phone.
Will this end up being nothing but a boon for YouTube? Some videos are a slam dunk in terms of what they show, but others will not be. How much will some people try to provoke police? How many more lawsuits will there be?
My wife was a police officer in a large city. Much of what she did was social work, rarely having to draw her gun to apprehend a criminal. Will body cameras cause police to "retreat" to the "safest" point and only engage in actions that are fully "defensible" (i.e., give everyone a ticket--no warnings--because if one person is filmed getting a ticket and another filmed getting a warning there will be trouble!)?
Will people want to go into a profession where everything they do is recorded? Would you?
Let's try it for a couple of years in one or two large cities and in four or five small towns and see what happens before we jump too quickly to a solution that may have serious unintended effects.
Will this end up being nothing but a boon for YouTube? Some videos are a slam dunk in terms of what they show, but others will not be. How much will some people try to provoke police? How many more lawsuits will there be?
My wife was a police officer in a large city. Much of what she did was social work, rarely having to draw her gun to apprehend a criminal. Will body cameras cause police to "retreat" to the "safest" point and only engage in actions that are fully "defensible" (i.e., give everyone a ticket--no warnings--because if one person is filmed getting a ticket and another filmed getting a warning there will be trouble!)?
Will people want to go into a profession where everything they do is recorded? Would you?
Let's try it for a couple of years in one or two large cities and in four or five small towns and see what happens before we jump too quickly to a solution that may have serious unintended effects.
3
When I was young I was a long-haired stoner playing guitar in a rock band in a southern city. Now I'm a corporate VP with a touch of gray in my hair. So you might say I've looked at the "relationship" with police officers from both sides now. Where I was once subject to mild but persistent harassment, the treatment I get now is almost comically solicitous. Nowadays I find cops friendly, helpful, thoughtful and likable. So I think I may know what you have in mind, David, when you lament the potential loss of this relationship. But as pleasant and convenient as this is for people like me, presumably you, David, and much of your readership, I don't think for a moment that this counterbalances the injustices that can occur when an officer of the law does respect a citizen as a human being. I will happily settle for mere courteous professionalism from my local police force, if that is the cost of ensuring that everyone else can get the same treatment. So I really don't see a downside--at least, not one I can take seriously.
7
I appreciate a column that doesn't insist on one side or another. As soon as we say "no guns," or "more guns" we miss meaningful conversation. As usual, a search for perfection misses the point.
5
This column shows us the nobility of Brooks's effort to see fairly. It's not that he's opposed to the body cams; he, like us, recognizes the need for them and that the fact that police abuses and the pattern of such makes them necessary. That's obvious part.
But it is very sad (and shameful) that they are needed.
And there is a downside, a cost too subtle, evidently for many to see and understand. There may be remedies for at least some of those harmful effects (such as penalty for online posting, e.g.) but only if we acknowledge that the negatives are there. Brooks shows solid thinking here. He laments what he and we now have to accept.
May the police take notice of what some of them have done and allowed -- and may they conscientiously work toward reform.
But it is very sad (and shameful) that they are needed.
And there is a downside, a cost too subtle, evidently for many to see and understand. There may be remedies for at least some of those harmful effects (such as penalty for online posting, e.g.) but only if we acknowledge that the negatives are there. Brooks shows solid thinking here. He laments what he and we now have to accept.
May the police take notice of what some of them have done and allowed -- and may they conscientiously work toward reform.
4
It’s already a moot point for so many Americans. Your work computer traffic is probably monitored/restricted. Video surveillance of employees is rampant and quite often beyond the letter of the law. Take a look around at the next cash register, door or parking lot to a business you encounter and do be careful where you adjust your personal hygiene.
19
I am against it. No cameras on cops. Why? People love to act in front of cameras and most of the time that acting is not natural. Nah, cops don't need cameras. They need better information about the person they are confronting. They simply need a pocket scanner that can scan the person ID or finger print connected to a public records data base. For get the cameras and guns, use public information instead.
1
If they have to carry guns, then they get a camera.
6
You say the cop cams will be a blow to relationships but they are necessary because the relationships just aren't there now. In far too many communities the cops already have an oppositional relationship with the citizens they have sworn to serve and protect. For whatever reason, this country long ago decided that an adversarial police force would be an advantage to someone - tank manufacturers? prison builders? - and now those chickens are coming home. All police must be held to a higher level of accountability because some have horribly abused their authority.
If putting a camera on the uniform results in fewer deaths and more motorists getting tickets instead of warnings, then it's worth the tradeoff because what we've got now is unacceptable.
If putting a camera on the uniform results in fewer deaths and more motorists getting tickets instead of warnings, then it's worth the tradeoff because what we've got now is unacceptable.
1
On point, as always, Mr. Brooks. But perhaps we wouldn't need cameras on police officers if the laws they were enforcing were more about building stronger communities than building more brick walls to put members of those communities behind. I can't deny the benefits or detriments of putting cameras on officers, but it still leaves too much to be desired for real change in our legal system. Video cameras alone will not be able to capture the true picture of injustice in the American "justice system." And isn't it politicians who create that system? Makes one wonder, would the public ever demand such transparency from the policymakers creating laws in the first place?
My educated guess is that the notorious police shootings are notorious because of how relatively infrequent they actually are nationwide. With "cop cams," rather than be treated to thousands of videos of police acting poorly, I expect to be entertained by vastly more videos of belligerent civilians--criminals, bystanders, instigators--getting in the face of calm, collected, confident police officers, rather than vise versa. Bring on the more Darwin Awards.
1
Again then - this is good, right? The cops ought to want this? The cops ought to want the public to see that most of the time they, the cops, act honorably and well? They interact with all kinds of bums and jerks who harass and threaten them, but they usually respond appropriately?
Right? So cops have no objections to the cop-cams. Right?
Right? So cops have no objections to the cop-cams. Right?
I'm white, middle class,and female. I also have a relative with schizophrenia. I wish several of the police officers I have dealt with had been wearing body cameras. I have been berated by officers for not controlling my relative. I have been - when, of course, I (and my relative) were the victims of the disease itself. When I had no way to avoid the psychosis that threatened me.
The officers (one at a station) were arrogant and unsympathetic. A review of film from those encounters by a discerning superior would - I hope - have resulted in better training for the officers.
The officers (one at a station) were arrogant and unsympathetic. A review of film from those encounters by a discerning superior would - I hope - have resulted in better training for the officers.
3
My private "interior zone" is in no way violated by the lens of any camera. On the contrary, the less attractive spaces in that zone are less likely to appear in any public setting, let alone a setting that is being recorded. Furthermore, it seems probably that not only will police behavior be more restrained by recorded scrutiny, but also such scrutiny may deter people from becoming police officers who are seeking a license to bully other people.
1
Nice try, David. You're a master at pushing the knee-jerk buttons of liberals to con them into buying your right-wing arguments, or at least "respecting" them. But given that fact that we have a crisis with police violence in America which is now one of the top domestic issues we all face, the idea that we should "think twice" about cop cams because somehow a video of a domestic fight caught by one might make its way onto You Tube seems beyond preposterous. Should we really be so obsessed by "privacy" that we are willing to sacrifice the safety and very lives of lots of black American victims of some police out of control to the protection of precious "privacy"? Get real.
3
Rarely do I agree with Brooks, but this time he speaks for me 100%. If you read Roger Cohen's column today he speaks to the integrity of the police in Paris and the general respect that they get from the average citizen. Maybe we need to study their training tactics and screening procedures in hiring. Maybe their police understand that they are public servants and are accountable to that public unlike here in the US where public servants including our Congress consider themselves above the law.
2
Thank you Davis Brooks,
I have been looking for the perfect example to illustrate the difference between Canada and the US and today you gave it to me.
If i meet someone in an RCMP uniform he is an RCMP officer, if I meet some in a Montreal Police Uniform he is a Montreal Police officer. If I meet someone in a City of Chicago police uniform he may be a member of the University of Chicago police, he may be a Wrigley Field Security guard, he may work security in the employment of the United Center. I remember reading somewhere that a man cannot serve two masters. You can serve God or you can serve Mammon you can serve your paycheck or you can serve the public. The motto of the Toronto Police is to "Serve and Protect" in Canada there is no doubt who the police serve and protect.
I have been looking for the perfect example to illustrate the difference between Canada and the US and today you gave it to me.
If i meet someone in an RCMP uniform he is an RCMP officer, if I meet some in a Montreal Police Uniform he is a Montreal Police officer. If I meet someone in a City of Chicago police uniform he may be a member of the University of Chicago police, he may be a Wrigley Field Security guard, he may work security in the employment of the United Center. I remember reading somewhere that a man cannot serve two masters. You can serve God or you can serve Mammon you can serve your paycheck or you can serve the public. The motto of the Toronto Police is to "Serve and Protect" in Canada there is no doubt who the police serve and protect.
3
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
Well, this jumped out at me..... The thing about "cutting slack" is that it is a product of bias. I used to see my Dad cultivate these relationships, when he had been pulled over, chatting up the officer in an attempt to establish some common friend or social relationship. In order to benefit from this kind of "slack." Not to malign my Dad, this was only a few times in a lifetime with him, and he was a very social and gregarious guy. But it stood out in my childhood memory as something wrong, something that, were he a different person, non-white, more taciturn, more irritable, would not have happened. As much as we who are liable to be able to benefit from this bending of the rules would like to benefit from such bias, it is not a just thing, and we need to remember that we are privileged to even be able to consider the possibility of it. Certainly something worth giving up, in a more just society, so that others will benefit, even more so that others will not be killed or persecuted.
Well, this jumped out at me..... The thing about "cutting slack" is that it is a product of bias. I used to see my Dad cultivate these relationships, when he had been pulled over, chatting up the officer in an attempt to establish some common friend or social relationship. In order to benefit from this kind of "slack." Not to malign my Dad, this was only a few times in a lifetime with him, and he was a very social and gregarious guy. But it stood out in my childhood memory as something wrong, something that, were he a different person, non-white, more taciturn, more irritable, would not have happened. As much as we who are liable to be able to benefit from this bending of the rules would like to benefit from such bias, it is not a just thing, and we need to remember that we are privileged to even be able to consider the possibility of it. Certainly something worth giving up, in a more just society, so that others will benefit, even more so that others will not be killed or persecuted.
2
Body-cams will violate the privacy of naked assault victims? What? I guess two wrongs don't make a right and Republican "family values" trumps justice.
Your comfortable suburban privacy -- Ozzie and Harriet in their home -- is very recent and very limited Who but the elite enjoyed such privacy 100 or more years ago? Which demographics even today are stripped of their privacy by the biases against their financial and civil status?
I'm afraid this column ignores the elephant in the room.
Your comfortable suburban privacy -- Ozzie and Harriet in their home -- is very recent and very limited Who but the elite enjoyed such privacy 100 or more years ago? Which demographics even today are stripped of their privacy by the biases against their financial and civil status?
I'm afraid this column ignores the elephant in the room.
1
With a high regard for everyday privacy, I would simply avoid a camera'd police in uniform, walk on the other side of the street, etc. This policy is not thought through adequately; its effect on entire community. The core of the issue is racism, sloppy training, good old boy hiring and loyalty policies
1
David Brooks! What happened to last week's moral reawakening? Hadn't you better sort out the important issues here?
Entire communities living with the threat of harassment, injury or death at the hands of civil authorities? It's not OK. Is there anything worth putting ahead of that?
Entire communities living with the threat of harassment, injury or death at the hands of civil authorities? It's not OK. Is there anything worth putting ahead of that?
1
Perhaps we should define these terms a little better. Privacy, to me, is what happens between me and my conscience. Secret is what happens between me and my wife, child, friend, or confessor. Personal is what happens to me.
Dealing with a police officer is a personal matter; I want the police officer protected as I want myself protected.
M.Brooks seems to want it both ways; on one hand we should be able to rely on our "better natures" in our dealings with our fellows; on the other our "better natures" are often missing in action.
There are two facts that have been missing in most of the stories I have seen or read regarding the current dialog. One, we have militarized our country to such an extent that we are all but living in a police state. Two, we are trying to do this on the cheap.
Our best trained people, with the best equipment, are overseas dealing with foreign crime, regardless of whether cheney wants to call it war, terrorism, or whatever. Our police, who are here dealing with our citizens and the criminal elements at home, are using the left overs from the military.
Nothing will change, nothing will get better, until we step back from thinking all solutions to all problems just need more or bigger guns.
I think we need more and better jobs.
Dealing with a police officer is a personal matter; I want the police officer protected as I want myself protected.
M.Brooks seems to want it both ways; on one hand we should be able to rely on our "better natures" in our dealings with our fellows; on the other our "better natures" are often missing in action.
There are two facts that have been missing in most of the stories I have seen or read regarding the current dialog. One, we have militarized our country to such an extent that we are all but living in a police state. Two, we are trying to do this on the cheap.
Our best trained people, with the best equipment, are overseas dealing with foreign crime, regardless of whether cheney wants to call it war, terrorism, or whatever. Our police, who are here dealing with our citizens and the criminal elements at home, are using the left overs from the military.
Nothing will change, nothing will get better, until we step back from thinking all solutions to all problems just need more or bigger guns.
I think we need more and better jobs.
2
Today's Brooks op-ed told me where America went wrong and why my wife and I are here in Canada instead of with our grandchildren in the USA.
When Reagan refused to negotiate with the air traffic controllers he put the kibosh on the march to democracy. I think my visit to Wrigley field watching what should have been my police professionals acting as security guards in my city of Chicago police uniforms said it all. In Toronto my neighbour would be out of uniform at the ball park with her son and daughter sitting in the seats two rows over watching the game.
Therein lies the Tale of two cities. I cannot imagine being a police officer in Detroit watching the governor and the powers that be threatening my pension income. What a combination a badge, a gun and an insecure future. No wonder I need to always be on camera.
When Reagan refused to negotiate with the air traffic controllers he put the kibosh on the march to democracy. I think my visit to Wrigley field watching what should have been my police professionals acting as security guards in my city of Chicago police uniforms said it all. In Toronto my neighbour would be out of uniform at the ball park with her son and daughter sitting in the seats two rows over watching the game.
Therein lies the Tale of two cities. I cannot imagine being a police officer in Detroit watching the governor and the powers that be threatening my pension income. What a combination a badge, a gun and an insecure future. No wonder I need to always be on camera.
I agree with you on principle, however, when racism is a big factor in white cop, black citizen interaction, there is no trust to begin with. In Ferguson, for example, white cops constantly targeted black people to fill the city's coffers. In an ideal society what you say is true, but we don't have an ideal society.
1
Brooks is right, but I do not recall he stood up for other valuable but - sadly- anarchronistic human contacts:
the house call
the condolence note
hitch hiking
neighborly help
etc.
So, while it is true- the best vibes of community policing may be impinged upon by cop-cam, the polarization of America by his GOP base-baiters & the militarization of municipal police (faintly justified by 'terrorism') have made his qualms more like nostalgia.
There could be a mental health squad- free of cameras, sent out for domestic conflicts....
the house call
the condolence note
hitch hiking
neighborly help
etc.
So, while it is true- the best vibes of community policing may be impinged upon by cop-cam, the polarization of America by his GOP base-baiters & the militarization of municipal police (faintly justified by 'terrorism') have made his qualms more like nostalgia.
There could be a mental health squad- free of cameras, sent out for domestic conflicts....
1
Very strange that it takes a thoughtful, center-right columnist to be the first, or one of the first, to express misgivings about cameras for cops, and to defend the right to privacy. On the issue of free speech on campus, the right also seems to be taking up some of the slack left over by left-wing silence. Where is the left? Too enamored with technology, science, Silicon Valley and "progress"? Wringing its hands over the conflict between freedom of thought/speech and supposedly grave, racially tinged "micro-aggressions"? I can think of David Eggers, Jaron Lanier, and some others tackling these issues, but it seems like too many are missing in action. If it takes the right wing to push back against the creeping rationalization of society, so be it. Thank you Mr. Brooks for another excellent column.
My question would be when do the cops cut you some slack? Not write you a ticket? This certainly has not been my experience with law enforcement.
David, when you get a chance, please drop by the universe where the rest of us live. Nice place, you might like it.
While body cams will, perhaps, mitigate not a police expectation of privacy (they have none in the commission of their very public duties) but an expectation of supremacy - that when events are under review the police version will be held superior.
Professor Younger of NYU Law School, explained it way back in 1967:
"It is a peculiarity of our legal, system that the police have unique opportunities (and unique temptations) to give false testimony. …
[H]earings usually follow a standard pattern. The policemen testify to their version of the circumstances ..., always reflecting perfect legality. The defendant testifies to his version, always reflecting egregious illegality. The judge must choose between two statements. and, not surprisingly,[] almost always accepts the policeman's word."
(See it all at: https://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/irving_younger.htm)
As an ex-Assistant District Attorney, Professor Younger likely had familiarity with such "Testilying".
So, do you live in my universe where a man, like you, can make a fine living writing fine flummery, or …..
would you care to wear a body cam for a while so we can see your universe!
While body cams will, perhaps, mitigate not a police expectation of privacy (they have none in the commission of their very public duties) but an expectation of supremacy - that when events are under review the police version will be held superior.
Professor Younger of NYU Law School, explained it way back in 1967:
"It is a peculiarity of our legal, system that the police have unique opportunities (and unique temptations) to give false testimony. …
[H]earings usually follow a standard pattern. The policemen testify to their version of the circumstances ..., always reflecting perfect legality. The defendant testifies to his version, always reflecting egregious illegality. The judge must choose between two statements. and, not surprisingly,[] almost always accepts the policeman's word."
(See it all at: https://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/irving_younger.htm)
As an ex-Assistant District Attorney, Professor Younger likely had familiarity with such "Testilying".
So, do you live in my universe where a man, like you, can make a fine living writing fine flummery, or …..
would you care to wear a body cam for a while so we can see your universe!
The cop cams are for everyone's protection. Light needs to shine on these moments of intense emotion where there are loaded guns present.
No claim for privacy have any place in these situations. Privacy concerns belong in the home, doctor's office, etc- not with police encounters.
No claim for privacy have any place in these situations. Privacy concerns belong in the home, doctor's office, etc- not with police encounters.
1
Cameras in the work place are already a fact of life in many places, banks, military operations and intensive care units and are used for good reasons so I have lost any sympathy about police wearing cameras.
The body camera footage about the man killed by a grown man playing police officer using a gun instead of a taser informed me that the police feel comfortable kneeling on a man's head. That is new to me and doubly abhorrent.
I wish you could take your observations about privacy and the pressure to conform and apply them to the growing reach of the loss of privacy to companies, insurers and employers .
The body camera footage about the man killed by a grown man playing police officer using a gun instead of a taser informed me that the police feel comfortable kneeling on a man's head. That is new to me and doubly abhorrent.
I wish you could take your observations about privacy and the pressure to conform and apply them to the growing reach of the loss of privacy to companies, insurers and employers .
3
I'm sorry, but police have collectively lost the privilege to privacy. Too many cops have lost thier way in this gun obsessed culture, and the ownership and use of guns are practically normalized in America. Speaking of bad behavior, why can't we make members of congress wear cameras?
2
You have convinced me that police officers should NOT wear cameras. I agree with the advantages you cite, but the negatives outweigh the positives. The same logic for allowing cameras could applied to all jobs involving protecting our welfare and security. Soldiers would wear cameras, politicians would wear cameras, tax auditors would wear cameras, and certainly police commanders and chiefs of police would wear cameras so as to be sure that the footage from field cameras was being properly handled, examined, and reacted to. The precedent set by body cameras on police officers is untenable. Cameras will help ferret out wrongdoing, but privacy needs to trump transparency. Should we have cameras in every bedroom in the country to make it easier to catch the sexual abusers in our society? Cameras would truly deter such abuse, but where are our priorities?
1
Would the police need to have body cameras on all the time? Couldn't they turn them off when they're on a case that clearly doesn't involve the threat of violence? Or is the risk that the cameras won't be turned back on when they might be needed too great? A possible solution is to always have the cameras on but to delete recordings after the fact when no violence occurs. But permission to do that could also be abused. There's no ideal solution to this issue.
As with many things technological, this requires legal protections. In this case, I believe the cameras must be rolling -- and there should be serious consequences when footage "goes missing" -- but also protections about who can access the stored video, when, and how it is to be disseminated -- and, again, serious consequences for leaks. We have legal chain-of-custody rules for physical objects (it is generally pretty clear who gets punished when a pound of seized cocaine goes missing); we must develop them for digital objects.
We are living in an age where increasingly the only limiters on our behavior are legal penalty and self-constraint. I would like to believe we can one day rely more on the latter, but for the time being we'll need the former.
We are living in an age where increasingly the only limiters on our behavior are legal penalty and self-constraint. I would like to believe we can one day rely more on the latter, but for the time being we'll need the former.
1
In my community, many tradespeople--plumbers, electricians, handymen, house painters--who I've been doing business with for years, and who presumably trust me after multiple transactions--only take checks rather than credit cards, and they nearly always cash the checks the same or the next day. Why do you suppose that is?
I don't take offense at this. I consider it normal and right. As Ronald Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I think the same principle is appropriate in our relations with law enforcement officers.
I don't take offense at this. I consider it normal and right. As Ronald Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I think the same principle is appropriate in our relations with law enforcement officers.
Simple answer: They don't have the ability to process credit card transactions. Trust has very little to do with it.
This is much ado about nothing.
In a few years, the cameras will be so small and unobtrusive that they will hardly be noticed. Plus, police spend the vast majority of their time in public places, where no one has an expectation of privacy. When conversations and actions are recorded, people behave better--and I don't need a study to confirm this conviction.
Brooks's concern about the erosion of community bonds and trust is misplaced, even silly, when viewed from the prism of the stupid high-profile police behaviors in the past year alone. Recording the nexus between the police and the public will eventually improve community bonds/trust, which is something I wish Brooks would've considered and written about.
In a few years, the cameras will be so small and unobtrusive that they will hardly be noticed. Plus, police spend the vast majority of their time in public places, where no one has an expectation of privacy. When conversations and actions are recorded, people behave better--and I don't need a study to confirm this conviction.
Brooks's concern about the erosion of community bonds and trust is misplaced, even silly, when viewed from the prism of the stupid high-profile police behaviors in the past year alone. Recording the nexus between the police and the public will eventually improve community bonds/trust, which is something I wish Brooks would've considered and written about.
3
Since police and their unions will never concede that snarter and more humane officers are needed instead of 3rd rate bullies, they have to wear camera leashes until they can learn to behave themselves
1
David
One of your very best columns. Truly.
I once had a philosophy professor from England who once, off -handedly, mentioned that we all lived in the polis from where the word police comes and also the word polite. He then gave a most positive description of police. "Police are there to remind us to be polite"----your column captures this.
The professor's name was Michael P. Slattery
One of your very best columns. Truly.
I once had a philosophy professor from England who once, off -handedly, mentioned that we all lived in the polis from where the word police comes and also the word polite. He then gave a most positive description of police. "Police are there to remind us to be polite"----your column captures this.
The professor's name was Michael P. Slattery
This is one of those areas where the pundits and the technological industry in surveillance will push for it without proof of benefits versus harms, as well as taxpayers' costs. At some crossroad humans have to make a decision about technology versus privacy. I'm not sure it can happen now, but perhaps in 15 years. The powers of technology that are wireless, portable, data intensive yet also easily be retrieved or archived where no stones are left unturned, delivering essentially a Library of Congress into the palms of any individual (as noted in one of the President's State of the Union addresses) currently also empowers the individual at the expense of privacy for the masses. At some point, this technology will be matured and cheap, small and concealable, and the playing field will be leveled, as if everyone now has ownership of his or her Winchester in the WWW of the WWW (Wild Wild West of the World Wide Web). Uncivilized societies will continue to take pot shots at each other, while more society will recognize its harms as you have well listed, and acknowledges that this is not a way to live. We live to be among the 99% that are like us, but leave the 1% for the experts. They are being paid to do their job. For now, the delusion of power in technology is too great. We all look down at our touch screens too much. We allow Big Brother to infiltrate education, healthcare, NSA and Library of Congress to archive every message posted. Everyone wants to play a doctor on TV.
At a time of unprecedented spying on us by our government, I find it troublesome that Brooks worries about the loss of relationships if police are required to wear mini cameras. I am from Chicago and I regret that the police here have themselves made a case for greater transparency by engaging in spying, torture, use of "drop guns", codes of silence and racially motivated hassling. David, you really need to get out of the fantasy world you inhabit and be exposed to what goes on in the real world.
5
Mr. Brooks speaks from a very gentile position underscoring the sacrosanct value of human life & dignity regardless of wealth or status. This is a humanist position & is a wonderful mission statement for any occupation although especially for law enforcement who is charged with protecting the community. Human life is more important than material possessions as underscored by the outpouring of sympathy for the tragic & misguided death of Walter Scott who was pulled over for a minor tail light infraction.
If the police officer who shot Mr. Scott in the back had been honorably trained to uphold the values of the Constitution & considered Mr. Scott an equal member of his community, he wouldn't have used violence to solve a minor dispute which only causes distrust of the police. Yes, it is true that people should respect law enforcement, distrust occurs when police officers have evil & criminal intent against the very people they are entrusted to serve & protect.
Although Mr. Brooks is spot on about the issue of trust & privacy, these very values are endangered when police officers are biased. I would recommend that law enforcement use the funds allocated for body cams towards recruiting members of the community to become community police officers. Police chiefs should hire people directly from the same neighborhoods that they will be employed in. They need to resemble, empathize, understand & value the community members they are tasked with serving & protecting.
If the police officer who shot Mr. Scott in the back had been honorably trained to uphold the values of the Constitution & considered Mr. Scott an equal member of his community, he wouldn't have used violence to solve a minor dispute which only causes distrust of the police. Yes, it is true that people should respect law enforcement, distrust occurs when police officers have evil & criminal intent against the very people they are entrusted to serve & protect.
Although Mr. Brooks is spot on about the issue of trust & privacy, these very values are endangered when police officers are biased. I would recommend that law enforcement use the funds allocated for body cams towards recruiting members of the community to become community police officers. Police chiefs should hire people directly from the same neighborhoods that they will be employed in. They need to resemble, empathize, understand & value the community members they are tasked with serving & protecting.
1
David, while you make some good points, your concern about the loss of police discretion is not one of them. Videotaping interactions does not deny police the ability to use discretion, they would just need to be able to justify it to someone who reviewed the tape. Perhaps laws and police regulations could make clear when police have such discretion, but taping it should not end it.
The problem with police discretion is that this is precisely where a lot of subtle racism is evident; white suspects get let off for the same behaviors that land black suspects behind bars. The officers may not even intentionally discriminate. But if there is videotape evidence, at least then such racially influenced discretion can be tracked and eventually, reduced or eliminated. The positives of police cameras greatly outweigh any liabilities, and they should be used as much as possible.
The problem with police discretion is that this is precisely where a lot of subtle racism is evident; white suspects get let off for the same behaviors that land black suspects behind bars. The officers may not even intentionally discriminate. But if there is videotape evidence, at least then such racially influenced discretion can be tracked and eventually, reduced or eliminated. The positives of police cameras greatly outweigh any liabilities, and they should be used as much as possible.
4
You make an excellent point about police discretion. And it would be interesting to learn how many African Americans really are driving with broken tail lights.
2
For once I agree with many points you make Mr. Brooks, however transactions between police and the public are just that - public - whatever the circumstances. A body cam can record what the mind misinterprets, or forgets. It is a protection for both the police and the community they serve.
4
David, with cameras the police will also be left feeling empty of the ability to lie about the encounter with a now- dead civilian. And why are you assuming that all footage of encounters will be released to the public ? I'd rather see cameras on every civilian in the country. They make a more neutral third party. If you want perfection, you aren't going to get it. But something has to be done. Now.
4
Is it really true that cameras, emails and other recordings of what we say and do influence our actions? No matter how many times lawyers (of which I'm one) tell their clients not to say anything in an email or text that they wouldn't want to read about in the NY Times, clients continue to record most if not all of the stupid and potentially illegal things they do.
17
Cut some slack?
What you are really saying is that when wearing a camera officers will be less likely to consistently give white drivers a warning and black drivers a ticket for the same minor offense.
Less likely to leave a drunk and aggressive man in the home tonight even if the battered wife is begging them to leave.
Less likely to stop and harass the less affluent in an effort to elicit a dubious probable cause that the camera will not show.
We have not only no privacy when a uniformed officer crosses the horizon, we have no expectation of privacy. Now at least we can expect the invasion of our privacy by the uniformed minions of force to be accompanied by honesty.
What you are really saying is that when wearing a camera officers will be less likely to consistently give white drivers a warning and black drivers a ticket for the same minor offense.
Less likely to leave a drunk and aggressive man in the home tonight even if the battered wife is begging them to leave.
Less likely to stop and harass the less affluent in an effort to elicit a dubious probable cause that the camera will not show.
We have not only no privacy when a uniformed officer crosses the horizon, we have no expectation of privacy. Now at least we can expect the invasion of our privacy by the uniformed minions of force to be accompanied by honesty.
1
Where is my privacy?
My phone can be located and monitored.
On the roads, I'm photographed.
My browsing history on the internet is (no doubt) the property of more than one corporation. Let's not even speculate on my medical history.
Most of my personal purchases today can be tracked.
If everyday, commonplace events are monitored, why would we not want what could be critical, life-altering events to be monitored, too?
I don't understand how you can put aside all your critical facilities when the government says, "trust me." Trust is earned, and verified, through repeated testing. When broken, it takes a long time to be repaired. It's time our government started to repair the broken trust, by letting the public see what it's doing.
My phone can be located and monitored.
On the roads, I'm photographed.
My browsing history on the internet is (no doubt) the property of more than one corporation. Let's not even speculate on my medical history.
Most of my personal purchases today can be tracked.
If everyday, commonplace events are monitored, why would we not want what could be critical, life-altering events to be monitored, too?
I don't understand how you can put aside all your critical facilities when the government says, "trust me." Trust is earned, and verified, through repeated testing. When broken, it takes a long time to be repaired. It's time our government started to repair the broken trust, by letting the public see what it's doing.
4
As the founder of a social app that welcomes <13 users, I love your definition of privacy and your explanation of its virtues as individuals, friends and communities. I will reference this article often to help explain to young people and adults alike that everything we think and do doesn't need to be shared, and, when we do share it, there is value to protecting that sharing amongst people we should, and we want to, trust.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Trust everyone but cut the cards.
3
Police body cameras record what happens in public.
The Supreme Court has consistently found that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy does not apply to public spaces.
You cannot "chip away" at something that never existed in the first place. As for the theat to "intimate friendship," don't make us laugh. We aren't worried about police officers not being friendly; we're worried about them beating and murdering our fellow Americans for no reason other than being able to get away with it.
The Supreme Court has consistently found that the Fourth Amendment right to privacy does not apply to public spaces.
You cannot "chip away" at something that never existed in the first place. As for the theat to "intimate friendship," don't make us laugh. We aren't worried about police officers not being friendly; we're worried about them beating and murdering our fellow Americans for no reason other than being able to get away with it.
3
I have written this here before: There is a very easy solution that will abrogate most of these legitimate problems:
Just record everything on a routine basis, but use hardware encryption of the videos, right in the camera. Then by law make the encryption key available only through a court order. In other words, only when and if a disagreement between police and the citizens cannot be resolved AND if the matter is serious enough for the courts to become active.
That puts a high bar for both sides on using the video to their own trivial advantages and ensures that in cases where felonies were conducted the evidence is preserved and available.
At the same time, trust between the police and the public is preserved, since frivolous exploitation of an embarrassing moment on camera is practically excluded. It also leaves the police the option of using their discretion in trivial cases without risking the wrath of their supervisors or a money-milking local government.
Just record everything on a routine basis, but use hardware encryption of the videos, right in the camera. Then by law make the encryption key available only through a court order. In other words, only when and if a disagreement between police and the citizens cannot be resolved AND if the matter is serious enough for the courts to become active.
That puts a high bar for both sides on using the video to their own trivial advantages and ensures that in cases where felonies were conducted the evidence is preserved and available.
At the same time, trust between the police and the public is preserved, since frivolous exploitation of an embarrassing moment on camera is practically excluded. It also leaves the police the option of using their discretion in trivial cases without risking the wrath of their supervisors or a money-milking local government.
1
Most changes driven by necessity are not the action of the many, but of the few. The criminal and civil code under which we currently live are, generally, the result of misdeeds of the few.
The question remains - is the sacrifice of privacy due to the actions of the few worth retaining?
The question remains - is the sacrifice of privacy due to the actions of the few worth retaining?
1
Yes, but the body-cams need to be automated in some way so, you know, some reserve police officer doesn’t shoot someone by mistake when in fact the officer thought he was just switching on his body-cam.
4
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional."
Mr. Brooks, who gets to be friends with the police? Are you able to make a reasonable argument that, say, African Americans, in their interactions with the police, given historical precedent and recent events, have any reasonable expectation of "intimate friendship," or even value-neutral, "transactional" relations? The Harris murder at the hands of an officer whose response to a plea for air was "[Expletive deleted] your breath, shut the [expletive] up!" goes even beyond your fear of "oppositional" police/suspect relations, entering into the realm of militaristic aggression.
Mr. Brooks, entertain the possibility that people like you and I can enjoy "friendly" relationships with police because, if I might be blunt, we're white, or at least understood as being white. I am perfectly amenable to giving over my privacy to the gaze of the camera, because it serves the end of creating a police establishment less predicated on violent repression and rule-breaking (even breaking those rules in ways that are "beneficial" to us). I don't want police slack at the expense of more African American corpses, more hashtagged names. In order to ensure equity under the law, we who enjoy the perks of whiteness need to surrender them.
Mr. Brooks, who gets to be friends with the police? Are you able to make a reasonable argument that, say, African Americans, in their interactions with the police, given historical precedent and recent events, have any reasonable expectation of "intimate friendship," or even value-neutral, "transactional" relations? The Harris murder at the hands of an officer whose response to a plea for air was "[Expletive deleted] your breath, shut the [expletive] up!" goes even beyond your fear of "oppositional" police/suspect relations, entering into the realm of militaristic aggression.
Mr. Brooks, entertain the possibility that people like you and I can enjoy "friendly" relationships with police because, if I might be blunt, we're white, or at least understood as being white. I am perfectly amenable to giving over my privacy to the gaze of the camera, because it serves the end of creating a police establishment less predicated on violent repression and rule-breaking (even breaking those rules in ways that are "beneficial" to us). I don't want police slack at the expense of more African American corpses, more hashtagged names. In order to ensure equity under the law, we who enjoy the perks of whiteness need to surrender them.
44
And while we're at it how about black boxes in all vehicles?
Maybe cut down on some of the slaughter on our roads and highways?
OH-and anyone convicted of a violent crime and/or child abuse gets a video implant! (including the clergy)
Maybe cut down on some of the slaughter on our roads and highways?
OH-and anyone convicted of a violent crime and/or child abuse gets a video implant! (including the clergy)
1
Putting a camera on police means that a few less young people will be killed needlessly. Good enough reason for me.
3
When was the last time Brooks has ever been pulled over by cops for driving while black? Or for that matter, as a pedestrian for walking while black? He has demonstrated once again (like I really needed another example) a deep cultural disconnect and policy-wonk naiveté to certain unpleasant truths, and he lives in a parallel universe up there above the clouds on Mt. Olympus. He means well. I sincerely believe that. But he is the editorial equivalent of Mitt Romney. He just doesn't get it. He needs to have an encounter with the police that have become an occupying army in our poorer urban areas which used to be called ghettos. I lived in the Oakland ghetto for three years. And though I am white, I definitely got it living there. Civil rights as guaranteed in the Constitution certainly trumps any privacy issues while being forced "to assume the position" and do "the Oakland Macarena."
1
It is time to lose The Andy Griffith Show view of cops.
2
That would have made a good Andy Griffith Show episode, to have Andy and Barney start wearing cameras. Many places outside of Portland do actually have friendly, intimate connection with their police and the cameras will provide material to inspire any Andy Griffith Show writer.
1
I never actually thought of it like that. It suddenly just seems like another way we give our morality away to machines. The underlying message is kind of scary. That we cannot trust the people we work around to such an extent as to have to monitor them every moment and second.
Sure we save lives. But what about the quality of life that we have? What good is a life lived in fear? What good is a life lived where we cannot act without the reassurance of numbers? I feel like we pursue something thinking that we will be getting one thing (safety) but in fact what we are saying by this is another. (No one can be trusted to be good on their own.) Didn't Benjamin Franklin offer a dire warning prosecuting this very act? Paraphrased: "Those who would give up a little liberty for a little safety deserve neither and lose both."
What a nuisance.
Sure we save lives. But what about the quality of life that we have? What good is a life lived in fear? What good is a life lived where we cannot act without the reassurance of numbers? I feel like we pursue something thinking that we will be getting one thing (safety) but in fact what we are saying by this is another. (No one can be trusted to be good on their own.) Didn't Benjamin Franklin offer a dire warning prosecuting this very act? Paraphrased: "Those who would give up a little liberty for a little safety deserve neither and lose both."
What a nuisance.
1
I've no doubt that those who think police roam minority neighborhoods like packs of rapacious wolves will cry fowl, but I find a future officers feel compelled to issue citations for even the most minor traffic infraction truly depressing.
And don't kid yourself (that means you, angry white college kid) plenty of black and brown young people have heard to words "I'm going to let you go with a warning this time".
And don't kid yourself (that means you, angry white college kid) plenty of black and brown young people have heard to words "I'm going to let you go with a warning this time".
David Brooks, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Hello?
John Curran put it this way," The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; Which condition if he break, servitude is at once then consequence of this crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Yes, we need privacy, but too much works against us and against society itself. Honesty requires openness. What is it that we need to hide?
John Curran put it this way," The condition upon which G-d hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; Which condition if he break, servitude is at once then consequence of this crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Yes, we need privacy, but too much works against us and against society itself. Honesty requires openness. What is it that we need to hide?
1
We need police body cameras so that the public can become aware that racism and discrimination in America is not over. When Tulsa police allow campaign contributions to put a volunteer on the force with a gun so he can play a version of "The Deadliest Game", there is much still to be revealed.
So Mr. Brooks believes that cameras will "damage" the public - police trust and intimacy. Well, I think that is what I would call a "white folk problem". Mr. Brooks needs to experience the violence and insults that black men and women experience daily from policemen throughout the United States; then he would eagerly welcome the defense that such transparency will provide.
Every year there have been hundreds of police-involved killings without a big fuss. But now, they've a cause celebre. Something has changed clearly. I'm not sure that the stats show any more cop violence today than 10 years ago. But police have clearly lost respect. People now feel that cops are always doing negative stuff when they used to get kitty kats out of trees. Why? I think it's because, with all the budget cutting, cops don't have time to get the kitty kats anymore. Cops haven't gotten any worse. We're just not paying enough taxes so that police can do the helpful things they used to.
Maybe at some point in the future when Big Brother is watching us, we'll look back and laugh, saying "Yeah, we actually demanded this. We were in the streets protesting for it. Ironically, it began as an instrument against the police state, if you can believe it." John Connor would be proud!
3
Thank you for thoughtfully exploring the pros and cons cop cameras. Perhaps cameras should be used only as a transition toward strategies that finally provide officers with the ability to serve and protect.
Yes, there's always a trade off, and you make some valid points. But although you say you've come to the conclusion that these cameras are a good idea, I'd feel more convinced if you didn't devote just two paragraphs to supporting it and 11 to denouncing it.
www.newyorkgritty.net
www.newyorkgritty.net
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional." At least for me, interaction with someone carrying a gun, multiple bullet clips, taser, mace and a lead sap tends to make me feel guarded. A video camera is the least of my concerns.
1
Let's not blur the line between privacy for private citizens and "privacy" for the police. The argument that police need privacy and not cameras to do their job ignores reality.
Police are armed agents of the government, and every act that they perform in the line of duty is and should be public. Patrol cops aren't undercover, and don't need privacy to perform their jobs. Cop-cam recordings may help defend police against false accusations as much as it may help defend citizens against excessive policing. Cop-cam recordings should remain confidential and inaccessible to the public unless they are required as evidence, with severe penalties for improper disclosure (like posting them online for a laugh), just like we currently treat other private information that the police may access within their authority.
Worries about recordings from inside someone's home can be treated under existing laws against police entry, search, and seizure without probable cause or a warrant, as well as confidentiality requirements for the recordings. The police needed probable cause at a minimum to be inside that home to begin with -- which the recording can help demonstrate that they had.
Policing is a difficult job, and it sometimes requires snap decisions that the rest of us will never have to face. That said, if wearing a camera makes an officer think twice about how he or she handles a situation, almost always that will be for the better.
Police are armed agents of the government, and every act that they perform in the line of duty is and should be public. Patrol cops aren't undercover, and don't need privacy to perform their jobs. Cop-cam recordings may help defend police against false accusations as much as it may help defend citizens against excessive policing. Cop-cam recordings should remain confidential and inaccessible to the public unless they are required as evidence, with severe penalties for improper disclosure (like posting them online for a laugh), just like we currently treat other private information that the police may access within their authority.
Worries about recordings from inside someone's home can be treated under existing laws against police entry, search, and seizure without probable cause or a warrant, as well as confidentiality requirements for the recordings. The police needed probable cause at a minimum to be inside that home to begin with -- which the recording can help demonstrate that they had.
Policing is a difficult job, and it sometimes requires snap decisions that the rest of us will never have to face. That said, if wearing a camera makes an officer think twice about how he or she handles a situation, almost always that will be for the better.
1
I can only imagine that David's breathtaking leap from implementing crude but potentially behavior-correcting monitoring devices on the public safety employees our tax dollars compensate to matters of personal privacy induce the same level of vertigo in others that it does in me.
One result? I really have no idea where to begin disabusing him of his confusions. So I'm counting on the rest of you - don't let me down!
One result? I really have no idea where to begin disabusing him of his confusions. So I'm counting on the rest of you - don't let me down!
1
"Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape."
Exactly. The idea that police care about their relationship to the public demonstrates how out of touch Brooks is. Police care about compliance. Any deviation from their often illogical, contradictory or illegal orders is met with overwhelming force and escalation.
Most people who support the police never have contact with the police.
Exactly. The idea that police care about their relationship to the public demonstrates how out of touch Brooks is. Police care about compliance. Any deviation from their often illogical, contradictory or illegal orders is met with overwhelming force and escalation.
Most people who support the police never have contact with the police.
1
Brooks is gesturing at a valid point, but "privacy" isn't the right idea here.
Brooks is really talking about erosion of professional autonomy in the surveillance and data society, with the proviso that any organized work can be done in a "professionally" autonomous way if the goals of this work are public service.
The current effort to degrade the professional autonomy of teachers is the best example. Police less so, because unfortunately police often end up pitted against the communities they serve, often not by their own choice.
Unfortunately "professional autonomy" is usually understood very narrowly as the privilege of an elite like doctors or lawyers. On the other hand, the concept of "privacy" is too broad and does not imply any context of work and public service.
Brooks is really talking about erosion of professional autonomy in the surveillance and data society, with the proviso that any organized work can be done in a "professionally" autonomous way if the goals of this work are public service.
The current effort to degrade the professional autonomy of teachers is the best example. Police less so, because unfortunately police often end up pitted against the communities they serve, often not by their own choice.
Unfortunately "professional autonomy" is usually understood very narrowly as the privilege of an elite like doctors or lawyers. On the other hand, the concept of "privacy" is too broad and does not imply any context of work and public service.
1
It is inevitable that the cop-cam video will be hacked at the storage locations and shown all over the Internet. Prepare for every video to become freely available and all of those on screen will be the objects of scorn, derision, laughter and etc. Prepare for the unintended consequences of the use of these cams, because anything that can happen will happen.
3
As a retired police officer I am awed that Brooks's spot-on insights are so far ahead of my own grasp of this issue. I have been so caught up in the issue of shootings that I forgot about the the 99% of my career that was spent trying to de-escalate agitated feelings at traffic stops, family beefs neighbor disputes, mental lapses, drunkenness, disorderliness, illness, injuries, just everything humans get into. Officers who are too "by-the-book" formal and proper usually don't do very well as patrol officers and eventually wind up as detectives or scientific investigators. Brooks is right. Cameras will put a real strain on any kind of rapport between officers and the public they serve.
4
That's weird. The first thing I was thinking was exactly along DB's lines. Also, I suggested multiple times now already, that there is a very simple solution to this problem, which involves simply encoding the videos right in the camera and making the decoding (by a third party, not by the police) dependent upon a court order. Thus, ordinary encounters between the police and the public would be protected from overanalysis of videos, while still preserving the evidence in case of serious misconduct or crimes.
Having said that, I accept the move toward cameras with the hope they don't overly exacerbate the already growing distrust between police and public. Broad, quick "fixes" sometimes have unpredicted results.
Want to see the 'civilizing' effect of cameras compared to the real effect of 'privacy' can do?
Just compare the officer's behavior when he knew he was on his own dash cam and pulled the vehicle over for the broken tail light. Very polite, reasonable, civilized, right? Then compare it to when he was sure he was off-camera in his zone of 'privacy' so he could calmly fire off 8 rounds into a fleeing subject's back. After strolling over to the body, he jogs back to retrieve evidence. He didn't seem to have a care in the world except to plant that evidence to exonerate himself.
This is a matter of credibility. Are you going to fall for the act and the script that accompanies it, e.g. 'stop grabbing my taser!' 'stop fighting me!', or you going to believe the camera?
Unfortunately, cameras can only do so much when the script is rehearsed and the camera is strategically blocked at key moments, but they're better than nothing. Public servants who are paid to protect the public don't deserve privacy anymore than people walking down the sidewalk who are on multiple CCTV at any one time, especially when they're outfitted with military combat gear and weaponry.
We should be stopping them for violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
Just compare the officer's behavior when he knew he was on his own dash cam and pulled the vehicle over for the broken tail light. Very polite, reasonable, civilized, right? Then compare it to when he was sure he was off-camera in his zone of 'privacy' so he could calmly fire off 8 rounds into a fleeing subject's back. After strolling over to the body, he jogs back to retrieve evidence. He didn't seem to have a care in the world except to plant that evidence to exonerate himself.
This is a matter of credibility. Are you going to fall for the act and the script that accompanies it, e.g. 'stop grabbing my taser!' 'stop fighting me!', or you going to believe the camera?
Unfortunately, cameras can only do so much when the script is rehearsed and the camera is strategically blocked at key moments, but they're better than nothing. Public servants who are paid to protect the public don't deserve privacy anymore than people walking down the sidewalk who are on multiple CCTV at any one time, especially when they're outfitted with military combat gear and weaponry.
We should be stopping them for violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
2
David gets a lot right. This time he's got it wrong.
Many citizens will feel a great deal safer if they know that a police officer will be on at least reasonably good behavior when interacting with him/her.
And communities will feel a great deal safer if they know that rogue police officers will identified and dismissed before they do even more harm to their communities and to the reputations of their departments.
Cameras will also help police supervisors to have a far better sense of just what their officers are doing--opening up the possibility of better training and better utilization as well as recognition of officer excellence.
They would also offer police supervisors, community leadership and review boards the opportunity come up with policies to protect privacy when problem behavior hasn't taken place.
Many citizens will feel a great deal safer if they know that a police officer will be on at least reasonably good behavior when interacting with him/her.
And communities will feel a great deal safer if they know that rogue police officers will identified and dismissed before they do even more harm to their communities and to the reputations of their departments.
Cameras will also help police supervisors to have a far better sense of just what their officers are doing--opening up the possibility of better training and better utilization as well as recognition of officer excellence.
They would also offer police supervisors, community leadership and review boards the opportunity come up with policies to protect privacy when problem behavior hasn't taken place.
Reality is hell. The friendly, helpful beat cop doesn't exist except in old Mickey Rooney films. Sheriff Taylor and Deputy Fife aren't real. Police abuse is as old as policing.
People running for their lives from the police didn't create the mistrust, the cops did it all by themselves.
Don't bemoan the loss of "privacy", bemoan the useless loss of lives and the brutality.
People running for their lives from the police didn't create the mistrust, the cops did it all by themselves.
Don't bemoan the loss of "privacy", bemoan the useless loss of lives and the brutality.
3
Mr Brooks displays the archetypal modern conservative approach of putting personal above important. As the late, great Terry Pratchett pointed out, the two are not the same. Mr Brooks makes the huge mistake of thinking that privacy somehow trumps the right to live safely. As recent events have clearly shown, there are serious problems in our police and judicial system. If there is ever the chance that an officer of the law takes an innocent life, then collecting the best evidence to prosecute the crime trumps ANYONE'S privacy. Once a deadly crime is committed, do you seriously imagine that privacy, dignity or personal opinion has any place in the process? No. Only justice does.
Modern conservatives would be taken far more seriously if only they showed the slightest hint that they possessed any level of compassion. Arguing against universal healthcare, poverty alleviation or arguing against fixing our corrupt nation that is rigged for the rich, these are things that will continue to marginalize people like Brooks.
Sorry Mr Brooks - but privacy has no place when the needs of true justice are to be met.
Modern conservatives would be taken far more seriously if only they showed the slightest hint that they possessed any level of compassion. Arguing against universal healthcare, poverty alleviation or arguing against fixing our corrupt nation that is rigged for the rich, these are things that will continue to marginalize people like Brooks.
Sorry Mr Brooks - but privacy has no place when the needs of true justice are to be met.
1
What do policeman and other government authorities tell you when they arrest/prosecute you? If you are innocent you have nothing to be afraid of.
1
Cop Cams may or may not be a good idea, but one thing is completely overlooked (I confess I have not read the 95 previous comments.) that is; that's a LOT of data! To implement cameras on every NYC Police Officer will produce a staggering amount of data assuming you build the infrastructure to get the data from the camera to a server. It can, of course be done. But it will no doubt be hideously expensive and is prone to manipulation. So relax folks, this is more likely to be implemented in smaller places way before it is in large cities.
Mr. Brooks perhaps correctly laments the loss of privacy that comes from using cameras in police-citizen interactions. This is just another of the situations where the solutions is a step down from the ideal, but a step up from where we were---but those trying to take the step up get blamed for our collectively not being at the ideal. When the depredations of employers made unions necessary to protect working people, many complained about the restrictions unions brought to commerce. Those who complained could have fixed it before the working people felt the need to resort to unions, but they didn't. When employers treated their workers unsafely and polluted, the solution was to create the EPA and OSHA to protect workers and citizens from harm. "Too restrictive, too expensive" come the cries---but no one reminds them that they could have fixed it before the laws were passed, but they choose not to. Now we hear that it's just too bad that police have to wear body cameras, and privacy will be lost. I didn't hear Mr. Brooks telling cops to quit shooting people in the back while they ran away before people began to feel the need for body cameras. So if you don't like the coming state of affairs, Mr. Brooks, remember that perhaps you could have done more to help us all avoid them---but you didn't.
1
A hard topic well covered by Mr. Brooks. Police as everyone else make mistakes for which they need to be given some slack , retraining or reprimand. They are also helpful and understanding sometimes. Police can be cruel and malicious taking it out on the public. How they respond in a specific situation is determined by their internal mood and split second perceptions.
The question is how can we foster the best reactions in those who perform vital services. Training and evaluation of individuals should be the first method of finding this balance Also open reporting of the facts and complete nonpartisan investigations. Perhaps cameras can have their place, but they should be viewed as only a small part of the mix. The line between privacy and full disclosure is a fluid one sometimes determined by the situation and honoring the needs of individuals and society takes keen awareness and sensitivity a trait we seem to be losing daily.
The question is how can we foster the best reactions in those who perform vital services. Training and evaluation of individuals should be the first method of finding this balance Also open reporting of the facts and complete nonpartisan investigations. Perhaps cameras can have their place, but they should be viewed as only a small part of the mix. The line between privacy and full disclosure is a fluid one sometimes determined by the situation and honoring the needs of individuals and society takes keen awareness and sensitivity a trait we seem to be losing daily.
If you saw David Brooks on the PBS News Hour this past Friday, he stated (on the topic of "cop-cams"), "I confess I can't make up my mind on the subject."
It's interesting that a few days later he has reached a firmer conclusion, presumably as a result of listening to others' arguments and reflecting further on this difficult topic. How powerful it is to see a columnist candidly and humbly admitting to his own fallibility as he contemplates nuances while seeking clearer understanding. He'll be criticized by many as a result, but I think this column does us all a great service. Mr. Brooks has cultivated a safe space that honors the courage and vulnerability required to travel into our own realms of ambivalence and moral confusion.
It's interesting that a few days later he has reached a firmer conclusion, presumably as a result of listening to others' arguments and reflecting further on this difficult topic. How powerful it is to see a columnist candidly and humbly admitting to his own fallibility as he contemplates nuances while seeking clearer understanding. He'll be criticized by many as a result, but I think this column does us all a great service. Mr. Brooks has cultivated a safe space that honors the courage and vulnerability required to travel into our own realms of ambivalence and moral confusion.
Privacy is nice and all, but not getting shot 8 times in the back is also important.
5
The object of judicial proceedings is to find the truth. Video can assist this process. Eye witness evidence is NOT reliable in most cases, so the video becomes even more important. When a person's fate is being decided I do not think your notion of privacy is relevant.
In terms of video acting as a deterrent to police abuse it seems a valuable tool, much more important to society than slipping out from a traffic ticket,(which, by the way, should not be done in the first place).
In terms of video acting as a deterrent to police abuse it seems a valuable tool, much more important to society than slipping out from a traffic ticket,(which, by the way, should not be done in the first place).
1
In the wake of the video catching the cop shooting someone in the back you, Brooks, pine for privacy? Not just this video, but also the other ones that have surfaced in recent years of serious wrongdoing by cops, have opened eyes -- a lot of the folks who've been trying tell everyone else about misuses of power, they ain't lyin'. Also -- 'The Lost Language of Privacy' is a bogus title. There is no language of privacy. Where on tarnation did that come from? There is truth. There is falsehood. Oh yes, and there is sophistry.
3
Privacy is an illusion in todays society. If anybody wants to listen in, they can if they have the technology and know how.
1
Truly remarkable how often and how widely Brooks misses the mark. In a column devoted to government intrusion on personal privacy, not a word or whiff about the Bush administration's fetish for eavesdropping on our phone calls and emails.
As for cop cams, he argues that they "will undermine communal bonds. Putting a camera on [a cop] is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you." Uh, yeah? That's the very point of the cameras, and of laws, accountability and oversight. As Madison said, "If men were angels, there would be no need for government." Today, he would replace "government" with "cop cams."
Brooks adds: "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional." Astonishing that it needs to be pointed out, but most interactions between citizens and law enforcement are already less "like intimate friendship," unless getting stopped for a ticket, told to move on/get out of here, or put your hands behind your back is the language of intimacy.
More astonishing yet is his assertion that we should be wary of cop cams because the cops will post embarrassing and humiliating videos of citizens online. So we should forego oversight of the police because the police will ... always find a way to behave badly?
Next up: Oversight of cops' misuse of cop-cam videos.
As for cop cams, he argues that they "will undermine communal bonds. Putting a camera on [a cop] is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you." Uh, yeah? That's the very point of the cameras, and of laws, accountability and oversight. As Madison said, "If men were angels, there would be no need for government." Today, he would replace "government" with "cop cams."
Brooks adds: "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional." Astonishing that it needs to be pointed out, but most interactions between citizens and law enforcement are already less "like intimate friendship," unless getting stopped for a ticket, told to move on/get out of here, or put your hands behind your back is the language of intimacy.
More astonishing yet is his assertion that we should be wary of cop cams because the cops will post embarrassing and humiliating videos of citizens online. So we should forego oversight of the police because the police will ... always find a way to behave badly?
Next up: Oversight of cops' misuse of cop-cam videos.
3
David, I'm glad you made a decision for the good. You seemed hesitant on PBS New Hour. This is a step in the right direction. The publics going to be doing this all the time with their cameras, so 'cops' should get ahead of the game. It will help slow down deaths of minor offensives.
I think, by the end of the article, you get the point but are unwilling to acknowledge it. The ships have sailed, sir. We no longer have neither the trust between law enforcement/governance and the people nor the privacy on either side of that notebook. Welcome to the twenty-first century. We have an Internet.
What we are being presented with are rights being trampled all over the place and people getting shot. We've always had this - I do not pretend that any of this is new - but now we're getting evidence because our society has the ability to see, document, and broadcast what is happening. Ignorance is bliss, sir, but it like all good things had to end. We now know specifics of abuse of power and we have the same need to prevent this that has always existed. We are now in a position to act and we must do so.
Going forward, we can look at where the rights to privacy and checks on power have completely failed. For now, we can document abuses and prosecute and we will.
What we are being presented with are rights being trampled all over the place and people getting shot. We've always had this - I do not pretend that any of this is new - but now we're getting evidence because our society has the ability to see, document, and broadcast what is happening. Ignorance is bliss, sir, but it like all good things had to end. We now know specifics of abuse of power and we have the same need to prevent this that has always existed. We are now in a position to act and we must do so.
Going forward, we can look at where the rights to privacy and checks on power have completely failed. For now, we can document abuses and prosecute and we will.
3
Does this mean that I will get a traffic ticket every time I'm stopped?
14
As he so often does, David Brooks has asked a few questions I hadn't thought of. Yes, the cameras will provide a more accurate record of the transactions between the people involved. This could be good. But will the transaction recorded be a real interaction, or will it be two people behaving as they believe the people watching the tape want them to behave? Will it be a real, candid conversation, or a performance for the camera? people behave differently when they know someone is watching. This can be both good and bad.
1
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional."
Perfectly OK with me. I'm really not looking for new friends when I get pulled over speeding...
Perfectly OK with me. I'm really not looking for new friends when I get pulled over speeding...
4
I think the courts stripped police / public interactions as an area where there is no expectation of privacy. The lack of camera's or listening devices maintained a modicum of privacy but now that too is gone. And as you say, worse, since having those moments broadcast on twitter or facebook remains unexpected....for a short time as we swallow this latest assault on privacy.
The slow death of honor. A society once based on the honor system, with the expectation that our citizens would act in accordance to a code is being replaced by cameras, standardized testing, and quantifiable spread sheets. If we no longer have an expectation of the value of a person's honor, how will we act when the cameras are off? How many kids today take a test without proctors, to introduce the idea of honesty? Can a society really work without an inherent fabric of honor and trust and if so, would you like to live in it?
Privacy is just soooo 20th century. Forget it, it's over.
1
I think that the privacy zone that you seek, David, where all can be revealed and we are still loved, is with one's therapist. I am fundamentally against therapists wearing body cams!
"There has to be a boundary between us and them." What?
"There has to be a boundary between us and them." What?
I have sensed some soul-searching in you recently, Mr. Brooks, and I hope this column is the first trickle of some kind of intellectual thaw.
There is a famous phrase "the abuse of power comes as no surprise" which I expect you don't endorse. The concept is so accepted to many that a non-violent and respectful traffic stop of an African-American man is the subject of a current viral video.
You have power as well, Mr. Brooks. You're not likely to be forced to wear a body camera soon, but you are burdened with commenters to encourage your better efforts. Keep up with the soul-searching, it suits you.
There is a famous phrase "the abuse of power comes as no surprise" which I expect you don't endorse. The concept is so accepted to many that a non-violent and respectful traffic stop of an African-American man is the subject of a current viral video.
You have power as well, Mr. Brooks. You're not likely to be forced to wear a body camera soon, but you are burdened with commenters to encourage your better efforts. Keep up with the soul-searching, it suits you.
3
I doubt anybody would disagree with Mr. Brooks to how we value and cherish our privacy, however, in age of NSA and police brutality and absence of democratic control over militarized police, privacy has been either shredded or abused.
3
I question putting cameras on police. It seems like a simple solution, but it's not. Think for a moment. Is police culture so rife with lying, dishonesty and cover ups that the only way to get honest testimony from police is to film them?
If that's the case then we have a much bigger problem than trying to figure out what happens during violent police citizen encounters. Any security firm will tell you if you have a culture of dishonesty cameras may reduce the problem but wont solve it.
There are privacy issues, but the real issue is that we have allowed police departments to be accountable only to themselves, not the public they are sworn to serve. They have become insular, military like organizations rather than professional public servants. It's time for new progressive police procedures be put in place. if cameras are a useful experiment for some, fine. But the emphasis should be on training and accountability.
If that's the case then we have a much bigger problem than trying to figure out what happens during violent police citizen encounters. Any security firm will tell you if you have a culture of dishonesty cameras may reduce the problem but wont solve it.
There are privacy issues, but the real issue is that we have allowed police departments to be accountable only to themselves, not the public they are sworn to serve. They have become insular, military like organizations rather than professional public servants. It's time for new progressive police procedures be put in place. if cameras are a useful experiment for some, fine. But the emphasis should be on training and accountability.
Cameras should be used only where there is reason to distrust. Until a cop has done something to merit distrust, I don't favor use of a camera. But one offense and that all changes. Also, where someone has been convicted of abuse or certain other crimes, there is great reason for distrust so that camera use as a condition of probation may make sense. And where politicians have lied, which is to say almost all the time, maybe we should attach permanent cameras.
These nonstop reportings of cops choosing civilians in recent months makes me very depressed. But, the only reason we know about these shootings is that they were recorded with a camera.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Even in the one of the most recent shootings, I have to say one because even more were reported in this past week, where policeman Slager murdered Walter Scott, we only know about these shootings because someone recored them. The first police report from the cops about the Scott murder was a total lie.
Is that what you mean about insulting families, insulting individual dignity?
I also find this statement of yours fascinating:
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
Not one of these murders has been by a female cop. Why do you use the pronoun "she"? Something is out of control in this country and the actions and interactions of cops with citizens don't warrant privacy.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Even in the one of the most recent shootings, I have to say one because even more were reported in this past week, where policeman Slager murdered Walter Scott, we only know about these shootings because someone recored them. The first police report from the cops about the Scott murder was a total lie.
Is that what you mean about insulting families, insulting individual dignity?
I also find this statement of yours fascinating:
"Putting a camera on an officer means she is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care."
Not one of these murders has been by a female cop. Why do you use the pronoun "she"? Something is out of control in this country and the actions and interactions of cops with citizens don't warrant privacy.
1
The Camera's on the police will wind up being responsible for the deaths of more Police. When confronted by a possible assault the police have to make a split second decision as to whether to resort to defending themselves or possibly dying.That split second will determine whether he lives or dies.I believe that camera will be responsible for working family men, for that's what they are without their uniforms to be killed or maimed unnecessarily.The Camera may stop some demonstrations, & take the pressure off the politicians, but at what cost. Ask a soldier if he will stop & ask the enemy if he will surrender or defend himself.While we are at it lets put the cameras on our fighting men to prevent atrocities.
This is a great column about a subject which all cherish but some in the legal system wish to exclude from our Constitution because it limits the reach of those in authority. There is one more aspect recording behavior which is not addressed and that is the motivation of people in supervisory and administrative positions to use data to protect themselves from being held accountable for poor outcomes by finding and holding subordinates accountable for those outcomes, the blame game approach. When data is used to determine facts and those facts are used to improve performance without worrying about blaming people, it can be very useful, but when it is well understood to be a means to find people to blame for poor results, people try to conceal more and more to protect themselves. It also becomes a way for weak leadership to find others to blame for their inability to lead.
1
David, this is one of a few times I'm almost in agreement with you. The language of privacy has been changing since a couple of major events in this country such as 9/11 and the growth in technology that has made both social media and big data more ubiquitous. Since these events the language of unrestrained security-state and capitalism has trumped the language of privacy that you and I seem to want. In my mind the cop-cams should be used to keep the cops accountable. And if the cops are truly heroes they would volunteer to wear them because they know an accountable cop is a valuable asset to their community. Now what happens with those videos is another important issue that also requires accountability of those involved as well to preserve privacy of those outside the scope of the police activity.
1
If laws are being broken, if communal trust is being broken, the right to privacy is in dispute. A community agrees on a set of standards in which to build trust, but once that trust is broken transparency is needed to find common ground and rebuild trust. If the trust-breaker, the law-breaker refuses transparency under the guise that it hurts relationships, ironically, this further erodes trust, does not help rebuild a communal standards, and disrespects those standards previously agreed upon. This makes a trusting relationship fake, full of doubt, built on a porous foundation.
Trust is built by working together under the laws signed off on. Break the laws of your community, you break the sacred bond of trust. That trust needs to be rebuilt through transparency, admission and then forgiveness. It does work the other way--forgiveness, admission, then transparency.
This process of rebuilding trust needs to adopted by both the civilian and the police officer breaking trust. I am not sure cop cams are the answer to rebuilding trust, but, I do think transparency is essential.
If Slager had not been video tapped, he'd probably still have his job, taser planted to spin Scott's communal threat. In this instance, and in others, the videotape provided the needed transparency for justice.
I am not worried about the drunk caught on video, or the domestic violence dispute gone viral. I am worried about the innocent man framed, the petty thief killed.
Trust is built by working together under the laws signed off on. Break the laws of your community, you break the sacred bond of trust. That trust needs to be rebuilt through transparency, admission and then forgiveness. It does work the other way--forgiveness, admission, then transparency.
This process of rebuilding trust needs to adopted by both the civilian and the police officer breaking trust. I am not sure cop cams are the answer to rebuilding trust, but, I do think transparency is essential.
If Slager had not been video tapped, he'd probably still have his job, taser planted to spin Scott's communal threat. In this instance, and in others, the videotape provided the needed transparency for justice.
I am not worried about the drunk caught on video, or the domestic violence dispute gone viral. I am worried about the innocent man framed, the petty thief killed.
2
The invasion of privacy happens when a government agent enters the home - the use of a camera is a very small additional factor.
3
It is unfortunate that the police with their culture of "blue wall of silence" and immodest use of lethal force have created the conditions where cop cams are necessary. There will be unintended consequences. Video is not always an impartial witness and the Internet amplifier can turn a momentary lapse into a life destroying incident.
However, when police shoot citizens like deer with presumed immunity from consequences, something needs to be done.
However, when police shoot citizens like deer with presumed immunity from consequences, something needs to be done.
2
Cop cameras have proven their worth. The Tulsa shooting makes that an open and shut case. But, may I mournfully remind us all that cop cameras as the next significant incursion on our privacy is frankly a shruggable development. It is when balanced against what we willingly, and without much thought at all, provide to virtually the entire commercial, on-line, and law enforcement world as smart-phone users. All smart phones track our movements (whether or not we turn them on), our purchases, where we pause while shopping, what we read, our friends, what we write, the notes we might jot down, every single one of our internet searches, and on and on and on. It's all there and quite accessible. That's where our privacy concerns should be, and why we don't worry about it.
2
So you have done the analysis and concluded that, on balance, the argument is in favor of body cams for police. There may be arguments against it, but you have already admitted that they don't measure up to those in favor. Why spend the entire article back-tracking?
Both police and citizens in our country are more fully and lethally armed than almost any other place on earth. Guns in the hands of every American citizen continues to be one of the most destructive and anti-civilizing forces in our society, but the ever-civil Mr. Brooks would rather talk about privacy. This is the modern GOP in a nutshell....ignore the obvious and pressing problems, and talk at length about something else....
2
It is precisely because relationships between many police departments and African-American communities they serve are no longer, or in some cases never have been, "humane and trusting" that cop-cams are necessary. The unconscious bias in many policemen and policewomen against those of African descent arose because many or even most of the suspects with whom they come into contact come from that ethnicity. That is not because such people are inherently more likely to commit a crime, but instead it's the legacy of centuries of poverty, ignorance, and racism the African-American community has suffered, and from which it has not yet recovered. This epidemic of white-cop-on-black-suspect abuse arises from the same intractable social problems that have kept so many of our black brothers and sisters from rising up to take their rightful places as truly equal citizens with equal--and achievable--social, cultural, and economic opportunities. Until we effectively attack the root causes of the problem, the poverty of citizens of any color, the ignorance that keeps them poor, and the ineffective training and social blinders that keep police officers from treating every citizen as the completely unique individual he or she is, this violence will continue. Cop-cams, however invasive, may seem like a necessary evil at this time, but they suffer from two fundamental weaknesses that may render them more evil than necessary: they present just one perspective, and they can always be turned off.
21
It's coming but not yet - personality testing for certain fields that require "trust" and "duty to serve." You'll see that healthcare, education, law enforcers, perhaps some century later Congressmen, Judges, CEOs, board members. I don't assume anything but observations indicate that certain ethnic groups will fail miserably at something like "cultural competency" testings. Those who can't gain trust usually don't have common senses and tend to gravitate towards position of authority so that they are in the position of judging rather than to be judged. Becareful what you asked for but it's coming... The world of data is currently being dictated by MBA's and statisticians, but academia is involving more ethicists, sociologists, psychologists, profilers more so than before in modeling the abundance of data and trends. I do agree with you about the injustices towards our Black communities. I was involved in a study in examining their trust in healthcare, and the Black community stood out among all others. We have a lot of lost grounds to make up for it as history does not lie.
Mr. Brooks,
I'm not sure what country you inhabit, but I have some news for you. Here in predominantly white, wealthy, southwestern Fairfield county, cops behave in a hostile, aggressive and antagonistic manner towards everyone, including this white, middle class suburban matron. I've been stopped twice for speeding -- and rightly so -- yet treated as if the backseat of my car was filled with AK-47s, rather than grocery bags. I've been shouted at, had cops put their faces threateningly into my car, and then deliberately made me wait forever while they run a check. You'd think I had at least twenty outstanding warrants, it took so long to check me. This is a deliberate, passive-aggressive form of police power. Not lethal, but still a clear statement of who has the power, the guns, the tasers, meant to frighten and intimidate, even for a routine traffic stop.
I'm not equating my experiences, or the experiences of other whites, with the non-stop aggression, hostility, and life-threatening experiences of people of color. There is no question they suffer disproportionately, and deliberately.
But it's crucial for people like Mr. Brooks to understand that violent cop culture is everywhere, that cops view everyone as us-them now. Polite, professional exchanges between cops and most citizens, is dead and gone.
It's also important to ask if to cops are more likely to behave this way with "unprotected" white women driving alone, something Mr. Brooks is not.
Who better to intimidate?
I'm not sure what country you inhabit, but I have some news for you. Here in predominantly white, wealthy, southwestern Fairfield county, cops behave in a hostile, aggressive and antagonistic manner towards everyone, including this white, middle class suburban matron. I've been stopped twice for speeding -- and rightly so -- yet treated as if the backseat of my car was filled with AK-47s, rather than grocery bags. I've been shouted at, had cops put their faces threateningly into my car, and then deliberately made me wait forever while they run a check. You'd think I had at least twenty outstanding warrants, it took so long to check me. This is a deliberate, passive-aggressive form of police power. Not lethal, but still a clear statement of who has the power, the guns, the tasers, meant to frighten and intimidate, even for a routine traffic stop.
I'm not equating my experiences, or the experiences of other whites, with the non-stop aggression, hostility, and life-threatening experiences of people of color. There is no question they suffer disproportionately, and deliberately.
But it's crucial for people like Mr. Brooks to understand that violent cop culture is everywhere, that cops view everyone as us-them now. Polite, professional exchanges between cops and most citizens, is dead and gone.
It's also important to ask if to cops are more likely to behave this way with "unprotected" white women driving alone, something Mr. Brooks is not.
Who better to intimidate?
132
Cops in this country are out of control. But Brooks has no conception really of that or much about this country. Column after column is either wasted waxing in valuable op-ed space in the Times about his obscure musing or totally out of synch supposedly conservative but mostly confused understanding of what this country is and what is happening in it, to it and because of it, this being a perfect example.
2
Some cops are out of control, not all, and most cops tend to lose good communications with the communities that they serve but not all. Some police have very good relations with the people that they serve, not all. Police need to know the people with who they deal to be most effective. But much of the problems that we have with law enforcement starts with citizens lack of willingness to be civil towards each other and outright resentful of having to cooperate with police for one reason or another.
1
"then deliberately made me wait forever while they run a check. You'd think I had at least twenty outstanding warrants, it took so long to check me. This is a deliberate, passive-aggressive form of police power."
I'm with you completely re: most of your post, but to be fair, sometimes they make you wait forever because the system is down.
I'm with you completely re: most of your post, but to be fair, sometimes they make you wait forever because the system is down.
2
I have the privilege to work with some working-class Black individuals, and am here to report that
DWB (driving while Black)
and
BWB (breathing while Back)
are all too often treated as offenses the require escalation. (h/t Soxared)
The other comments that make sense are that arming the public with ever more powerful guns is a lousy idea. The trouble is, most people like to use their toys, and this is not a toy. They may cloak their complicated rages in excuses, but the ability to hurt people at a distance has decreased civility worldwide. It's much easier to destroy than to build, and the damage is done. But that is not excuse to keep on escalating. The existence of terrorism equipment in regular police work is another incentive.
Expecting gun owners and users to be better people than the rest of us is just nonsense.
DWB (driving while Black)
and
BWB (breathing while Back)
are all too often treated as offenses the require escalation. (h/t Soxared)
The other comments that make sense are that arming the public with ever more powerful guns is a lousy idea. The trouble is, most people like to use their toys, and this is not a toy. They may cloak their complicated rages in excuses, but the ability to hurt people at a distance has decreased civility worldwide. It's much easier to destroy than to build, and the damage is done. But that is not excuse to keep on escalating. The existence of terrorism equipment in regular police work is another incentive.
Expecting gun owners and users to be better people than the rest of us is just nonsense.
4
When I was a law student years ago I was hitch-hiking and got into a car driven by two drug dealers coming back from Mexico with a load of contraband. Up to that point in life, the police had been the 'good guys' in my mind. Following a high speed chase I was arrested with the bad guys. My arrest involved getting slapped around real good, being questioned incessantly without any Miranda warning (and of course no counsel) and having a pistol jammed in my white face while the hammer was cocked 6 inches from my eyeball. Long story short, I was released because the officer in charge (who appeared later back at the jail) had seen me hitch-hiking earlier in the day. Lucky me.
I'm sure my experience would have been different had cop cams been in use.
I'm sure my experience would have been different had cop cams been in use.
2
The shooting of Walter Scott is the greatest example of the need for the police to wear cameras.
Would the officer have chased Mr Scott, repeatidly shot him in the back, and then moved what appeared to be the taser closer to Mr. Scotts body if he had been wearing a camera?
Would the officer have chased Mr Scott, repeatidly shot him in the back, and then moved what appeared to be the taser closer to Mr. Scotts body if he had been wearing a camera?
1
"Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape. During a trial, if a crime isn’t captured on the tape, it will be presumed to never have happened." Juries are made up of humans who can exercise wisdom to discern where the camera is more accurate and where the cop is more accurate. This is becoming truer as more and more people - especially those under 60 - become more and more media-savvy. The same thing applies to the second statement - Mr. Brooks is citing a legal precedent that doesn't exist, and will never exist unless it survives the test of numerous actual cases and court challenges. I'm unaware that such testing has occurred.
By the way, I heartily agree with Mr. Brooks introductory list of "basics" on privacy. I just don't think that they are in conflict with use of "cop cams".
By the way, I heartily agree with Mr. Brooks introductory list of "basics" on privacy. I just don't think that they are in conflict with use of "cop cams".
If we think that technology is going to solve, or even improve, these complex social problems, we are mistaken. We don't need cops with cameras, we need cops who are selected carefully and trained to be what they claim to be, rather than what they appear to be, a militarized fraternity that cares more about themselves and their own internal code than the community they serve.
Sorry, but I believe you are conflating privacy, an essential right of citizens in a free nation, with transparency, an essential obligation of government in a free nation. Where they meet they can be resolved on a case by case basis, as in the body of law under search and seizure.
Still, you deserve much credit for fighting to uphold genuine conservatism in a faux conservative era. Genuine conservatives try to uphold the best of the past. Reactionaries seek to profit by reviving bad things from the past. The American right today is a deeply and dangerously reactionary movement falsely billing itself as conservative. The culture and professionalism of police have been deeply poisoned by this fraudulent movement. We must find remedies that protect the rights of the citizens and uphold the professional obligations of the police without denying their own citizenship rights.
Still, you deserve much credit for fighting to uphold genuine conservatism in a faux conservative era. Genuine conservatives try to uphold the best of the past. Reactionaries seek to profit by reviving bad things from the past. The American right today is a deeply and dangerously reactionary movement falsely billing itself as conservative. The culture and professionalism of police have been deeply poisoned by this fraudulent movement. We must find remedies that protect the rights of the citizens and uphold the professional obligations of the police without denying their own citizenship rights.
You are right, Mr. Brooks, "Cop-cams strike a blow for truth," but most importantly they also strike a blow for public safety and a reduction of the epidemic of poorly-trained, white police officers murdering citizens of color for, at best, minor violations. According to a recent report from the Police Foundation, "Wearing cameras was associated with dramatic reductions in use-of-force ["more than a 50 reduction in total number of "incidents"] and complaints against officers [by 90%]. You are mistaken to consider this issue as involving privacy at all since the police are "public servants" who are sworn to "serve and protect" the public. If it takes making their behavior public in order for them to be more "humane," then we will all be safer and more "trusting."
1
As long as US firerms policy continues to support taking the law into one's own hands, it will lead the world in shootings of all types.
The concept of "privacy" relating to police/community relationships as detailed in this column seems woefully out of date, if not an outright fantasy. We do not live in Mayberry R.F.D. and in looking at our history, probably never did. Our "communal bonds" are not "chipped away" by a lack of warm fraternization between benevolent police officers and calm, trusting civilians. The communal bonds have been savaged, if not destroyed, by a police culture of abuse, excessive force, and the outright murder of civilians.
I do not worry at all about the potential "embarrassment" of a civilian when engaging with a police officer. I worry more about a police culture that abuses its authority, and tramples upon the rights and lives of American citizens. I worry more about police officers covering up each others crimes.
When police officers are abusing and killing Americans, especially African Americans, with little to no consequence for their actions, they have earned the need to be watched over with body cameras.
I do not worry at all about the potential "embarrassment" of a civilian when engaging with a police officer. I worry more about a police culture that abuses its authority, and tramples upon the rights and lives of American citizens. I worry more about police officers covering up each others crimes.
When police officers are abusing and killing Americans, especially African Americans, with little to no consequence for their actions, they have earned the need to be watched over with body cameras.
1
One of Mr. Brooks' most thoughtful and perceptive pieces I've read. For those who seem to disagree, read again: on balance he favors cop-cams but points out what their use will cost in lost privacy.
It is not very difficult to conclude that the lack of candor among people,particularly in interpersonal relationships as well as business dealings, is the primary source of mischief in the world and the major contributor of universal distrust. It's the progenitor of LYING !
One of Brooks' better columns. He elucidates notions of privacy that need saying, but not in this context.
Once a uniform is donned, once a person plays a public role in serving justice, privacy of the sort Brooks extolls by definition takes a back seat.
Like everyone else, who carry phones capable of still and video/audio recordings, in a society which posts cameras in public spots, privacy bows before the demands of justice.
Once a uniform is donned, once a person plays a public role in serving justice, privacy of the sort Brooks extolls by definition takes a back seat.
Like everyone else, who carry phones capable of still and video/audio recordings, in a society which posts cameras in public spots, privacy bows before the demands of justice.
What about the TV show "Cops”? What about public access to arrest records? What about pre-employment background checks? These have been common for decades.
Having a police interaction recorded is not a violation of privacy because its not provided to the public. Its no different from a doctors visit.
Having a police interaction recorded is not a violation of privacy because its not provided to the public. Its no different from a doctors visit.
As a former Secret Service agent: I don't trust the police today. They need to be watched and monitored. Knowing they are monitored, police and citizens will behave better. There should be distance between the police and the citizen. I'm not interested in being intimate friends with the police. In face, society may well be more humane and trusting as a result.
I approve of the idea of "cop-cams," but I also worry a bit that the focus on cop-cams takes away from a much better means of "policing the police." I have a sneaking feeling that some parties would rather talk about cop-cams than CITIZEN video monitoring of police.
The fact that it was an ordinary citizen with a cell phone who filmed this incident seems to be fading away in the Big Debate on Cop Cams.
Cop cams are still a case of the police _monitoring themselves_. Although some are grumbling, they realize cop cams are LESS potentially adversarial to them than CITIZENS whipping out cameras whenever we see something skeevy apparently about to go down.
Cop cams will be managed BY THE POLICE. They'll turn out to have somehow been turned off at the crucial moment. They'll be suspiciously not working the day of the incident. It isn't hard to simply quickly erase the video - it wouldn't take longer than it took Officer Slager to reposition that taser just where he wanted it on the ground near the dead gy. We'll be hearing that "he grabbed my camera" and in the scuffle the camera got broken ... Cops in teams will step in front of each other's cameras when needed, blurring or making the action indecipherable.
The police are having a big argument over whether they should monitor THEMSELVES, and that's the debate they think the rest of us should be having, too. Is it? Or are they hoping to distract us from citizen-organized, citizen-controlled videotaping of police activity?
The fact that it was an ordinary citizen with a cell phone who filmed this incident seems to be fading away in the Big Debate on Cop Cams.
Cop cams are still a case of the police _monitoring themselves_. Although some are grumbling, they realize cop cams are LESS potentially adversarial to them than CITIZENS whipping out cameras whenever we see something skeevy apparently about to go down.
Cop cams will be managed BY THE POLICE. They'll turn out to have somehow been turned off at the crucial moment. They'll be suspiciously not working the day of the incident. It isn't hard to simply quickly erase the video - it wouldn't take longer than it took Officer Slager to reposition that taser just where he wanted it on the ground near the dead gy. We'll be hearing that "he grabbed my camera" and in the scuffle the camera got broken ... Cops in teams will step in front of each other's cameras when needed, blurring or making the action indecipherable.
The police are having a big argument over whether they should monitor THEMSELVES, and that's the debate they think the rest of us should be having, too. Is it? Or are they hoping to distract us from citizen-organized, citizen-controlled videotaping of police activity?
1
I remember hearing you, Mr. Brooks, speak on PBS News Hour of your concerns about privacy in the home when a policeman was present and wearing a body cam and there was a family in some form of distress.
However, I have to disagree with you about your concerns, as the family has already given up some of their privacy by having to have either the police called by others or having called the police themselves.
What makes the major problem about privacy is the fact that you wrote about -- the passing around the police station the worst aspects of what was recorded during that visit, and the lack of integrity and decency that allows anyone to believe it would be amusing to record on YouTube or elsewhere.
I don't know what can be done about that, since the lack of privacy is not invaded (IMO) until the policeman returns to share what happened with those who actually have no business knowing it.
However, I have to disagree with you about your concerns, as the family has already given up some of their privacy by having to have either the police called by others or having called the police themselves.
What makes the major problem about privacy is the fact that you wrote about -- the passing around the police station the worst aspects of what was recorded during that visit, and the lack of integrity and decency that allows anyone to believe it would be amusing to record on YouTube or elsewhere.
I don't know what can be done about that, since the lack of privacy is not invaded (IMO) until the policeman returns to share what happened with those who actually have no business knowing it.
"Most people don’t even seem to recognize the damage these cameras will do both to police-civilian relations and to privacy." I wonder where Mr. Brooks has been the last, say, 40 years. Police-civilian relations have not been good for a long time in most US cities, and cameras are not going to make those relations any worse. I'd bet that most people, not just young minority men, would feel safer and less vulnerable in any situation with the police if the police wore cameras.
Relations between the police and minority communities are at their lowest point now after the notorious killings of unarmed black males of varying ages over the last year or so. But I'm white and I'm older and I well remember police brutality during protests over the Vietnam War, or the common use of excessive force by the Oakland PD, the outrageous behavior of the LAPD. over the course of many years. All of us were fair game.
As to privacy, the law provides that no one should have an expectation of privacy outside their own home. If police enter a home, it is usually for a very bad reason, not a furthering of community "relations" and a camera will help preserve the truth and protect all parties.
As to "swapping" photos of embarrassing situations, the only instance of that I can recall was by policemen themselves, who in a fit of hilarity and frat-like camaraderie shared such photos with the world.
I would put cameras on anyone who purports to regulate the behavior of the rest of us.
Relations between the police and minority communities are at their lowest point now after the notorious killings of unarmed black males of varying ages over the last year or so. But I'm white and I'm older and I well remember police brutality during protests over the Vietnam War, or the common use of excessive force by the Oakland PD, the outrageous behavior of the LAPD. over the course of many years. All of us were fair game.
As to privacy, the law provides that no one should have an expectation of privacy outside their own home. If police enter a home, it is usually for a very bad reason, not a furthering of community "relations" and a camera will help preserve the truth and protect all parties.
As to "swapping" photos of embarrassing situations, the only instance of that I can recall was by policemen themselves, who in a fit of hilarity and frat-like camaraderie shared such photos with the world.
I would put cameras on anyone who purports to regulate the behavior of the rest of us.
Instead of addressing the root problem ---the employment and training of a professional police force, our policy makers look to a quick technology fix. What is required in policing, or teaching, or any social service sector profession is sound judgement. There are so many contextual variables present in a simple police stop, that you do want an officer who has the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to make sense out of those variables before applying a rule. Using body-cams will instill a by-the-book mentality, which will ignore crucial variables that should be taken into account. Having said that, it would appear that local police forces are sloppy with employment, sloppy with training, and sloppy with supervision---which translates into sloppy judgement calls.
1
Former officer Michael Slager's assertion that there was a struggle between him and Walter Scott over a taser before he murdered him is reason enough to put body-cams on every officer. Boo-hoo on the lost language of privacy. The only thing that has been lost is the truth. Police misconduct has not been brought to light because of a need to be communal and honest with the public; rather, it has been the public or news organizations who have captured those private moments to show the world how badly police conduct reforms are needed before any claims to privacy can be made.
1
Whether they are police officers, doctors, or journalists, we expect professionals in any field to act in a professional manner. We no longer have faith that police officers do that. They have brought the wearing of cameras on themselves by their lack or professionalism in their bad actions and in their silence when bad actions occur. There are also plenty of invasions of privacy that people tolerate for different reasons—cockpit voice recorders, hidden security cameras, not to mention the non-stop surveillance of everyone. In other columns, Mr. Brooks is quick to blame Edward Snowden for "betraying the privacy of us all" rather than the NSA doing the surveillance, and I've never seen him write a word against the cameras and computer monitors that track every second of workers' lives in so many industries.
This is a very odd, almost Jonah Goldbergian, column. First, Brooks says he favors cop-cams, but then lurches the other direction with another 800 words explaining why that's a bad idea. He then swerves back to "on balance, cop-cams are a good idea."
This is a very odd, almost Jonah Goldbergian, column. First, Brooks says he favors cop-cams, but then lurches the other direction with another 800 words explaining why that's a bad idea. He then swerves back to "on balance, cop-cams are a good idea."
It is possible (I think likely) that the quality of candidates entering into law enforcement would be elevated if the candidates know every encounter with the public would potentially be open to scrutiny. Currently there is a culture within law enforcement which bullies find attractive.
Isn't it strange that communities where the majority is made up of minorities are often policed disproportionately by white officers, while communities with affluent white majorities disproportionately employ minorities in minimum wage jobs?
Isn't it strange that communities where the majority is made up of minorities are often policed disproportionately by white officers, while communities with affluent white majorities disproportionately employ minorities in minimum wage jobs?
You make a good point. Aiming to record every instance of human misbehavior would cripple the humanity in people. There has to be a balance - when privacy must be sacrificed and when it needs to be respected.
Now we even buy TVs that are equipped to eavesdrop in our bedrooms.
I am amazed how little awareness there seems to be about the ubiquity of cameras today.
I am amazed how little awareness there seems to be about the ubiquity of cameras today.
In addition to police having to wear body cams, I would like to see a law that makes everyone buying a gun having to wear a body cam as well.
I am sure that the Founders would be all for it after their text of the Second Amendment has been so woefully misinterpreted.
I am sure that the Founders would be all for it after their text of the Second Amendment has been so woefully misinterpreted.
1
Mr. Brooks:
If privacy is your main concern, it seems to me that boat sailed quite some time ago. Technology has intruded into our lives in more ways than we can assess. Certainly the government's ability to eavesdrop on our lives is a much larger issue than a cop-cam. Is Edward Snowden a hero to point out that loss of privacy? Yet, people willingly surrender their privacy for the opportunity to be on a reality show.
The police, however, are a different matter. They operate in the public sphere and their actions can have a profound effect on the individual. A system that provides protection of individual rights is to be greatly desired. Essentially it safeguards against a justice system run by what can amount to a secret police, privy to their own set of "facts" and justification.
You seem to miss the obvious when you claim that putting a camera on a police officer will lead to a loss of trust. If such trust existed there would be no need for cameras. That is the real issue here and this column would have been better served if you had addressed it. The camera is a response that begs a discussion of the causality that makes it neccessary.
I would say that a system that requires such measures is a reflection of a society that has already been coarsened and dehumanized. If you need proof of that, I would suggest that you take another look at how Walter Scott's life ended and how we came to be spectators at a crime that went beyond coarseness into barbaric depravity.
.
If privacy is your main concern, it seems to me that boat sailed quite some time ago. Technology has intruded into our lives in more ways than we can assess. Certainly the government's ability to eavesdrop on our lives is a much larger issue than a cop-cam. Is Edward Snowden a hero to point out that loss of privacy? Yet, people willingly surrender their privacy for the opportunity to be on a reality show.
The police, however, are a different matter. They operate in the public sphere and their actions can have a profound effect on the individual. A system that provides protection of individual rights is to be greatly desired. Essentially it safeguards against a justice system run by what can amount to a secret police, privy to their own set of "facts" and justification.
You seem to miss the obvious when you claim that putting a camera on a police officer will lead to a loss of trust. If such trust existed there would be no need for cameras. That is the real issue here and this column would have been better served if you had addressed it. The camera is a response that begs a discussion of the causality that makes it neccessary.
I would say that a system that requires such measures is a reflection of a society that has already been coarsened and dehumanized. If you need proof of that, I would suggest that you take another look at how Walter Scott's life ended and how we came to be spectators at a crime that went beyond coarseness into barbaric depravity.
.
1
From the comments I have read, I think Mr. Brooks is correct in being concerned about the many people whose lack of concern for personal privacy is worrisome. I was once involved in a domestic violence situation. The Cranston, RI police who were involved with the case were polite, respectful and supportive. However, I would not have wanted our conversations recorded. It was very personal at times and would have hurt me if it was shared with others not involved. This was the important point he made. However, I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion that cameras are need to keep the police from murdering civilians in less than dangerous situations. It is the old adage that a few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch. Like many I would like to be a fly on the wall during private conversations by the powerful decision makers and thank goodness Nixon had the foresight to tape his conversations. But the business of government and private industry can't be run effectively with cameras on then. They posture enough as it is. They are not the Mafia, though close sometimes. By way of ending: NSA stop your illegal, warrantless snooping on Americans.
1
"The cameras will undermine communal bonds"...[i]nsult families"... "and individual dignity" because cops will share the videos? Are you serious -- the last would be a crime and the others are cruel jokes where minorities, kids, and strangers are concerned.
The cops are not identifying with the privacy of minority people whose communal and familial bonds are crushed under police Blue Walls of Silence about illegal stops and physical dangers from cops, including murder. "Society will be less humane and trusting? Tell that to Charles Blow.
The cops are not identifying with the privacy of minority people whose communal and familial bonds are crushed under police Blue Walls of Silence about illegal stops and physical dangers from cops, including murder. "Society will be less humane and trusting? Tell that to Charles Blow.
After this week's horrid news on the drunken violence against women on the beaches in Florida, I wonder if we shouldn't require bodycams on anyone buying alcohol while on spring break.
Yes, this development will cause resistance to people choosing to come up to cops right after some criminal activity on the street, but with the current profusion of phones, hopefully at least some of those incidental contacts will turn into calls to 911.
Yes, this development will cause resistance to people choosing to come up to cops right after some criminal activity on the street, but with the current profusion of phones, hopefully at least some of those incidental contacts will turn into calls to 911.
Instead of equipping cops with cameras to record their behaviour with people far better would be to improve police training and administrative accountability as required under an open civilised and democratic society and lessen political interference in police functioning.
2
"When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional"-Brooks
I never had a contact with a policeman which was like an "intimate friendship." What world does Brooks inhabit?
I never had a contact with a policeman which was like an "intimate friendship." What world does Brooks inhabit?
2
"Second, it seems probable that cops would be less likely to abuse their authority if they were being tracked."....The other side of the coin is that if people knew the police were wearing a camera they would be less likely to be abusive toward the police and then later claim that they had been mistreated. In a way the copcam is a bit like the admonishment, that you should always behave in public as if you thought your mother was watching.
1
Where on this earth is any contact between a civilian and an officer more likely to be intimate than oppositional and transactional? Perhaps in a cop bar on Long Island.
Here is David Brooks on privacy from an earlier column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html
"He [Edward Snowden] betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods."
The laparoscopic theory of privacy: If it's less invasive it's OK.
Is your head spinning too with the dizzying "logic" of that statement?
Read the whole piece for classic David Brooks PopPsy reductionism.
I wonder if Brooks has seen "Citizenfour."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html
"He [Edward Snowden] betrayed the privacy of us all. If federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods."
The laparoscopic theory of privacy: If it's less invasive it's OK.
Is your head spinning too with the dizzying "logic" of that statement?
Read the whole piece for classic David Brooks PopPsy reductionism.
I wonder if Brooks has seen "Citizenfour."
Not for anything but this is so last generation. In the age of Facebook, Selfies, Drones, cameras at banks, traffic lights, etc., the concept of privacy is quickly changing. In my opinion, the loss of some privacy has actually lead to a greater understanding of others. It has opened the doors on domestic abuse, allowed greater respect for gays and lesbians, stopped us from hiding away people with physical deformities, lead to better understanding of mental diseases, etc. it is not the loss of privacy, even with the NSA, that is the issue, it is what we do with the info that we get is what really matters. If we are not allowed to abuse the information we have but instead use it to lead to more respect, better understanding and a safer world, then it will in the end be a better world. Torture happens in secrecy. Too much secrecy only leads to misinformation and warped information. There is plenty of privacy in the world. For police cameras, it will not be what they record but what they are legally allowed to do with that information. Strong laws to protect how any public or private institutions are allowed to use gathered information will insure our rights in a world less secretive than one that came before.
A lot of good points
But privacy in public
Is a right not owned
But privacy in public
Is a right not owned
Mr Brooks - I'm afraid your thesis misses out on the one critical issue here... ie - why are we even at the point of discussing body cams for cops? Instead, you focus on why these may be a problem for you as a journalist. You say "Cop-cams insult individual dignity ... " but do you think someone innocent who has just been shot by a policeman cares about dignity or journalistic opinion? I don't think so.
A real solution should address the reasons underlying the problem. Racism, easy access to guns, poverty, violent crime, poor police training, corruption at the city government level, etc. You say that "Cop-cams strike a blow for truth"... I would submit that cameras record the truth. I would have thought that as a journalist, you would support the truth coming out. As the latest incident shows, police action recorded on camera can reveal evidence tampering as well. There is a REAL reason to doubt the word of some cops.
I'd like to see journalists focus on the real issues that lead to the kind of violence we see these days. If the press cannot focus the searchlight of public attention and help to change gun laws, police ineptitude and reduce corruption, then journalists and the press have failed in their singular duty - to report the truth as best they can.
A real solution should address the reasons underlying the problem. Racism, easy access to guns, poverty, violent crime, poor police training, corruption at the city government level, etc. You say that "Cop-cams strike a blow for truth"... I would submit that cameras record the truth. I would have thought that as a journalist, you would support the truth coming out. As the latest incident shows, police action recorded on camera can reveal evidence tampering as well. There is a REAL reason to doubt the word of some cops.
I'd like to see journalists focus on the real issues that lead to the kind of violence we see these days. If the press cannot focus the searchlight of public attention and help to change gun laws, police ineptitude and reduce corruption, then journalists and the press have failed in their singular duty - to report the truth as best they can.
Probably the most nonsensical line of reasoning I've ever heard. Police are PUBLIC employees. They deal with the public. We hear much from conservatives about the need for transparency in the public arena.
The cop cams are under the control of the police. They will make the determination if the video is shown, so the right of privacy is not harmed even when they come into your home.
Besides, cops are becoming so corrupt that I don't even the presence of the cop cam will make a difference. In the recent example of the 73 year old volunteer who grabbed for his taser and fired his gun there WAS a cop cam present yet that still did not stop the police from filing false reports.
Now, what will happen to THOSE cops for their illegal actions?
Brooks forgets that the bar is set impossibly high to convict a cop for action in the line of duty. Even in the above mentioned case the sheriff did not want to bring charges against the 73 year old; the district attorney did.
Then the cop has to be indicted. How did that work out in Cleveland or Staten Island?
Then the cop has to be convicted.
Don't worry, Mr. Brooks, they'll still get away with it.
The cop cams are under the control of the police. They will make the determination if the video is shown, so the right of privacy is not harmed even when they come into your home.
Besides, cops are becoming so corrupt that I don't even the presence of the cop cam will make a difference. In the recent example of the 73 year old volunteer who grabbed for his taser and fired his gun there WAS a cop cam present yet that still did not stop the police from filing false reports.
Now, what will happen to THOSE cops for their illegal actions?
Brooks forgets that the bar is set impossibly high to convict a cop for action in the line of duty. Even in the above mentioned case the sheriff did not want to bring charges against the 73 year old; the district attorney did.
Then the cop has to be indicted. How did that work out in Cleveland or Staten Island?
Then the cop has to be convicted.
Don't worry, Mr. Brooks, they'll still get away with it.
3
I will take the trade off of privacy to ensure that the killing of black citizens stops or at least is captured in moment so they can be judged accordingly. What has been recorded so far is just the tip of the iceberg of police abuse without accountability.
3
Brooks has let fly the weakest argument I’ve ever seen in the Times. Stunning in its lack of grasp.
Here is a very superficial response to a couple of his arguments:
“The cameras will undermine communal bonds.”
Dave, do you have any clue how weak those bonds are now and why? Do you grasp the fact that the police and the militarizing of the nation’s police forces undermine the communal bonds far more than any camera will?
“that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape.”
And thank goodness for that!
“With each leak, culture gets a little coarser.”
Oh please Dave!!! This is simply another excuse to hide the coarseness – And just who benefits when “leaks are hidden?”
Here is a very superficial response to a couple of his arguments:
“The cameras will undermine communal bonds.”
Dave, do you have any clue how weak those bonds are now and why? Do you grasp the fact that the police and the militarizing of the nation’s police forces undermine the communal bonds far more than any camera will?
“that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape.”
And thank goodness for that!
“With each leak, culture gets a little coarser.”
Oh please Dave!!! This is simply another excuse to hide the coarseness – And just who benefits when “leaks are hidden?”
4
It may well be that videos of people at their worst will be seen in police departments. But surely release of such material on the internet could be strictly regulated, and could be made the basis of a felony lawsuit.
Such records must be used only for their intended purpose: as an aid to controlling the police.
Such records must be used only for their intended purpose: as an aid to controlling the police.
1
"Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape"
When lack of wisdom and judgement leads to killing so many, and lack of integrity to hide the facts, and considering all other acts of brutality we hear about, and please, dont imply this brutality is so rare... So when it leads to death much too often... wisdom and judgement are pious words, actually clear denial of the main facts. Please.
When lack of wisdom and judgement leads to killing so many, and lack of integrity to hide the facts, and considering all other acts of brutality we hear about, and please, dont imply this brutality is so rare... So when it leads to death much too often... wisdom and judgement are pious words, actually clear denial of the main facts. Please.
1
What a great article and what great insights into a problem that goes beyond just police cams but can be applied to an evolving social behavior that is emerging as newer technologies dictate how we interact with each other.
Thank you for a well thought out piece of journalism.
Thank you for a well thought out piece of journalism.
And thank you for the subtle sarcasm. I almost believed your comment was on the up-and-up!
Mr. Brooks, I agree with your point, in general. However, where is this trust that you are worried about losing? I think it is fair to say that absolutely no trust exists in many communities, and that is exactly why the cameras are necessary.
4
While it sounds like a good idea to have cops wear cameras to shed light on encounters that result in a shooting, I wonder what the law of unintended consequences will bring. One possibility is that police departments will flood news programs across the country with selected videos of people of color behaving badly in every way imaginable. What will the national conversation on police relations be then? Cameras have been crucial to exposing this problem. Are they the only way to address it going forward?
12
Simple solution to your quandary - live stream (or near-live-stream) cop-cam video. All of it. Like weather cams. Like traffic cams.
In California, where we are slowly outfitting police vehicle with cameras, the law is that any recording is confidential and can only be released with either a court order or to the defendant's lawyer.
1
David suffers from a familiar illusion: there is ONE truth that everyone can agree to.
I have learned that there are as many 'truths' about an event as there are participants AND the number of 'truths' increases each time the participants describe the event.
Video of the event isn't perfect...but it is so much more reliable than any of the 'eye witnesses'.
Poor David....would that his 'world' actually existed. No, he seems to want to protected naked, drunk, screaming maniacs in his world.
Naked, drunk, screaming maniacs would do well to be documented.....and isn't the individual 'already insulted' by having the 'cops called' because of the naked, drunk, screaming maniac's behavior.
I have learned that there are as many 'truths' about an event as there are participants AND the number of 'truths' increases each time the participants describe the event.
Video of the event isn't perfect...but it is so much more reliable than any of the 'eye witnesses'.
Poor David....would that his 'world' actually existed. No, he seems to want to protected naked, drunk, screaming maniacs in his world.
Naked, drunk, screaming maniacs would do well to be documented.....and isn't the individual 'already insulted' by having the 'cops called' because of the naked, drunk, screaming maniac's behavior.
3
David, we are already less humane and trusting. The only relationship that matters to us now is whoever is on the other end of our texting cellphone.
If we're going to make cops wear cams, I think everyone should wear a cam....our presidents, our politicians, our perps and suspected felons, why even ourselves.
It won't help all that much. These cams don't have audio (yet). They don't explain motives (yet). They can't answer all our questions (yet).
Hang in there, folks. Ubiquity is coming. Humane and trusting don't matter anymore.
If we're going to make cops wear cams, I think everyone should wear a cam....our presidents, our politicians, our perps and suspected felons, why even ourselves.
It won't help all that much. These cams don't have audio (yet). They don't explain motives (yet). They can't answer all our questions (yet).
Hang in there, folks. Ubiquity is coming. Humane and trusting don't matter anymore.
1
Let's also make sure we include "prison guard cams". Places like Rikers need the sunlight of truth shined on the terrible treatment of prisoners that is routine.
2
It's heartening to read the opinion of a conservative "pundit" to the effect that privacy is an inherent human right, one which is recognized in the European Union but which, in the eyes of justices such as Scalia and Alito, does not exist in this country on the constitutional level. Somehow, they do not see such a right as the critical underpinning of many of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
Of course, the concept of privacy as Mr. Brooks describes it seems a bit out of sync with police/civilian encounters in many circumstances. Since most such encounters are not "intimate" but more typically "oppositional and confrontational," whose privacy concerns him more?
Of course, the concept of privacy as Mr. Brooks describes it seems a bit out of sync with police/civilian encounters in many circumstances. Since most such encounters are not "intimate" but more typically "oppositional and confrontational," whose privacy concerns him more?
1
I, a very law-abiding senior, have become increasingly frightened of those charged with maintaining law and order in our communities: those who cruise in sinister looking vehicles behind black-tinted windows, those whose response to neighborhood incidents is so often militaristic. So, yes, I am in favor of cop-cams, if only for the protection of the rest of us. That said, however, I want to praise you David for your essay on privacy. That part alone was worth reading more than once. Thank you.
"Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you."
Yes. Precisely. And that is why body cams are a good idea. The police have now demonstrated on countless occasions that they cannot be trusted to give people of color resp.ectful treatment, and that they will lie through their teeth to cover up the disrespectful, sometimes murderous treatment the do give them.
I am not saying that all cops are bad. We need police, and clearly some of the ones we have are decent, well-meaning professionals. But too many are not. Given the obviously large proportion of untrustworthy police, neither trust nor privacy are worth discussing, in my view, but only protection of abused minorities.
Yes. Precisely. And that is why body cams are a good idea. The police have now demonstrated on countless occasions that they cannot be trusted to give people of color resp.ectful treatment, and that they will lie through their teeth to cover up the disrespectful, sometimes murderous treatment the do give them.
I am not saying that all cops are bad. We need police, and clearly some of the ones we have are decent, well-meaning professionals. But too many are not. Given the obviously large proportion of untrustworthy police, neither trust nor privacy are worth discussing, in my view, but only protection of abused minorities.
4
Mr Brooks, this is a well articulated argument for privacy and trust. However, I am at a loss as to how you concluded what you have. The problem you are hoping that cameras will address is a loss of trust, yet you propose to address it by making trust harder to create.
It is true that recent headlines have demonstrated that some cops act badly some of the time. I imagine that some columnists act badly some of the time. But when all of our customs are calibrated to the worst among us, then the worst will become the new normal.
Instead, why not redefine the mandate of the police. Virtually every encounter I have had with the police in my city have been good ... but they only happen when an incident has occurred. What if more cops walked a beat instead of driving with the windows up.
It is true that recent headlines have demonstrated that some cops act badly some of the time. I imagine that some columnists act badly some of the time. But when all of our customs are calibrated to the worst among us, then the worst will become the new normal.
Instead, why not redefine the mandate of the police. Virtually every encounter I have had with the police in my city have been good ... but they only happen when an incident has occurred. What if more cops walked a beat instead of driving with the windows up.
1
I agree entirely that using cop-cams comes with a cost and I can imagine the circumstances in which they will further diminish the relationship between police and citizens. But many other commentators here point out that's it's really a systemic problem with our approach to policing in the United States. I'm a middle-aged white male would has never had to go through the kind of discrimination and humiliation that the police visit on African-American communities every day. I have however regularly seen enough disrespect, shaved-head thuggishness, and bullying to know we have a lousy policing system. As someone who grew up in Europe, American policing seems heavy-handed at best, fatal at its worst. The whole show needs a complete overhaul. Begin with defining community service and then start with recruiting.
4
David--body cameras can also be a gateway to restoring trust. Let's consider a hypothetical example of a cop who talks down a would-be murderer and defuses a potentially violent situation. Or a cop who saves a kid from drowning. A video like that would go viral very quickly, and I'm sure the vast majority of viewers would feel a little more appreciative toward the police.
My point is that a camera is just a tool. If you act noble and honorably, video of that behaviour has a healing effect on broken trust. Cameras can therefore be a great way of opening a window into the dangerous and often thankless world of law enforcement. When you begin to see what an officer goes through, you're more willing to empathize with him. With enough honorable actions on the record, you may even begin to trust.
My point is that a camera is just a tool. If you act noble and honorably, video of that behaviour has a healing effect on broken trust. Cameras can therefore be a great way of opening a window into the dangerous and often thankless world of law enforcement. When you begin to see what an officer goes through, you're more willing to empathize with him. With enough honorable actions on the record, you may even begin to trust.
2
"Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape."
I think most people will take their chances with the "videotape" over trusting whatever wisdom and integrity the police have or are supposed to have. It may well be that 99% of all cops are fine, decent officers of the law, but all it takes is just one trigger-happy, angry cop (or one that confuses his gun for a taser) to ruin someone's day.
As for privacy, sharing or making public any footage recorded by such a "cop-cam" should be absolutely illegal except in court or during an investigation, with significant mandatory jail terms for violators.
I think most people will take their chances with the "videotape" over trusting whatever wisdom and integrity the police have or are supposed to have. It may well be that 99% of all cops are fine, decent officers of the law, but all it takes is just one trigger-happy, angry cop (or one that confuses his gun for a taser) to ruin someone's day.
As for privacy, sharing or making public any footage recorded by such a "cop-cam" should be absolutely illegal except in court or during an investigation, with significant mandatory jail terms for violators.
5
I understand David Brooks's broader points. However, it takes an extraordinary indifference to the realities of race in America to worry that cop-cams in many of our black communities will make policing there less "humane and trusting." That's the kind of observation you can only make if you're determined to argue that race doesn't much matter in America, against all the evidence. Brooks doesn't even seem to notice. It's really quite remarkable -- and telling.
4
I can absolutely respect Mr. Brooks' position in this article, as we live in a time where privacy is something that is more learned than inherited. Rather than being the default, it is something we have to take action to achieve by setting phones on airplane mode or selecting an "incognito" browser or managing the allowances we provide apps like the NY Times when we connect them to our Facebook...
However, the instances in which Mr. Brooks describes officers letting someone off from a ticket or offering a family support in troubled times could - on some level - be representative examples of white privilege in action. Again, I appreciate his position of reminding us delicately that there may be positive human moments lost with police personnel, but I am delicately reminding him that we - as white males - we must be aware of the privilege and assumed respect that our interactions with authority figures typically bring to the table. Perhaps we lament the lost possibility that an officer may let us go for a routine moving violation, but we sit precariously in an order where that possibility for us is at a far greater risk for others in a less privileged social position. I see body cameras as a narrowing of a police officer's personal "judgement call" zone, and - while I sit on the spectrum in a location where I have something to lose from that narrowing - I am all-too-aware of the fact that many, many others sit in a position where they have much to gain.
However, the instances in which Mr. Brooks describes officers letting someone off from a ticket or offering a family support in troubled times could - on some level - be representative examples of white privilege in action. Again, I appreciate his position of reminding us delicately that there may be positive human moments lost with police personnel, but I am delicately reminding him that we - as white males - we must be aware of the privilege and assumed respect that our interactions with authority figures typically bring to the table. Perhaps we lament the lost possibility that an officer may let us go for a routine moving violation, but we sit precariously in an order where that possibility for us is at a far greater risk for others in a less privileged social position. I see body cameras as a narrowing of a police officer's personal "judgement call" zone, and - while I sit on the spectrum in a location where I have something to lose from that narrowing - I am all-too-aware of the fact that many, many others sit in a position where they have much to gain.
2
I believe that were it not for the recording by the bystander of the shooting in North Charleston this would have gone unprosecuted even if officials were aware of the inconsistencies in Officer Slagers account. That is the Blue Wall of Silence and we have not been well served by it.
8
Shorter David Brooks: "Yes, cop cams will protect black people. But do you realize that they will also make it difficult for white people to get away with stuff?"
19
Awesome summary, Allie! Thanks for putting it short and sweet.
David, there are no communal bonds between black communities and police except warranted distrust and fear on the side of the community and racial bigotry and murderous entitlement on the other.
Having a badge and a gun is not a license to kill, it's a license not to kill but a lot of cops in this country seem to think they have a license to kill black men and as we keep learning from exoneration in so many cases years and decades after false conviction, police and prosecutors have the nasty habit of knowingly sending innocent minority men to prison.
Until they stop that everywhere all cops should wear the cameras and that's also because, from what we have learned in the past two years, when they are not caught on camera they lie with impunity about what they have done.
Having a badge and a gun is not a license to kill, it's a license not to kill but a lot of cops in this country seem to think they have a license to kill black men and as we keep learning from exoneration in so many cases years and decades after false conviction, police and prosecutors have the nasty habit of knowingly sending innocent minority men to prison.
Until they stop that everywhere all cops should wear the cameras and that's also because, from what we have learned in the past two years, when they are not caught on camera they lie with impunity about what they have done.
8
While body cameras will help by providing some objectivity in police interactions, I think we can all agree (and I think this is David's point) that it is a poor substitute for the kind of civil mutual respect, self-discipline and restraint that should characterize a healthy society. To cultivate that kind of behavior takes a lot time, patience and compassion. Unfortunately I think we will come to rely on the easy technology of cameras and other forms of data capture and will not make the effort to improve our selves and our communities, to our great detriment.
28
I think that we can all agree that expecting all police officers will always use "civil mutual respect" is a beautiful idea. However, tell that to their innocent victims. Due to the lack of said respect, we need cameras to make police officers more likely to behave, and to be held accountable for their actions.
The biggest issue regarding police and why THEY need policing is being overlooked. It is the militarization of police and police tactics since 9/11. The police have all, for important reasons, been trained on spotting and dealing with terrorism and are equipped with the tools to do so. The lovely suburb I live in, quiet, nothing much happens, the police ride around in SUVs that look like and are equipped like tanks. So, the unintended consequence and the hundreds of millions of federal, state and local money that goes into the training and equipment has affected the mindset and practices of the police, further augmenting their tendency to shoot first, ask questions later. Have you seen the police uniforms? Even community police on bikes wear uniforms that look like military commandos--this all affects behavior, theirs toward us and ours towards them. I just returned from Ireland and the tone, comportment, and behavior of their police, the Garda, is strikingly different. Sad.
105
You say the police SUVs look and are equipped like tanks!
I have never seen a police car with a gun turret. Therefore, can you please explain exactly what you mean?
I have never seen a police car with a gun turret. Therefore, can you please explain exactly what you mean?
The video exposing the murder of Walter Scott is enough to justify body cams. How many officers (I exclude the many good officers) have gotten away with unjustifiable force? As someone said about Scott's death, "no video, no crime."
2
Are you sure you meant: "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional."?
Here - let me fix that for you: "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a BLACK civilian is less likely to be DEADLY and more likely to be oppositional and transactional."?
So let me break down your essay - you are apparently disdainful of body cameras because (a) white people like their privacy and (b) cops are less likely to cut white people some slack if there's someone watching. And black people like body cameras because (a) cops are less likely to indiscriminately kill them if they are wearing one.
I can see your concern - those are some tough trade-offs there.
Here - let me fix that for you: "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a BLACK civilian is less likely to be DEADLY and more likely to be oppositional and transactional."?
So let me break down your essay - you are apparently disdainful of body cameras because (a) white people like their privacy and (b) cops are less likely to cut white people some slack if there's someone watching. And black people like body cameras because (a) cops are less likely to indiscriminately kill them if they are wearing one.
I can see your concern - those are some tough trade-offs there.
4
The interesting, ironic, aspect to all of this cop-cam, traffic-cam, dashboard-cam, smart device "cam" and the rest is that the more transparency is seemingly gained the less transparency there actually is. The more the struggle with the transparent, the more the intimate is lost.
This is because of the natural, even classic, human response to such invasion of privacy. Evasive tactics are used, subterfuge and all the rest of the "underground" aspects rear their heads. Humans fight back in myriad, subversive ways (as seen by those seeking transparency). People standing behind the group pseudonym Anonymous, wearing Guy Fawkes masks, in indicative of a potent "push back" trend. So the more the public sphere strains and presses for transparency the more resistant to it the private becomes.....
And so long as we remain so fearful as a people, as a society, I see no way out of this dilemma.
So it goes...
John~
American Net'Zen
This is because of the natural, even classic, human response to such invasion of privacy. Evasive tactics are used, subterfuge and all the rest of the "underground" aspects rear their heads. Humans fight back in myriad, subversive ways (as seen by those seeking transparency). People standing behind the group pseudonym Anonymous, wearing Guy Fawkes masks, in indicative of a potent "push back" trend. So the more the public sphere strains and presses for transparency the more resistant to it the private becomes.....
And so long as we remain so fearful as a people, as a society, I see no way out of this dilemma.
So it goes...
John~
American Net'Zen
The police have damaged police-civilian relationships and cop cams may begin to repair that damage when police get used to the fact that their actions are being filmed. Taxpayers pay for police protection and it is expected that they will fulfill their duty no matter who they encounter. It is directly because of citizen cams that we know the cops have not fulfilled their duty to serve and protect. Cop cams ensure we get what we pay for.
2
You may be right david - i can see 'strategically' leaked cop-cam videos designed to embaras people
When a cop is making an arrest or otherwise engaging with the public, there is no issue of having "half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions grow and evolve", and I doubt whether many of their quarry will be expecting "intimate friendship" or a "communal bond".
Privacy is not a factor in the use of cop-cams. Proper police behavior is.
Privacy is not a factor in the use of cop-cams. Proper police behavior is.
3
Nuanced and well-stated. Cop-cams, while seemingly inevitable now, will be a decidedly mixed bag in the practice.
It's true "Cop-cams strike a blow for truth" but they also strike a heavy blow to lying, dishonesty, and preferential treatment that seems to run rampant in our country. Mr. Brooks may call this privacy as a major part of the human condition but society cannot count on God anymore to deliver justice where people hold themselves to higher standards of their own religions. We all have a great sense of honesty and fairness but when out in the real world we want to have exceptions for ourselves. Certainly life is not Black and White where truth and lies often are in the eyes of the beholder but having defining proof will give new perspectives and worries as in 1984.
And why should people trust cops these days? Finally, video is vindicating the experiences of thousands of citizens over dozens of years. There is plenty of room for privacy in our lives. The power structures of society have failed us and thus forfeited their rite to the assumption that privacy is more important than clarity. I've been interviewed by journalists and your notebook doesn't separate you, your profession does. Because trust is a precious commodity that has been trampled. Trampled by cops, by gov't, by journalists. My privacy is for me, but when I'm dealing with the 'system' as it were, I know that privacy doesn't exist. And where it does, so does mistrust of what will be done under the cloak of that presumed privacy.
2
Get out of here. Privacy? What we are talking about, when we talk about passing laws requiring policemen to be filmed in the discharge of their official duties? We are talking about accountability to the public that they serve. Do we cry about privacy when we follow procedure and audit the expenses of the officials in our city administration? Since we say innocent until proven guilty, we usually do not release possibly compromising details of a case before it comes out in Court. Properly controlled, leaks legally prohibited, these films would be closely held as evidence, not shown on the evening news. They would protect the Officer as well as the accused. It will be very humane to be able to trust that this public servant entering my home with a warrant or pulling me over at a traffic stop will simply do his job without abuse or favoritism. Much better that, than having to trust to the "wisdom and integrity" of a uniformed, probably unknown somebody with a gun in his hand.
2
The social trust was lost when police started shooting innocent people and covering it up, not when we insisted on some recourse to prevent them from doing so.
4
Thank you for this piece. It's crucial to be aware of what we are giving up by making these seemingly obvious choices.
A blow against relationships? As is typical, Mr. Brooks' portrait of those relationships utterly ignores the existing power relationships between the parties involved, the ones with the legitimized guns and the ones with the backs--and the massive distrust pre-existing among so many of those policed, which required no additional help from freshly mounted cameras. They've had their reasons. The "organic" communities this writer regularly finds being challenged are generally imaginary--a fantasy afforded by those with power.
1
We give cops guns, place the power of the state behind them, and send them out on the streets and into stressful situations to protect "society" from parts of itself. There has always been an ambient level of abuse; the only difference now is the technology to document it, such that fewer and fewer people are able to convince themselves of various myths concerning authority figures. If we had much sense, we'd put cameras on politicians, too.
3
We have not wanted to police our police, but history is not working in their favor. Unarmed black men appear to be fair game based on the last several months of news. There are retired policemen in my wider family who never shot anyone in their careers as street cops, that's the way it should be for most of them. Most of these would-be criminals could have been arrested eventually. The militarization of police forces should worry us all. In the meantime, yes to cameras.
3
The "down" side of the cop cams underscores how irreparably impaired the "communal" relationship between cops and citizens is. I think that the idea of "communal" relationships between cops and citizens disappeared with beat-cop style policing and exists as only nastalgic antiquity. No one has a neighborhood officer. For example, officers drive around in their vehicles and yell at other people to come over to their vehicles. There is no "communal" relationship anymore. Just ask any young person or motorists who are treated like bank robbers during traffic infraction experiences.
1
First, David, most of us don't expect or get "friendship" and warmth from our interactions with the police. It is exactly "transactional" when we get a traffic ticket or witness a crime. And "cutting slack" for lucky offenders may have to end (especially if it is certainly not cut for all, but only those who appeal to the police officer involved).
As for people's domestic disputes or meltdowns being put on the web through leaks from the police, those responsible should be fired if not charged with a crime; I suppose the anti-leak laws now in place will cover it.
All of that is a small price to pay if it saves lives of those who are now in danger of joining the list of victims of police who thought they could kill with impunity.
As for people's domestic disputes or meltdowns being put on the web through leaks from the police, those responsible should be fired if not charged with a crime; I suppose the anti-leak laws now in place will cover it.
All of that is a small price to pay if it saves lives of those who are now in danger of joining the list of victims of police who thought they could kill with impunity.
3
It is truly amazing how privilege shapes thought processes.
No on in their right mind has "intimate friendship" with the police, unless they are family or lifelong friends. Otherwise, they cannot be trusted. No one exempt from the law can be trusted. No one in a self regulating institution can be trusted. So, not the police, not lawyers, not judges, not politicians, not doctors, etc. While most of the foregoing are fine upstanding contributors to society, they actively participate in perpetuation of their particular privileged status, so bad police, lawyers, judges, doctors one and all are protected by their brethren. Do not trust them until they prove they can be trusted.
From my perspective only a fool trusts someone who is only accountable to their own cohorts.
No on in their right mind has "intimate friendship" with the police, unless they are family or lifelong friends. Otherwise, they cannot be trusted. No one exempt from the law can be trusted. No one in a self regulating institution can be trusted. So, not the police, not lawyers, not judges, not politicians, not doctors, etc. While most of the foregoing are fine upstanding contributors to society, they actively participate in perpetuation of their particular privileged status, so bad police, lawyers, judges, doctors one and all are protected by their brethren. Do not trust them until they prove they can be trusted.
From my perspective only a fool trusts someone who is only accountable to their own cohorts.
3
This is a thoughtful column and I agree with most of it. However, I would like to add one additional thought and make one quibble.
First - it's worthwhile to keep in mind the fact that our sense of "privacy" in modern society was a fleeting blip in the history of humanity. Throughout most of human history, we all lived in small communities where there was very little privacy at all. People rarely moved far from their place of birth and were rarely exposed to strangers. Community control and gossip were pervasive.
The quibble is related to that: "Privacy is important for communities because there ... has to be a boundary between us and them." The stranger was always "them." Anyone unknown was someone to be feared. The amazing thing about modernity is that now strangers can interact (mostly) without fear. We have an ideal of "universal human rights" that we try to live up to, but atavistic tribal habits of mind hold us back and encourage suspicion and hostility toward "them." This is one level where I don't think "privacy" is a net benefit.
First - it's worthwhile to keep in mind the fact that our sense of "privacy" in modern society was a fleeting blip in the history of humanity. Throughout most of human history, we all lived in small communities where there was very little privacy at all. People rarely moved far from their place of birth and were rarely exposed to strangers. Community control and gossip were pervasive.
The quibble is related to that: "Privacy is important for communities because there ... has to be a boundary between us and them." The stranger was always "them." Anyone unknown was someone to be feared. The amazing thing about modernity is that now strangers can interact (mostly) without fear. We have an ideal of "universal human rights" that we try to live up to, but atavistic tribal habits of mind hold us back and encourage suspicion and hostility toward "them." This is one level where I don't think "privacy" is a net benefit.
34
You're confusing privacy and secrecy. In fact "privacy" comes from ancient Roman law, which balanced that which belonged to the individual against that which was public good (the res publica, "republic"). Our 4th Amendment is about privacy in drawing a line between the individual and the state (so yes, police cams in homes might record potential evidence without a warrant).
The modern sense of privacy only correlates with a middle class who could live in homes with bedrooms. Democracy requires a large and influential middle class enjoying fair economic opportunities (capitalism, NOT our current corporate feudalism). No surprise that privacy is declining with the middle class and democracy.
It's been argued that the concept of citizenship only arose in the ancient world to define what it meant not to be a slave. A citizen has bodily autonomy; a slave's body is for use. (Patient confidentiality, including abortion, is about bodily privacy.) A slave acted under compulsion, and so was regarded as lacking moral agency. But a free person could make choices issuing from one's "interior zone," as Mr. Brooks put it.
Privacy is not about a preference for secrecy. People who lack privacy are in effect slaves. Surveillance by the state imperils the balance between the individual's autonomy and state authority. There's a huge difference between the state compelling behavior through power and control, and your choosing how to navigate the approval or opprobrium of your neighbors.
The modern sense of privacy only correlates with a middle class who could live in homes with bedrooms. Democracy requires a large and influential middle class enjoying fair economic opportunities (capitalism, NOT our current corporate feudalism). No surprise that privacy is declining with the middle class and democracy.
It's been argued that the concept of citizenship only arose in the ancient world to define what it meant not to be a slave. A citizen has bodily autonomy; a slave's body is for use. (Patient confidentiality, including abortion, is about bodily privacy.) A slave acted under compulsion, and so was regarded as lacking moral agency. But a free person could make choices issuing from one's "interior zone," as Mr. Brooks put it.
Privacy is not about a preference for secrecy. People who lack privacy are in effect slaves. Surveillance by the state imperils the balance between the individual's autonomy and state authority. There's a huge difference between the state compelling behavior through power and control, and your choosing how to navigate the approval or opprobrium of your neighbors.
Could David, or anyone else, provide an example of one interaction with a police officer which should not be filmed? Why not?
Getting out of a speeding ticket? Chit chatting about the weather? Why is David concerned that the police would be less inclined to bend the regulations? (noting that in many instances such discretion is built into the regulations, therefore to desire to keep same hidden points to more than a "bend")
I might see some point in his concerns, if these police officers WERE NOT ARMED WITH DEADLY WEAPONS.
Getting out of a speeding ticket? Chit chatting about the weather? Why is David concerned that the police would be less inclined to bend the regulations? (noting that in many instances such discretion is built into the regulations, therefore to desire to keep same hidden points to more than a "bend")
I might see some point in his concerns, if these police officers WERE NOT ARMED WITH DEADLY WEAPONS.
100
I suspect that far more Americans are caught on video in retail establishments - Walmart for example - than will be videod during police interaction.
You seem to be saying that making money via videoing private citizens is perfectly all right (pun intended) but ensuring that police actions are lawful isn't invades privact.
Come on Brooks, even you can't really believe this.
You seem to be saying that making money via videoing private citizens is perfectly all right (pun intended) but ensuring that police actions are lawful isn't invades privact.
Come on Brooks, even you can't really believe this.
1
David, lets start with the basics.
We lose a lot in regards to trust and building relationships when cops shoot and kill unarmed citizens ... ESPECIALLY when those unarmed citizens have not committed a crime but are none the less dead.
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Protect and serve.
Cognitive dissonance.
We lose a lot in regards to trust and building relationships when cops shoot and kill unarmed citizens ... ESPECIALLY when those unarmed citizens have not committed a crime but are none the less dead.
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Protect and serve.
Cognitive dissonance.
1
Very important points -- people "clam up" when camera and/or sound recorder appears.
Thank you Mr. Brooks. Well written and a valuable addition to the conversation.
I imagine on the grand scale police behavior approximates a bell curve, metrics and mapping TBD. Localities will vary in shape and position.
Cameras are another stage in the long slide from freedom to safety.
The breath of societal life is value of the individual. There are always bad apples, but the loss of homogeneity (in the sense of us-and-them), and the loss of humility in the presence of our fellows is the COPD of America. WRT the police being military, they are domestic, but if they must carry guns (re other options, look up British bobbies - and New Zealand) they should thoroughly trained in the correct evaluation of threat-level and the proper professional response. The honorable goal is protection and not sentencing. Professionalism means adhering to a high standard. Each and every citizen is a member to the US royal family. Treat them as such.
I imagine on the grand scale police behavior approximates a bell curve, metrics and mapping TBD. Localities will vary in shape and position.
Cameras are another stage in the long slide from freedom to safety.
The breath of societal life is value of the individual. There are always bad apples, but the loss of homogeneity (in the sense of us-and-them), and the loss of humility in the presence of our fellows is the COPD of America. WRT the police being military, they are domestic, but if they must carry guns (re other options, look up British bobbies - and New Zealand) they should thoroughly trained in the correct evaluation of threat-level and the proper professional response. The honorable goal is protection and not sentencing. Professionalism means adhering to a high standard. Each and every citizen is a member to the US royal family. Treat them as such.
This is a thoughtful article. I'd rather have much more training and psychological evaluation than more cameras. Maybe we are hiring the wrong people to be cops. I once hired a woman for a job overseeing other employees precisely because she didn't want the job. I never regretted it. Maybe we need cops who don't want to be cops.
2
Why must video from police cams inevitably end up on the internet? Surely there can be legal safeguards about their publication and distribution, especially in matters such as family disputes where there has not been any "wrongful" police conduct. Even WikiLeaks cannot create this stuff.
1
Christine McMorrow says it well. Cameras are not the cause of loss of trust - trust was lost because it has been abused. Sometimes in a deadly way, sometimes in a day-to-day way that continues and reinforces that loss of trust.
But I want to address David Brooks' assumption that if a crime does not show up on the camera "it did not happen." This is to some extent a gross exaggeration. Everyone - judges, jurors, the public - are well aware that there will be instances in which the crime happens off camera.
But, speaking as one who has suffered false arrest, the assumption that a crime did occur and that a specific person did it because a police officer says so, is both factually and logically unsupportable.
It also is unconstitutional to allow the conviction of one citizen merely on the word of another, especially simply on the assertion of a government official. There must be something more than an officer's assertion. To the extent the charge is appropriate, in many cases the camera will provide that support.
But if nothing supports the charge, citizens are entitled to the assumption of innocence.
But I want to address David Brooks' assumption that if a crime does not show up on the camera "it did not happen." This is to some extent a gross exaggeration. Everyone - judges, jurors, the public - are well aware that there will be instances in which the crime happens off camera.
But, speaking as one who has suffered false arrest, the assumption that a crime did occur and that a specific person did it because a police officer says so, is both factually and logically unsupportable.
It also is unconstitutional to allow the conviction of one citizen merely on the word of another, especially simply on the assertion of a government official. There must be something more than an officer's assertion. To the extent the charge is appropriate, in many cases the camera will provide that support.
But if nothing supports the charge, citizens are entitled to the assumption of innocence.
1
"Privacy is important to the development of full individuals because there has to be an interior zone within each person that other people don’t see."
This is a specious argument where police and body cams are concerned. If a cop hasn't fully developed their personal and social moral values by the time they are giving the responsibility of policing with a deadly weapon, they shouldn't be walking around with the states' gun. We certainly can not trust police training and the culture of the blue wall of silence to create those values for them.
This is a specious argument where police and body cams are concerned. If a cop hasn't fully developed their personal and social moral values by the time they are giving the responsibility of policing with a deadly weapon, they shouldn't be walking around with the states' gun. We certainly can not trust police training and the culture of the blue wall of silence to create those values for them.
2
I found Mr. Brooks defense of privacy a really good one. Interesting that he is concerned mainly with the cops' privacy. Being surveilled he says erodes trust. Somehow Brooks never introduced these same arguments around the issue of the government --read NSA--collecting mass data about the citizens. Of course that practice creates an us and them situation between government and the people when it used to be that the government was of the people, by the people and for the people. Or is Lincoln old hat now. Did Brooks toss Lincoln out of his personal bucket? Or in Mr. Brooks quaint and privileged world, is privacy only for the powerful, the authorities?
The loss of privacy by technology in modern times?
There seems an inevitable course. Technology by which people lose privacy is actually technology of wide range of purpose, technology for lack of a better word, "communication". To increase communication capacity, say by camera or sound recording device, is to simultaneously be able to grasp a person in privacy and to manipulate a person's mind by shoving whatever images, sounds into it. The ideal state of such we can imagine to be all humans with perfect telepathy and in communion with one another.
But the road to making optimal use of such technology--and we are really only in basic learning stage--is paved with much pain. A big problem is the use of such technology for surveillance. An argument runs along lines of such technology being useful to prevent criminal activity. But any legal entity, private or governmental, can embark on a course of penetration of people's lives or even manipulate their reality. And of course even with perfect legality such technology is painful (such as use for testing children in school, recording medical conditions, etc.--all we mean by person's "record"). So no balance of such technology with concerns or retreat from such technology seems possible.--Only that we forge ahead until all of society is in light and even collective actions with respect to humanity's effect on the natural world.
We are seeing who and what we are. I doubt we will like it. But perhaps we can change what we are.
There seems an inevitable course. Technology by which people lose privacy is actually technology of wide range of purpose, technology for lack of a better word, "communication". To increase communication capacity, say by camera or sound recording device, is to simultaneously be able to grasp a person in privacy and to manipulate a person's mind by shoving whatever images, sounds into it. The ideal state of such we can imagine to be all humans with perfect telepathy and in communion with one another.
But the road to making optimal use of such technology--and we are really only in basic learning stage--is paved with much pain. A big problem is the use of such technology for surveillance. An argument runs along lines of such technology being useful to prevent criminal activity. But any legal entity, private or governmental, can embark on a course of penetration of people's lives or even manipulate their reality. And of course even with perfect legality such technology is painful (such as use for testing children in school, recording medical conditions, etc.--all we mean by person's "record"). So no balance of such technology with concerns or retreat from such technology seems possible.--Only that we forge ahead until all of society is in light and even collective actions with respect to humanity's effect on the natural world.
We are seeing who and what we are. I doubt we will like it. But perhaps we can change what we are.
"There has to be a boundary between us and them". Words matter David, my ears perk up when I hear they and them, words that create a division. How does that work when trying to create a relationship based on common goals?
The cameras won't destroy trust. The police already did that themselves -- by treating citizens poorly and protecting fellow officers who acted badly. want trust? earn it.
9
On the other hand, if that sweet little boy in Cleveland, playing fantasy games by himself in a park, had been questioned by a cop wearing a camera, he most certainly may have still been with us.
I would give up all my privacy rights to prevent another assassination like that one.
I would give up all my privacy rights to prevent another assassination like that one.
6
All true ... and, I agree, very sad. But when trust in authority of any kind (e.g., teachers, doctors, police, politicians, journalists, etc.) is based on societal myths of innate benevolence, then it is dangerously naive to allow those authorities to operate in the dark.
64
You are right, Mr. Brooks, "Cop-cams strike a blow for truth," but most importantly they also strike a blow for public safety and a reduction of the epidemic of poorly-trained, white police officers murdering citizens of color for, at best, minor violations. According to a recent report from the Police Foundation, "Wearing cameras was associated with dramatic reductions in use-of-force ["more than a 50 reduction in total number of "incidents"] and complaints against officers [by 90%]. You are mistaken to consider this issue as involving privacy at all since the police are "public servants" who are sworn to "serve and protect" the public. If it takes making their behavior public in order for them to be more "humane," then we will all be safer and more "trusting."
75
I think Mr. Brooks is concerened about the public privacy, not the cops.
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but why do you single out white police officers? The statistics show that the officer's race has little to do with use of force.
1
I think it's true that there's a downside to police cameras. With the cameras, there will be less discretion in what police officers can do. There will be more rigidity because they will know that actions may be reviewed. There may be a time when someone monitors them. That's bad because there are times when some things are better overlooked.
The reality is that most people don't have personal relationships with police. There are already divisions and that is part of the problem. Most of us don't live in intimate communities where the police are our friends.
There's also a lack of respect. That's what makes cops share those embarrassing videos. It comes from a culture of us vs them that degrades the humanity of people who really need help.
There's a lot of that in our society in general. We all need boundaries in order to deal with others, but boundaries without respect and some empathy are problematic.
The reality is that most people don't have personal relationships with police. There are already divisions and that is part of the problem. Most of us don't live in intimate communities where the police are our friends.
There's also a lack of respect. That's what makes cops share those embarrassing videos. It comes from a culture of us vs them that degrades the humanity of people who really need help.
There's a lot of that in our society in general. We all need boundaries in order to deal with others, but boundaries without respect and some empathy are problematic.
31
Essentially Brooks argues that body-mounted cameras will lead police officers to go by the "rules".If indeed violent encounters are but a very small fraction of interactions, curbing police discretion is sure to escalate arrest for relatively minor infractions as street fights,traffic violations,automobile defects and a range of other minor offenses.The cops will become more hard nosed and we
could no longer breath with relief that we got away with it
could no longer breath with relief that we got away with it
1
David - it is very difficult to imagine these cameras can do more damage to the trust between the police and the people they claim to serve than the police themselves already have.
With the exception of privileged white people who project their own experience of liberty and autonomy on the victims of police culture; the poor, minorities, and mentally ill - no one in their right mind trusts police officers to be honest arbiters of the law.
Until people in your position begin to recognize that the Pat Cherry's of New York are far more the rule than the exception, and care to do something more about it than hand wave and blame the victims, cameras are certainly the lesser of two evils.
With the exception of privileged white people who project their own experience of liberty and autonomy on the victims of police culture; the poor, minorities, and mentally ill - no one in their right mind trusts police officers to be honest arbiters of the law.
Until people in your position begin to recognize that the Pat Cherry's of New York are far more the rule than the exception, and care to do something more about it than hand wave and blame the victims, cameras are certainly the lesser of two evils.
David, you believe we have privacy 24/7. We don't. When you're cruising the internet at home cookies can tell interested parties what sites you've visited. When you walk out the door you are subjected to street cams. Visit any store and store cams are recording your actions. If you have a newer car, where you drive it is being monitored by GPS technology. David, cop-cams do nothing to chip away at anyone's privacy. The minute you talk to any law enforcement official you are giving up some degree of privacy. Cop-cams merely document this fact.
1
David, we should all be able to use indoor voices and outdoor voices. When you're in the privacy of your own home, there should be no intrusion. When you're out and about, public safety is more important than your personal space.
Cameras on the police are appealing until we look at the ramifications for society. I'm not certain a society can or should suffer an ever-present camera in its presence. Cameras on the police would invade the lives of many citizens at their worst personal moments, exposing pain and heartache to a world that uses it for entertainment.
The use of police cameras would not be so distasteful if media outlets were more circumspect in what they televised. They are too often undiscriminating purveyors of misery, claiming first amendment rights to disasters they use for profit. The honest and decent in our society deserve better than having every bad moment, every personal disaster touted for public viewing. Privacy is not a trivial thing: it involves dignity and self-worth. We dispense with it at our peril.
There must be another way.
The use of police cameras would not be so distasteful if media outlets were more circumspect in what they televised. They are too often undiscriminating purveyors of misery, claiming first amendment rights to disasters they use for profit. The honest and decent in our society deserve better than having every bad moment, every personal disaster touted for public viewing. Privacy is not a trivial thing: it involves dignity and self-worth. We dispense with it at our peril.
There must be another way.
" I'm not certain a society can or should suffer an ever-present camera in its presence."
An ever-present policeman w/o a camera is no less objectionable.
An ever-present policeman w/o a camera is no less objectionable.
There is a price to pay for everything. Among the costs of privacy is trust.
Trust is always at a premium. Unfortunately, in our society, trust has been eroded everywhere. We do not trust our political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders or those charged with protecting us at a local level ; the police and criminal justice system.
For their part, the police have by and large instigated the need for the use
of cameras by their pattern of inappropriate behavior. We don't expect perfection, but we can't accept police aggression against citizens.
" When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional". Frankly, I don't think most citizens are looking for a date when they need a cop. They need a well trained, competent individual with enough human judgement to make difficult decisions for the benefit of the citizen.I believe more people than not would trade the privacy for the competence or at least the visual verification of competent authority.
"Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting".
Actually, when society is more open and transparent,people are more likely to put their "better foot forward", which is what this is all about in the first place.
Trust is always at a premium. Unfortunately, in our society, trust has been eroded everywhere. We do not trust our political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders or those charged with protecting us at a local level ; the police and criminal justice system.
For their part, the police have by and large instigated the need for the use
of cameras by their pattern of inappropriate behavior. We don't expect perfection, but we can't accept police aggression against citizens.
" When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional". Frankly, I don't think most citizens are looking for a date when they need a cop. They need a well trained, competent individual with enough human judgement to make difficult decisions for the benefit of the citizen.I believe more people than not would trade the privacy for the competence or at least the visual verification of competent authority.
"Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting".
Actually, when society is more open and transparent,people are more likely to put their "better foot forward", which is what this is all about in the first place.
3
On the flip side, body cams will educate the public on the very real truth that a number of our fellow citizens are not innocent victims. So while I do appreciate that these cameras will hold police to a higher level of accountability they will also serve to vindicate honest policemen who are overtasked and under-resourced to preserve the peace in a society that increasingly celebrates counter-culture attitudes and actions over respect and decency.
That damage between police and the people is already done. Cameras may be able to restore that trust. Maybe.
2
If we are going to look into every phase and aspect of policemen's enforcement of the law, why don't we also go all the way back to point one and log the DNA of every child at birth? That would not only help law enforcement but also have medical benefits too.
The violation of innate privacy you mention has been breeched by the Internet and especially Facebook. It isn't relevant anymore. Privacy? What's that. Freedom to have an abortion is challenged at every turn as are many rights of women.
Today, in 2015, the vaunted "distance between" you mention is a sham.
The violation of innate privacy you mention has been breeched by the Internet and especially Facebook. It isn't relevant anymore. Privacy? What's that. Freedom to have an abortion is challenged at every turn as are many rights of women.
Today, in 2015, the vaunted "distance between" you mention is a sham.
Mr. Brooks,
In an ideal world, I would agree with you: Cop-cams are an unwanted intrusion and shouldn't be needed. In my ideal world, even cops wouldn't be needed.
I was with you until "you are only yourself and can define yourself". But within families and friendships? If a friend is expressing hatred of a certain group, you'd want the authorities to know. This is the stuff of which cults are made.
How we wished, after an incident like Charlie Hebdo, that we had had more access to information from within the group.
In the age of Facebook, privacy is a mirage anyway.
In an ideal world, I would agree with you: Cop-cams are an unwanted intrusion and shouldn't be needed. In my ideal world, even cops wouldn't be needed.
I was with you until "you are only yourself and can define yourself". But within families and friendships? If a friend is expressing hatred of a certain group, you'd want the authorities to know. This is the stuff of which cults are made.
How we wished, after an incident like Charlie Hebdo, that we had had more access to information from within the group.
In the age of Facebook, privacy is a mirage anyway.
1
Mr. Brooks what do you think of the privacy rights of the cop from SC shooting when immediately after firing his last shot he looked into the direction of the man who is filming, I bet upon realizing that somebody was filming he thought about how his privacy was violated. Privacy is always been violated by cops harassing and humiliating black people and when you are in that situation the last thing you think about is privacy.
2
My problem with cop-cams is that they are like eyewitness testimony - credited with much more authority than they actually have. These videos bring to mind Ray Bradbury's short story 'The Jar', in which each of a group of people, viewing a jar full of murky liquid with something vaguely solid floating in it, sees what memory, subconscious, or expectations suggest. But the camera doesn't lie! (Except when it does.)
Moreover, in our world of 'every man his own do-it-yourself journalist', I'm wary of all this amateur footage presented as evidence with no chain of custody or proof of provenance. At least the NYT or CNN has professional rules and can be held to account. 'Wookie999' or 'skateborddude' going viral on Youtube with his cell phone, not so much.
With regard to privacy: Though many years apart, I am a graduate of the same high school as Tyler Clementi. So naturally I think one's privacy and dignity in delicate situations are to be fought for tooth and nail. Cop cams, nanny cams, store cams, workplaces tracking your every keystroke ... moving toward the total surveillance society. in the Mormon creation story, God proposes to create Man and give him free will. How, he asks his angels, to keep Man good? Easy, says Lucifer. Just assign an angel to follow him around 24/7/365 and punish him as soon as he steps out of line. Jesus, though, had a different suggestion - he offered to go down to earth and set an example. Jesus won then ... Lucifer's winning now.
Moreover, in our world of 'every man his own do-it-yourself journalist', I'm wary of all this amateur footage presented as evidence with no chain of custody or proof of provenance. At least the NYT or CNN has professional rules and can be held to account. 'Wookie999' or 'skateborddude' going viral on Youtube with his cell phone, not so much.
With regard to privacy: Though many years apart, I am a graduate of the same high school as Tyler Clementi. So naturally I think one's privacy and dignity in delicate situations are to be fought for tooth and nail. Cop cams, nanny cams, store cams, workplaces tracking your every keystroke ... moving toward the total surveillance society. in the Mormon creation story, God proposes to create Man and give him free will. How, he asks his angels, to keep Man good? Easy, says Lucifer. Just assign an angel to follow him around 24/7/365 and punish him as soon as he steps out of line. Jesus, though, had a different suggestion - he offered to go down to earth and set an example. Jesus won then ... Lucifer's winning now.
21
Imagine police teams made up of two individuals: one, the traditional officer, authorized to use force, dressed in uniform and bearing all the necessary equipment to bring force to bear, and a second, trained psychologist/cop, dressed in semi-civilian clothes, (but with identifying markings) that do not project force, but community involvement. You extrapolate and fill in the blanks.
30
David writes, "When a police officer is wearing a camera, the contact between an officer and a civilian is less likely to be like intimate friendship and more likely to be oppositional and transactional. "
I have news for you: the entire reason we need body cams on police is precisely because contacts between police and the human beings they are sworn to serve and protect are already "oppositional and transactional."
I have news for you: the entire reason we need body cams on police is precisely because contacts between police and the human beings they are sworn to serve and protect are already "oppositional and transactional."
226
Police repeatedly process accidents, they have come to my elderly neighbor's home after a burglary, they have controlled traffic to assure that those from my side street could merge successfully during a construction project, they have managed traffic in all my road races, they helped my mother when she was attacked by a dog, and they pushed the car of a friend out of traffic when he ran out of gas.
I guess Brooks has never met a bad cop. Let me tell you something, it's scary and potentially fatal.
1
"Cop-cams strike a blow for truth, but they strike a blow against relationships. Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting."
This is absolutely true. So as the ground-level policies of cameras are being implement, state and federal legislation should be enacted in tandem as a result, for the very reasons Brooks offers in this column.
Law makers must be urged to pass use and leak laws, making it a felony to publicly leak and post "cop cam" footage that has been obtained by law enforcement during the regular course of active duty. This should be a punishable offense, the consequences should be time spent in jail. No exceptions.
In a day and age where we click away our privacy in the most nonchalant manner and justice rarely meted out when it's violated in the most obscene way, it is a moral imperative that we take legislative measures to enforce and protect what privacy we have left.
What are the chances we could get bipartisan support on any of this?
This is absolutely true. So as the ground-level policies of cameras are being implement, state and federal legislation should be enacted in tandem as a result, for the very reasons Brooks offers in this column.
Law makers must be urged to pass use and leak laws, making it a felony to publicly leak and post "cop cam" footage that has been obtained by law enforcement during the regular course of active duty. This should be a punishable offense, the consequences should be time spent in jail. No exceptions.
In a day and age where we click away our privacy in the most nonchalant manner and justice rarely meted out when it's violated in the most obscene way, it is a moral imperative that we take legislative measures to enforce and protect what privacy we have left.
What are the chances we could get bipartisan support on any of this?
43
Sorry Mr. Brooks, but the age of cooperative, community minded policing is over, though as a retired Public Defender, I doubt that it is no more than a myth. When a police officer approaches a "civilian" the primary thing on the officer's mind is whether that person has committed a crime. I use "citizen" in quotes because the vast majority of police believe that there are "us", meaning the police and the "suspect" which is all the rest of us. Police do mot believe in the Bill of Rights or that "suspects" should have any rights. Body cameras and vehicle cameras will go a long way toward to goal of making police accountable. It will also reduce police abuse.
No one looks at the video recordings made by a body or vehicle camera unless there is a prosecution or complaint of police misconduct.
If the
No one looks at the video recordings made by a body or vehicle camera unless there is a prosecution or complaint of police misconduct.
If the
Whose privacy?
During the performance of their duties, cops have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
When interacting with a cop, a citizen has no reasonable expectation of privacy. He's talking to a cop, "anything you say (or do) can and will be used."
"[C]ontact between an officer and a civilian is lpnot] intimate friendship and [will always be] oppositional and transactional." Intimate friendship and "sir, step over here" are opposites in the world the rest of us inhabit.
We don't trust the cops? No, we don't. Lawyers and investigators have known that for a long time.
And as an aside, we don't have a problem with "wrongful acquitals." Conviction rates are so high that in any other country we would take that as evidence the courts are not fair.
During the performance of their duties, cops have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
When interacting with a cop, a citizen has no reasonable expectation of privacy. He's talking to a cop, "anything you say (or do) can and will be used."
"[C]ontact between an officer and a civilian is lpnot] intimate friendship and [will always be] oppositional and transactional." Intimate friendship and "sir, step over here" are opposites in the world the rest of us inhabit.
We don't trust the cops? No, we don't. Lawyers and investigators have known that for a long time.
And as an aside, we don't have a problem with "wrongful acquitals." Conviction rates are so high that in any other country we would take that as evidence the courts are not fair.
10
expecting the moment of exchange with a cop to be one that also protects "an interior zone" of privacy is past naive...but, if cameras put us on guard and, as as some journalists have suggested (using themselves as models) make civil and circumspect behavior, more likely, why not put one on everybody and let the the NSA sort us out...just wait until a key some prominent person is body-camed, say in a traffic stop, (in a car, in a place, with a person), that may reveal all too much way past the exchange over an illegal u-turn or broken tail light...
set that against ensuring the justice owed to the least of us and see what happens.
set that against ensuring the justice owed to the least of us and see what happens.
I agree with David's epiphany about the need for body-mounted cameras, but I'm afraid that I don't share his angst about it.
The "lost language of privacy" may have more to do with the ease with which an old girlfriend can even the score for an insensitive dumping by putting video clips of you done by up like Greta Garbo on YouTube; but it doesn't have anything to do with keeping better tabs on the official actions of cops on the streets, or some exaggerated claim of loss of privacy suffered by those who interact with police on the other end of the clipboard and nightstick.
We delegate immense power to cops. They may give us lawful orders that we'd better obey if we don't wish to be arrested. The truth is that in most parts of America, the only people walking about habitually armed usually are cops of one kind or another and criminals; and normal citizens are at serious potential risk of EITHER if the cop doesn't treat that power with judgment, maturity and respect. Increasingly, they're not -- we're seeing a decided pattern of cops unable to control mundane situations of maintaining order or enforcing law without blasting away, lethally.
That wasn't part of the deal.
If there are concerns about loss of citizen privacy, then enact serious penalties for misuse of the videos and require that they be erased within one week if no use of police force is documented. But let's not allow a concern over a loss of privacy delay pushing body-mounted cameras on cops.
The "lost language of privacy" may have more to do with the ease with which an old girlfriend can even the score for an insensitive dumping by putting video clips of you done by up like Greta Garbo on YouTube; but it doesn't have anything to do with keeping better tabs on the official actions of cops on the streets, or some exaggerated claim of loss of privacy suffered by those who interact with police on the other end of the clipboard and nightstick.
We delegate immense power to cops. They may give us lawful orders that we'd better obey if we don't wish to be arrested. The truth is that in most parts of America, the only people walking about habitually armed usually are cops of one kind or another and criminals; and normal citizens are at serious potential risk of EITHER if the cop doesn't treat that power with judgment, maturity and respect. Increasingly, they're not -- we're seeing a decided pattern of cops unable to control mundane situations of maintaining order or enforcing law without blasting away, lethally.
That wasn't part of the deal.
If there are concerns about loss of citizen privacy, then enact serious penalties for misuse of the videos and require that they be erased within one week if no use of police force is documented. But let's not allow a concern over a loss of privacy delay pushing body-mounted cameras on cops.
69
One man's suggestion that we mount micro cameras on guns is a great idea for ALL GUNS. No one who carries a gun, including civilians, of which we now have millions in states with essentially no gun laws and open carry, no person with a gun shouldn't also have to wear a camera or have one on the gun. I don't believe that the Constitution forbids that and it might go a long way toward providing some protection for those citizens who don't own, wear or use a gun.
3
Richard,
I agree but the fundamentals of the situation are much bigger than the minutiae of privacy concerns. Before the Reagan revolution you were on a road to a middle class democracy.
Here in "socialist" Canada our democratic evolution has seen our police forces reflect the aspirations of a middle-class society with middle-class mores and values. Our police have college degrees and some have post graduate degrees. They are paid middle-class wages and are often pillars of the community. When one of our officers is killed his entire community mourns because it has lost a valued community presence. He or she will be missed professionally and socially. This is true whether it is rural or urban.
Vigilante justice and the vigilantes that enforce it is not part of a 21st century middle-class democracy.Toronto's wealthiest and Toronto's poorest neighbourhoods are not separated by armed guards and high walls. We pay our police professional salaries so that they can live in our neighbourhoods and send their children to our schools. They are our police and don't belong to the 1%. They are our police not the vigilantes and hired guns of Ronald Reagan and the landowners of the old west.
I agree but the fundamentals of the situation are much bigger than the minutiae of privacy concerns. Before the Reagan revolution you were on a road to a middle class democracy.
Here in "socialist" Canada our democratic evolution has seen our police forces reflect the aspirations of a middle-class society with middle-class mores and values. Our police have college degrees and some have post graduate degrees. They are paid middle-class wages and are often pillars of the community. When one of our officers is killed his entire community mourns because it has lost a valued community presence. He or she will be missed professionally and socially. This is true whether it is rural or urban.
Vigilante justice and the vigilantes that enforce it is not part of a 21st century middle-class democracy.Toronto's wealthiest and Toronto's poorest neighbourhoods are not separated by armed guards and high walls. We pay our police professional salaries so that they can live in our neighbourhoods and send their children to our schools. They are our police and don't belong to the 1%. They are our police not the vigilantes and hired guns of Ronald Reagan and the landowners of the old west.
5
I mostly agree with you, Richard, except your suggestion that videos be erased within one week if no use of police force is documented. There are a lot of reasons the videos should be retained. They can be evidence of a crime and should be available to the prosecutor and the defense. They can be evidence of domestic abuse which the victim can use when seeking a Protection from Abuse order.
Yes, there should be guidelines for when the videos can be deleted, but not a guideline of a specific time frame except the Statute of Limitations time frame(s). Perhaps there should be a neutral body viewing the videos and guidelines describing the events in which the videos should be retained and events in which they can be deleted.
Yes, there should be guidelines for when the videos can be deleted, but not a guideline of a specific time frame except the Statute of Limitations time frame(s). Perhaps there should be a neutral body viewing the videos and guidelines describing the events in which the videos should be retained and events in which they can be deleted.
11
There 7 BILLION of us, way out of proportion to our place in the system. Privacy has vanished.
1
Earth to David Brooks:
The reason the public is asking for cop-cams is BECAUSE the public has lost confidence in the police to be humane with minorities.
Citizens recording embarrassing things sworn officers do revealed the naked truth: too many police insulting human dignity.
Cop-cams are the best disinfectant.
The reason the public is asking for cop-cams is BECAUSE the public has lost confidence in the police to be humane with minorities.
Citizens recording embarrassing things sworn officers do revealed the naked truth: too many police insulting human dignity.
Cop-cams are the best disinfectant.
14
On the other hand, Mr. Brooks, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the police and their love of shooting first and asking questions later needs to be walked away from the Blue Wall of Police Silence, Violence and Corruption.
What better way to stop police criminals from committing unprovoked manslaughter, murder and mayhem in the community and encouraging them to rejoin society.
Police can still joke around when they're being filmed.
Police can still exercise individual judgment when they're being filmed.
Police can still be lenient when they're being filmed.
Police can even still be violent, racist, bullying thugs and murderers when they're being filmed, but at least they'll be a public record of that behavior to sort out the bad from the good.
Keep in mind that the police are public employees, paid for by public dollars and employed to protect and serve the public.
Who's interest was served with the Staten Island police murder of the unarmed Eric Garner for selling cigarettes ?
Whose interest was served with the police murder of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland ?
Whose interest was served with police murder of unarmed, fleeing Walter Scott in South Carolina for a broken tail-light ?
Police cameras will serve the public where the police have failed to serve the public and instead have served their own paranoia, racism, narcissism and metastasized egos.
Police cameras are a stroke of modern justice against police authoritarianism.
That's a beautiful thing.
What better way to stop police criminals from committing unprovoked manslaughter, murder and mayhem in the community and encouraging them to rejoin society.
Police can still joke around when they're being filmed.
Police can still exercise individual judgment when they're being filmed.
Police can still be lenient when they're being filmed.
Police can even still be violent, racist, bullying thugs and murderers when they're being filmed, but at least they'll be a public record of that behavior to sort out the bad from the good.
Keep in mind that the police are public employees, paid for by public dollars and employed to protect and serve the public.
Who's interest was served with the Staten Island police murder of the unarmed Eric Garner for selling cigarettes ?
Whose interest was served with the police murder of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland ?
Whose interest was served with police murder of unarmed, fleeing Walter Scott in South Carolina for a broken tail-light ?
Police cameras will serve the public where the police have failed to serve the public and instead have served their own paranoia, racism, narcissism and metastasized egos.
Police cameras are a stroke of modern justice against police authoritarianism.
That's a beautiful thing.
113
Is society humane and trusting now? We lost that battle long ago when the untrustworthies took charge of governance
1
You miss the point, Mr.Brooks. What a policeman does in private is his or her business; what he or she does in public is OUR business.
You cannot tell me that the private lives of American policemen are being compromised by scrutiny; if they are compromised at all it is by the propaganda barrage of a Republican Right that believes in authoritarian government, and by Southern (and Nothern) racists who still cannot accept a Black president.
You REALLY think that Americans make up their own minds?
On the left, perhaps; on the right, the IQ's available for the task are too low.
You cannot tell me that the private lives of American policemen are being compromised by scrutiny; if they are compromised at all it is by the propaganda barrage of a Republican Right that believes in authoritarian government, and by Southern (and Nothern) racists who still cannot accept a Black president.
You REALLY think that Americans make up their own minds?
On the left, perhaps; on the right, the IQ's available for the task are too low.
3
I think the deeper issue is at what point do we sacrifice trust for intrusive observation? It's not just about cop-cams. It's about surveillance in general and a breakdown in American trust in each other, and with it, faith in American life. More and more, Americans are being told they must expose their privacy to acquire mandatory services, and when I say, mandatory, take for example, homeowners insurance, a prerequisite for a mortgage. For me to switch insurance, the insurance companies mandate coming into my home to inspect it. But of course, they want to write the binder first, so that the inspector can then aid in a rate increase by declaring something is amiss. Fact checking or underhanded?? The majority of applications I have filled out in the last five years demand to know if I'm divorced. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the real invasions of privacy and the crassness that corporate America has imposed on Americans. Our daily lives are under a microscope, whether being observed at a stop light or dissected on the internet.
I don't agree with cop cams. I think with cop cams comes less interest in hiring people with a brain in their head and integrity as a mandate. We may make mistakes, but we have safeguards: with so many cell phones on recording, few errors will go unnoticed. Let's not sacrifice every relationship we have with each other on the basis of what amounts to cynicism. We're literally destroying our freedom.
I don't agree with cop cams. I think with cop cams comes less interest in hiring people with a brain in their head and integrity as a mandate. We may make mistakes, but we have safeguards: with so many cell phones on recording, few errors will go unnoticed. Let's not sacrifice every relationship we have with each other on the basis of what amounts to cynicism. We're literally destroying our freedom.
2
David, most Police vehicles have cameras these days, yet it does not mean you get more tickets when they pull you over. Some officers still give you a break.
As for privacy, it's a question of trade offs. If it means that we all get the same treatment by the police on camera -As opposed to being treated differently based on your race or sartorial choice of the day, I suspect most people will happily oblige being recorded.
As for privacy, it's a question of trade offs. If it means that we all get the same treatment by the police on camera -As opposed to being treated differently based on your race or sartorial choice of the day, I suspect most people will happily oblige being recorded.
1
For those who interact regularly with law enforcement, the benefit of less discretionary rule-bending is probably far outweighed by the benefit of a life free from fears of police wrongdoing. But on a different note, let me use my personal experience to illustrate why body-cam implementation might work better than Mr. Brooks imagines.
Here in South Korea, video and audio recording is common in private school classrooms. At the one where I taught, random samples were used as a basis for evaluations, raises, and yearly re-signings. I learned that:
1. You get used to it pretty quickly. There's too much data from too many interactions to be monitored with meaningful frequency, so one tends to get on with things and forget about it until a problem arises. When things do get thorny, you're likely to think twice - and that's a good thing.
2. Observed parties inexplicably transgress anyway. When there WERE complaints, I was called in to evaluate what had gone wrong. I listened to a teacher turn a $60 one-to-one adult class into an hour-long soliloquy on how her anger management issues precluded her from teaching children because she "didn't know what she might do to them" and how her father had never loved her. She knew she was being recorded!
3. When complaints are unfounded, as they often are, recordings actually provide protection and defense.
It's just like monitoring customer service calls for quality assurance: it won't solve everything, but it can provide some redress.
Here in South Korea, video and audio recording is common in private school classrooms. At the one where I taught, random samples were used as a basis for evaluations, raises, and yearly re-signings. I learned that:
1. You get used to it pretty quickly. There's too much data from too many interactions to be monitored with meaningful frequency, so one tends to get on with things and forget about it until a problem arises. When things do get thorny, you're likely to think twice - and that's a good thing.
2. Observed parties inexplicably transgress anyway. When there WERE complaints, I was called in to evaluate what had gone wrong. I listened to a teacher turn a $60 one-to-one adult class into an hour-long soliloquy on how her anger management issues precluded her from teaching children because she "didn't know what she might do to them" and how her father had never loved her. She knew she was being recorded!
3. When complaints are unfounded, as they often are, recordings actually provide protection and defense.
It's just like monitoring customer service calls for quality assurance: it won't solve everything, but it can provide some redress.
1
Cop cams should be thought of as a mechanically imposed form of superego for a profession which seems to have a good many members in need of some means of regulation of right and wrong and feelings of guilt.
'Policing the police'.
'Policing the police'.
A welcome opinion piece and a particularly interesting attempt to list reasons why "privacy is important". I never had given this much thought, but rather had seen the need for privacy in the same light as "freedom of speech" and "freedom to congregate" and "right to reign over home and property", that is, as just another inalienable right important for human progress and fulfillment in the most abstract sense. But such philosophical abstractions are now a thing of the past, we have entered a world were Homo sapiens is justly described in psychoanalytical terms. And yet I can't exactly put my finger on it, but there is something wrong there, a contradiction, and I think it is that this type of analysis boxes in Homo sapiens according to the predictable laws of science, and, isn't that just another step in our ongoing process of self-incarceration?
1
Mr. Brooks is right that juries will not convict people unless a crime is caught on video. I was on a hung jury once that did not convict for the theft of a gold necklace because the thief broke into the apartment, rummaged around the room, picked up the necklace (and other things), but was off camera when he (supposedly) put the necklace in his pocket to leave. The fact that the video did not capture the actual theft was the reason the defendant won.
We should not be fooled into thinking that video cameras will provide more just outcomes in all, or maybe even most, cases.
We should not be fooled into thinking that video cameras will provide more just outcomes in all, or maybe even most, cases.
1
When one group controls the technology -- in this case the body cameras -- they will figure out a way to make the technology work best for them. That's why I'm not a proponent of cop cams.
1
David Brooks, you can go on and on about the losses because you've never been harassed or beaten for, say, being a black man. You might think about the gains of body-mounted cameras.
2
Oh please! Right now we have a form of policing that allows the police to knock down your door with a modicum of "announcement", point a weapin at you and your family, demand total submission (down to "body language") to their authority, and tolerates no questioning of that authority during their intrusion; and you're suggesting that a citizen is worried that they are going to be denied the policemen's affection and distribution of "good will" because there's video of the exchange. There's a metaphor for an abusive co-dependency relationship for you!
4
One aspect of privacy that flows from this column: What kind of security measures and policies will protect the public from the exposure of the camera footage? For instance, how much camera footage will be available like 911 calls? Who will adjudicate the release of footage that makes the police look good while humiliating individuals? There are no easy answers here, and I hope the public and the police will continue to carefully steward the use of body cameras.
Alas, David, we are already far down the path toward the complete elimination of privacy as foreseen by George Orwell. Because we want "safe schools" we are spending millions of dollars to videotape classrooms, school buses, and street corners. Once cop-cams are accepted, expect "teacher-cams" and "Principal cams" to come next. Employers seeking efficiency in the workplace already use chips and video cameras to monitor their employees. Once cop-cams are accepted expect "worker cams" to proliferate. Finally, with "transparency" the watchword at all levels of government maybe we could push for "lobby-cams"...
1
I don't agree WF...the police are armed; that's the difference here.
David, have you or your readers ever considered the "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" effects. We teach our children on Christmas a man in red will shower us with toys, but "you'd better watch out." "He sees you when you're sleeping; he knows when you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good; so be good for goodness sake." I ask this, as the whole "Santa Claus" thing was once a debate in my young house. There is a lesson in there for children --- I guess. Thoughts?
Fair points and I agree about the unease associated with cop-cams. But, by themselves I don't think that they will provide a solution. Somewhere in the last decade or more, I feel police training has changed to be more militaristic - from equipment to mindset; almost as if they are in enemy territory each time they go out. Unless this facet changes (and I think it can change only through training), cop-cams will only serve as more reasons for us to distrust cops.
1
I know longer think retraining is effective or adequate with the current personalities in our law enforcement system. We need a nearly complete turnover of pesonnel with arbiters outside the police force determining who gets hired.
So Brooks fears loss of his white privileges because of video cameras. That is true. Things will be more fairer. You will get a ticket too, and not a warning because you have money and are white.
7
This morning I read abut the TPP secret negotiations as well as about a man prosecuted for having sex with his wife who has Alzheimer's. Yesterday it was reported that because a Maryland couple let their children walk home from the park, the parents were forced into signing a temporary plan to ensure their children were supervised at all times.
It seems our notions at every level of society of what should be private and what should be public are muddled. Technology has made the problem even more complicated than ever, and we shouldn't assume there can always be easy answers.
Mr. Brooks is right in pointing out that something is lost when the camera intrudes. No doubt the complicated TPP talks will run more smoothly if they are carried out in secrecy. No doubt a policeman who is seen as a friendly person with whom you can share confidences can often be more effective. But international corporations wield what is beginning to seem like unlimited power, and the police are armed. Even if something is lost by demanding transparency, we need to do what is necessary to make sure they do not abuse their power.
Instead we intrude into the lives of parents and spouses whose actions we believe we actually can have some control over. Of course truly abusive family members need to be stopped, but even if we feel powerless to fight our biggest problems, we need to focus more on checking the abuses of those with money, power, and arms.
It seems our notions at every level of society of what should be private and what should be public are muddled. Technology has made the problem even more complicated than ever, and we shouldn't assume there can always be easy answers.
Mr. Brooks is right in pointing out that something is lost when the camera intrudes. No doubt the complicated TPP talks will run more smoothly if they are carried out in secrecy. No doubt a policeman who is seen as a friendly person with whom you can share confidences can often be more effective. But international corporations wield what is beginning to seem like unlimited power, and the police are armed. Even if something is lost by demanding transparency, we need to do what is necessary to make sure they do not abuse their power.
Instead we intrude into the lives of parents and spouses whose actions we believe we actually can have some control over. Of course truly abusive family members need to be stopped, but even if we feel powerless to fight our biggest problems, we need to focus more on checking the abuses of those with money, power, and arms.
14
I don't think that humans, after they learned to talk and spy on each other, have had true privacy for eons. Poor people certainly have no privacy since everyone feels free to tell them how to live their lives. Others of us have had more privacy but with all the electronic tracking that goes on with cellphones, cookies on the Internet, cameras in public places recording what we do and do not do, our space for privacy has lessened. What I worry about more is the misinterpretation of what I do or don't do. There are times when a recording can clear that up. But recordings cannot replace willful disregard of what's happening, anyone's attempt to continue a deadly assault, their attempt to cover up what they did, or the disrespect law enforcement shows towards civilians.
My privacy is not respected by telemarketers, the phone companies, on the internet, in a doctor's office, or anywhere unless I'm home alone. Data about me is collected and required in some cases whether I want it to be or not. Stores have posted cameras in dressing rooms to prevent theft of clothing. I'm sure that somewhere a hotel has cameras in its rooms to stop patrons from stealing the sheets or lamps. If the cameras cops wear can be part of a strategy to prevent the actions Mr. Slager took when he shot Mr. Scott 8 times in the back they could be a worthwhile trade off. Both civilian and officer might be more careful in their dealings with each other if they know there is a record being made.
My privacy is not respected by telemarketers, the phone companies, on the internet, in a doctor's office, or anywhere unless I'm home alone. Data about me is collected and required in some cases whether I want it to be or not. Stores have posted cameras in dressing rooms to prevent theft of clothing. I'm sure that somewhere a hotel has cameras in its rooms to stop patrons from stealing the sheets or lamps. If the cameras cops wear can be part of a strategy to prevent the actions Mr. Slager took when he shot Mr. Scott 8 times in the back they could be a worthwhile trade off. Both civilian and officer might be more careful in their dealings with each other if they know there is a record being made.
5
The camera will record only a portion of what happens. As we learned after the Rodney King beating, a story can be spun to exonerate the cops. In that case, numbers of cops stood around watching the beating of a man already on the ground. I still cannot understand how so many people argued that was acceptable police procedure. Police and the members of the community may both behave better knowing the interaction is being recorded. Cameras will not solve the problems of cops thinking they are better than the average citizen, their skewed world view, or the atmosphere of peer-supported racial biases. By the way, cops in L.A. are already prone to write that ticket.
4
Regulation of businesses? Rank!
Too often reveals hanky pank,
CEO's inner zone
Should be left alone,
Most of all, those who head a bank!
Too often reveals hanky pank,
CEO's inner zone
Should be left alone,
Most of all, those who head a bank!
8
"Cop-cams chip away at (trust). The cameras will undermine communal bonds."
No. While I have numerous, life-long friends in law enforcement - many who are now at the tops of their various police departments - I have to disagree with the premise that public officials are entitled to privacy while doing the most critical part of their jobs.
To be clear, I don't need to see webcams of police officers eating lunch, going to the restroom, or having conversations around the water cooler, in the locker room, or in meetings in private offices with their superiors or subordinates. ...But while they are on patrol or in the middle of an encounter with the public, I think they are and need to be considered "on the record." They are, after all, commissioned officers who are public servants.
If a dash-cam or security camera footage are admissible in court to be used against the accused, then they can (and should) also be used to keep police officers honest. Keeping the process honest is a two-way street. As public servants, they do not (or should not) get to dictate otherwise.
Good police officers will have nothing to worry about. The footage could also be used to substantiate positive claims about their public service.
No. While I have numerous, life-long friends in law enforcement - many who are now at the tops of their various police departments - I have to disagree with the premise that public officials are entitled to privacy while doing the most critical part of their jobs.
To be clear, I don't need to see webcams of police officers eating lunch, going to the restroom, or having conversations around the water cooler, in the locker room, or in meetings in private offices with their superiors or subordinates. ...But while they are on patrol or in the middle of an encounter with the public, I think they are and need to be considered "on the record." They are, after all, commissioned officers who are public servants.
If a dash-cam or security camera footage are admissible in court to be used against the accused, then they can (and should) also be used to keep police officers honest. Keeping the process honest is a two-way street. As public servants, they do not (or should not) get to dictate otherwise.
Good police officers will have nothing to worry about. The footage could also be used to substantiate positive claims about their public service.
28
You missed Brook's point entirely.
The privacy lost is not that of the policeman. It is of the person that the policeman's body camera records.
One might also see an increased incidence of people being hit with criminal prosecutions because of what is actually revealed by the tape. The police will lose a certain degree of discretion.
I, like Brooks, favor the concept of body cameras on government officials. And I would not limit it to just the police.
But there is is one other problem with video evidence...
Given the character of the video lens and the angles at which the tape is shot, the video itself can be downright misleading if not flat-out wrong.
Video evidence must not be seen as the definitive answer to anything.
The privacy lost is not that of the policeman. It is of the person that the policeman's body camera records.
One might also see an increased incidence of people being hit with criminal prosecutions because of what is actually revealed by the tape. The police will lose a certain degree of discretion.
I, like Brooks, favor the concept of body cameras on government officials. And I would not limit it to just the police.
But there is is one other problem with video evidence...
Given the character of the video lens and the angles at which the tape is shot, the video itself can be downright misleading if not flat-out wrong.
Video evidence must not be seen as the definitive answer to anything.
Exactly. Mr Brooks' hand-wringing is emblematic of wealthy white man privilege. The local constabulary and I will be forced to be more formal with one another if we use cop-cams.
The overwhelming majority of police officers in the US are not violent racist corrupt thugs. But the system protects the very few who are and that system has been protecting them for decades.
No more.
Public servants should never fear being held to account (and after all, not shooting an unarmed person in the back several times or not strangling an unarmed man to death with an illegal hold or not shooting a twelve-year-old with a toy should be the lowest of bars to meet. That they apparently aren't means the police must be watched. Period. Every single time they encounter they public they are sworn to serve.
Not to worry, Mr Brooks, I'm sure the Commissioner will still take your calls and meet you for a private lunch at your club.
The overwhelming majority of police officers in the US are not violent racist corrupt thugs. But the system protects the very few who are and that system has been protecting them for decades.
No more.
Public servants should never fear being held to account (and after all, not shooting an unarmed person in the back several times or not strangling an unarmed man to death with an illegal hold or not shooting a twelve-year-old with a toy should be the lowest of bars to meet. That they apparently aren't means the police must be watched. Period. Every single time they encounter they public they are sworn to serve.
Not to worry, Mr Brooks, I'm sure the Commissioner will still take your calls and meet you for a private lunch at your club.
In the old days, supposed confessions were not recorded because the cops often abused the alleged confessor. Corrupt conduct by the cops--throw down guns, the blue wall of silence, beatings--required transparency. It was not privacy the cops are protecting, but their own misconduct.
What should worry you much more Mr. Brooks is the NSA spying on our every move. Ever since Obama declared he "welcomed the debate" on NSA spying there has been no real debate. The NSA will never give up its quest for knowing everything about what you and I do, even though neither of us are suspected of committing a crime.
Body cams will decrease police violence and lying. Turning our smart phones into spying devices achieves no social good and is unconstitutional. I know, citing the constitution to protect one's privacy rights is a bit sentimental because most folks believe the constitution only protects their right to carry guns.
What should worry you much more Mr. Brooks is the NSA spying on our every move. Ever since Obama declared he "welcomed the debate" on NSA spying there has been no real debate. The NSA will never give up its quest for knowing everything about what you and I do, even though neither of us are suspected of committing a crime.
Body cams will decrease police violence and lying. Turning our smart phones into spying devices achieves no social good and is unconstitutional. I know, citing the constitution to protect one's privacy rights is a bit sentimental because most folks believe the constitution only protects their right to carry guns.
22
I think you have an extremely narrow and cynical view of your fellow citizens.
None of my friends who have a undying respect for out Constitution even own a gun.
...I certainly don't.
None of my friends who have a undying respect for out Constitution even own a gun.
...I certainly don't.
I'll start worrying about the NSA's complete non-interest in my life and actions, when the corporate snoops stop invading my privacy on a minute by minute basis for their profits. And from where exactly do you think the majority of that NSA data comes?
If there ever was a confusion of real-world priorities for the vast majority of Americans, this obsession with the NSA "spying" on U.S. citizens while we gleefully give up our privacy to the corporate datamongers has got to be near the top.
If there ever was a confusion of real-world priorities for the vast majority of Americans, this obsession with the NSA "spying" on U.S. citizens while we gleefully give up our privacy to the corporate datamongers has got to be near the top.
1
Of course, it is possible to protect citizens' privacy by developing regulations around the preservation and sharing of video. I'm surprised Brooks doesn't mention this. The use of video would likely create more transparency around all police procedures, including meeting arbitrary ticketing quotas. This is an issue that will evolve.
15
His point is that those "regulations" will be, like the dodo, extinct within a short period of time.
Asking all the clerks and others dealing with information in your average city government to add in yet another layer of security or privacy will be surprisingly difficult. We're talking new hires earning minimum wage and Sheriff Andy of Mayberry a lot more often more often than Law & Order: SVU.
Remember how many rape kits that aren't even tested yet simply because of lab delays and tight budgets.
Remember how many rape kits that aren't even tested yet simply because of lab delays and tight budgets.
David, a cop-cam is a technological check-and-balance, a way of insuring that law enforcement does not routinely trample on the rights of those subject to their authority.
Obviously, in a better world, this kind of check-and-balance would be unnecessary - due to the presence of an internal bar against abusive behavior. But for that kind of internal bar to be present, cops would have to be trained in a kind of yoga of law enforcement - a process through which they become skilled at regularly disarming their own either deeply-ingrained or occupationally-induced prejudices and tendencies towards inhumanity. While the latter would be strongly preferable to the technological method, and even admirable, it does not appear realistic. Hence the need for the cop cam.
David, we ask the police officer to play a difficult role in our society - to keep a lid on the sewer that our exploitative approach to economics and seemingly insatiable appetite for violence naturally creates. Some cops are clearly able to do this job without themselves being contaminated by the contents of that sewer - while others are either unable to do so or even attracted to the job because of it.
David, the sad truth of American society is that people we often imagine as the greatest embodiments of character within it, like the all-too-human policemen we give the guns to, and self-righteous politicians and 'wealth-creators' we trust our futures to, are often anything but.
Obviously, in a better world, this kind of check-and-balance would be unnecessary - due to the presence of an internal bar against abusive behavior. But for that kind of internal bar to be present, cops would have to be trained in a kind of yoga of law enforcement - a process through which they become skilled at regularly disarming their own either deeply-ingrained or occupationally-induced prejudices and tendencies towards inhumanity. While the latter would be strongly preferable to the technological method, and even admirable, it does not appear realistic. Hence the need for the cop cam.
David, we ask the police officer to play a difficult role in our society - to keep a lid on the sewer that our exploitative approach to economics and seemingly insatiable appetite for violence naturally creates. Some cops are clearly able to do this job without themselves being contaminated by the contents of that sewer - while others are either unable to do so or even attracted to the job because of it.
David, the sad truth of American society is that people we often imagine as the greatest embodiments of character within it, like the all-too-human policemen we give the guns to, and self-righteous politicians and 'wealth-creators' we trust our futures to, are often anything but.
35
Part of the problem is certain cops believing that they are dealing with only a "sewer," and not people. I agree, policing is a tough job. Good cops learn how to de-escalate, including their own emotions. When that happens we don't hear about it but instead hear and see the glaring opposite. That makes news. Shooting appears as a first rather than last resort.
3
You can hem and haw about introducing an omniscient eye into situations that a at great risk for manipulation, but I always follow the wisdom of this quote:
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
When everyone can see what you're doing, your less likely to be a bad actor. And at the very least, chances are you will be caught. While folks who like guns may say an armed nation is a polite nation, I instead say a transparent nation is a polite nation.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
When everyone can see what you're doing, your less likely to be a bad actor. And at the very least, chances are you will be caught. While folks who like guns may say an armed nation is a polite nation, I instead say a transparent nation is a polite nation.
22
There's no tooth fairy, David, just the modern world that grew and developed according to principles that you advocate and defend.
When I step outside my home I have no expectation of privacy. On the rare occasion a cop or a fed of any kind came into my home, I had nothing to hide, and he certainly had no way to record my thoughts.
As for home invasions by cops, some are totally unjustified--people have died as a result of a brutal "incursion" based on bad information and bad practice. Such events should be recorded so that the cops and/or their supervisors may be disciplined.
When we are a society that respects difference and rejects widespread demonization of political opponents, when we can trust every cop, then we may not need body-cams.
When I step outside my home I have no expectation of privacy. On the rare occasion a cop or a fed of any kind came into my home, I had nothing to hide, and he certainly had no way to record my thoughts.
As for home invasions by cops, some are totally unjustified--people have died as a result of a brutal "incursion" based on bad information and bad practice. Such events should be recorded so that the cops and/or their supervisors may be disciplined.
When we are a society that respects difference and rejects widespread demonization of political opponents, when we can trust every cop, then we may not need body-cams.
26
The essence of the op-ed is will the behaviour modification caused by a video record positively or negatively influence society let us do controlled experiments.
I would suggest that if Dick Cheney was forced to wear a camera when he met with the executives of big oil when Jr took over the Oval Office hundreds of thousands of lives would have not been lost. Maybe for those that believe society is made up of givers and takers and the benefits should flow from the top down cameras should be worn by those at the top so their behaviour can closely be monitored.
I am willing to bet that that cameras on CEOs and politicians would change the complexion of our prisons and police would have much more important things to do than display their power in disadvantaged communities.
The police here in Canada are well paid, well educated and well trained professionals and are fitting representatives of an empowered middle class society and even so we still have some rogue officers. Instead of guns and cameras I would prefer we talk about police armed with degrees in psychology and sociology and middle class values and wages.
Chicago has many fine professional and educated police officers but the stratification of American society makes them more vigilantes than representatives of a society dedicated to equality before the law.
I would suggest that if Dick Cheney was forced to wear a camera when he met with the executives of big oil when Jr took over the Oval Office hundreds of thousands of lives would have not been lost. Maybe for those that believe society is made up of givers and takers and the benefits should flow from the top down cameras should be worn by those at the top so their behaviour can closely be monitored.
I am willing to bet that that cameras on CEOs and politicians would change the complexion of our prisons and police would have much more important things to do than display their power in disadvantaged communities.
The police here in Canada are well paid, well educated and well trained professionals and are fitting representatives of an empowered middle class society and even so we still have some rogue officers. Instead of guns and cameras I would prefer we talk about police armed with degrees in psychology and sociology and middle class values and wages.
Chicago has many fine professional and educated police officers but the stratification of American society makes them more vigilantes than representatives of a society dedicated to equality before the law.
84
"I would suggest that if Dick Cheney was forced to wear a camera when he met with the executives of big oil when Jr took over the Oval Office hundreds of thousands of lives would have not been lost."
Excellent point.
Excellent point.
1
As pointed out by so many, the police are supposed to be civilian; the army is non-civilian and therefore does not have duties internal to the country. "Police-civilian relations" means already that we are over-militarized.
35
You're absolutely right Mr. Brooks. There has been too many cases in which police officers have abused their authority and then covered it up. (Often with help.) And now we will all pay a price for it. But this new price is a lot better than the price paid for many years by the victims of their abuse.
23
You forgot to add that cameras will likely make cops fairer, which is a bad thing for me but a good thing for society as a whole. As a white woman I've found all of the recent exposure of police brutality eye opening since my personal experience with police has always been a pleasant inconvenience. The same week that Mr. Scott was killed by a police officer over a broken tail light I was stopped over my own broken tail light. The police officer checked my license and registration and told me to get it fixed without issuing me any citation. The interaction ended with both of us commenting on the weather and telling the other to have a nice day. In a fair world Mr. Scott and I both would have gotten a ticket over this similar infraction, in this one he's dead and I had a 5 minute inconvenience in my day.
71
Thank you for sharing this. It brings the disparity between your experience and Mr Scott into sharp focus. Also a white women, my only interaction with police was when I was stopped for speeding by a state trooper in Ct. The policeman asked me to slow down and didn't give me a ticket. He was kind and friendly, and left me with a good feeling for police to this day. All americans deserve this same treatment.
Scott was driving without insurance in a car he did not own, and he was lying about it to the cop. Then he ran away from the cop. I dare say your situation was different.
We live in an age, in this country, where any reality, no matter how obvious, is debated to death for political purposes. Does White privilege really exist? Is global warming a hoax? Do cigarettes cause cancer? Are guns really the problem? The heated debates about the more publicized killings in Florida ("stand your ground") and Ferguson ("hands up") were fueled by a lack of clear, visual evidence that allowed people to ignore all evidence and basically go off on their own agendas.
Sadly, we have reached a point where police body cams are needed to force people to see what's in front of them, to really get to know their local police. Perhaps we need to do the same on Wall Street, in the chambers of the Supreme Court, and in Congress. Put body cams on everybody who effects our lives. We all know that much is wrong in our society. We just don't want to see it.
Sadly, we have reached a point where police body cams are needed to force people to see what's in front of them, to really get to know their local police. Perhaps we need to do the same on Wall Street, in the chambers of the Supreme Court, and in Congress. Put body cams on everybody who effects our lives. We all know that much is wrong in our society. We just don't want to see it.
18
Cop cams are there to protect civilians just as the police are there to protect civilians. We need them because our policemen have turned their backs on Mayor DeBlasio and the public when they are criticized when their colleagues use excessive force. They have earned distrust.
Privacy? I am much more concerned with the NSA and corporate data mining than I am about cop cams. We should all be concerned for as David points out, invading our privacy is evidence that "they" don't trust us. It is also evidence that we should not trust "them".
Intimacy? Intimacy is undermined by technology. All of life is ephemeral. Technology freezes events, voices, subtle non verbal cues, momentary glances in such a way that all of perceived reality can be scrutinized in a singularly non organic, static way. How can we reconcile technology with our chaotic existence? Turn it off, walk away, establish "safe zones" that are tech free? We may have to become far more introspective than cop cams to answer that question. Better to create an environment where our every action is not recorded for later exploitation, where fear is not a constant tool of certain politicians, where prejudice and hatred cannot be evoked for political gain. It is so much easier to mandate cop cams.
Privacy? I am much more concerned with the NSA and corporate data mining than I am about cop cams. We should all be concerned for as David points out, invading our privacy is evidence that "they" don't trust us. It is also evidence that we should not trust "them".
Intimacy? Intimacy is undermined by technology. All of life is ephemeral. Technology freezes events, voices, subtle non verbal cues, momentary glances in such a way that all of perceived reality can be scrutinized in a singularly non organic, static way. How can we reconcile technology with our chaotic existence? Turn it off, walk away, establish "safe zones" that are tech free? We may have to become far more introspective than cop cams to answer that question. Better to create an environment where our every action is not recorded for later exploitation, where fear is not a constant tool of certain politicians, where prejudice and hatred cannot be evoked for political gain. It is so much easier to mandate cop cams.
6
Cop cams are also there to protect the policeman from the Al Sharptons of the world who scream foul when none is warranted.
1
Coming from a family with some police and attorneys, we are supportive of cop cams for the reverse reason, namely to verify the report and the professional conduct of the police. The public is ready to pull the abuse card and all too often it is the word of the police against the individual with biased witnesses as well. So far, the number of incidents where police are accused of something has been declining and it is also making the prosecutor's and defense attorney job easier as well. A picture is worth a thousand words. We do not doubt that there are police that act unprofessionally but in the three different states where they are being used, they are working. The police that are using them are exercising discretion and none of the footage is being released to the public and used only for its intended purpose, namely evidence. Fix the laws governing the use of cop cams but do not take this useful tool away from law enforcement.
14
I appreciate your input. It seems that rational people on both sides of these questions ought to see that the cameras will protect everybody's interests - cops who are doing their jobs in a completely above-board, professional manner will be protected against false claims of abuse or brutality, the same as citizens who _have_ been abused by the police will find it much easier to get recompense. Everybody wins. (Except bad cops, and presumably, good cops agree with that.)
There are malicious, amoral, avaricious cheats in society who really cost each of us. As an apt example during this tax week, think of all of the secrets and lies that some use in dealing with the IRS to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Consider the equitable simplicity of having all of our economic data potentially available to confirm that one's behavior has been forthrigh. I have often felt that I would gladly suffer the potential consequences of someone seeing my secrets to reduce the amount of cruelty and dishonesty from which we all suffer.
3
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman." - Justice Louis Brandeis.
15
If I accept the Reagan doctrine, trusting and verifying when performed together, like love and marriage, make for a better world. So, why all the fuss?
In private, members of most fire departments will admit that almost every fire fighting organization attracts a small minority of arsonists to its ranks. That policing organizations attract a similar number of psychopaths who prefer the gun to the hook and ladder can no longer be denied. Admit they are there, and root out the rotten apples, because camera or not, they make the whole bunch rotten.
9
It's too bad Mr. Brooks feels that body cameras will lessen that special "communal bond" citizens have with the police. What shocking naivete'.
I only wish that he would muse about all the beatings, and "police shooting incidents", where the truth has gone unrecorded over the last 10, 20 , 30, 50,.... 100 years, The brutality visited upon not just the minority communities, but on society as a whole. What shame and anger we should all feel at the revelation of what really happens on the streets of America under the banner of "To Protect and Serve". Thank the Lord for the video camera.
And for Mr. Brooks to feel sad about the police being forced to deal with the public "by the book", according to regulations, how absurd. I'm sure that the sadness won't be matched in the homes of those citizens abused over the years.
To the "good" cop that resents wearing the body cam, I can only say that your brothers in blue have earned it by their behavior. Wear it with honor and pride.....and make sure that you record every last encounter with it. Your job will depend on it.
I only wish that he would muse about all the beatings, and "police shooting incidents", where the truth has gone unrecorded over the last 10, 20 , 30, 50,.... 100 years, The brutality visited upon not just the minority communities, but on society as a whole. What shame and anger we should all feel at the revelation of what really happens on the streets of America under the banner of "To Protect and Serve". Thank the Lord for the video camera.
And for Mr. Brooks to feel sad about the police being forced to deal with the public "by the book", according to regulations, how absurd. I'm sure that the sadness won't be matched in the homes of those citizens abused over the years.
To the "good" cop that resents wearing the body cam, I can only say that your brothers in blue have earned it by their behavior. Wear it with honor and pride.....and make sure that you record every last encounter with it. Your job will depend on it.
35
How about, within all -- not just some -- boundaries we look out for each other? Why does there have to be a boundary between us and them?
Why do cops have to do favors for some and lie about others? This is also inconsistent with the idea that everybody should follow a rulebook or code, which these columns often advocate.
The status quo got us to where we are. Lamenting its loss seems to me to miss the point.
Why do cops have to do favors for some and lie about others? This is also inconsistent with the idea that everybody should follow a rulebook or code, which these columns often advocate.
The status quo got us to where we are. Lamenting its loss seems to me to miss the point.
15
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Argued just like a well off white guy would argue the case,
For in the neighborhoods where you don't travel, the cops are viewed with as much distrust as any felons walking the street. In fact, even worse as the police can, and do, tailor the circumstances to support their claims. It seems, at least until now, that a cop just had to say "I feared for my life" and any action he/she took would be "forgiven". A civilian videoing the latest brutality caught an officer not only pumping EIGHT rounds into a black man's back but trying to plant evidence to support his claim of a struggle. Without that video, the officer's claim would have probably been believed.
In reality, the cops wouldn't need "body cams" if they behaved in a professional manner as opposed to operating like some special "club" whose members can break the very laws they are supposed to enforce and then cry about how tough their job is.
We don't live in an "ideal" world but we should live in a world where one's color doesn't make one a "target" for law enforcement.
Obviously, this country isn't even close to such a standard hence body cams for cops makes perfect sense if they help, even in a small way, to make for better police officers.
If the police feel "insulted" by such a demand, they brought this distrust upon themselves. Fixing traffic tickets is one thing; shooting people dead because they're a person of color is quite another.
Time for us to "police" the police; cameras are a good start
Argued just like a well off white guy would argue the case,
For in the neighborhoods where you don't travel, the cops are viewed with as much distrust as any felons walking the street. In fact, even worse as the police can, and do, tailor the circumstances to support their claims. It seems, at least until now, that a cop just had to say "I feared for my life" and any action he/she took would be "forgiven". A civilian videoing the latest brutality caught an officer not only pumping EIGHT rounds into a black man's back but trying to plant evidence to support his claim of a struggle. Without that video, the officer's claim would have probably been believed.
In reality, the cops wouldn't need "body cams" if they behaved in a professional manner as opposed to operating like some special "club" whose members can break the very laws they are supposed to enforce and then cry about how tough their job is.
We don't live in an "ideal" world but we should live in a world where one's color doesn't make one a "target" for law enforcement.
Obviously, this country isn't even close to such a standard hence body cams for cops makes perfect sense if they help, even in a small way, to make for better police officers.
If the police feel "insulted" by such a demand, they brought this distrust upon themselves. Fixing traffic tickets is one thing; shooting people dead because they're a person of color is quite another.
Time for us to "police" the police; cameras are a good start
66
I may be a white male who identifies as conservative, but I don't agree with the objections here at all. I don't want my interactions with an officer to be like an "intimate friendship". I want them to be "oppositional and transactional". As a law-abiding citizen, I want to reduce the gray areas so that I'm not wrongly accused of a crime. On the other hand, if I'm speeding and endangering lives, give me (or my neighbor) a ticket. Why should I have the privelege of talking myself out of one? The law is the law.
Privacy is a beautiful and fragile thing, and Brooks is right to cherish it. But, there are some professions at the limbus of or social order, where there is the great temptation of personal enrichment (bribery and corruption) or the siren song of self indulgence (succumbing to the thrill of power). Politicians, customs agents, border guards and police officers all operate in this shadowy realm. Privacy has its place, but not there.
Privacy is a beautiful and fragile thing, and Brooks is right to cherish it. But, there are some professions at the limbus of or social order, where there is the great temptation of personal enrichment (bribery and corruption) or the siren song of self indulgence (succumbing to the thrill of power). Politicians, customs agents, border guards and police officers all operate in this shadowy realm. Privacy has its place, but not there.
78
Very nicely put.
They're public servants. No one wants to make them wear cameras when they're at home, off duty, out to dinner, whatever. Their interactions with the public are the essence of their job, and there isn't any legitimate "zone of privacy" around such interactions. If there has been a "zone of privacy" around police activity historically, the evidence is very solid that its purpose was to protect not the public, but misbehaving cops. Mr. Police Commissioner, tear down that wall.
They're public servants. No one wants to make them wear cameras when they're at home, off duty, out to dinner, whatever. Their interactions with the public are the essence of their job, and there isn't any legitimate "zone of privacy" around such interactions. If there has been a "zone of privacy" around police activity historically, the evidence is very solid that its purpose was to protect not the public, but misbehaving cops. Mr. Police Commissioner, tear down that wall.
1
The cop-cams see what the cop sees. The only difference between a cop-cam seeing something and the cop seeing something is that the cop-cam can't lie about it.
First, Brooks mentions that cops coming into your home will see everything in your home. But the right response (if you value your privacy) to the police knocking on your door unless they have a warrant to enter, according to all the civil liberties groups out there, is to exit your home and talk to them outside. If the cops come into your home without your permission (e.g. serving a search warrant), then the cop-cams protect you in the event that the police "find" something they brought with them.
Second, the police already use lots of techniques to create psychological distance between officers and everyone else: Uniforms, badges, and so forth. The only reason Mr Brooks would remotely consider trusting them is that he's a fairly rich white guy in a suit: A poor black woman or a hippie protester already knows to never trust the police, and behaves accordingly.
So with a little bit of thinking this through, you'll realize that Mr Brooks' argument is total nonsense.
First, Brooks mentions that cops coming into your home will see everything in your home. But the right response (if you value your privacy) to the police knocking on your door unless they have a warrant to enter, according to all the civil liberties groups out there, is to exit your home and talk to them outside. If the cops come into your home without your permission (e.g. serving a search warrant), then the cop-cams protect you in the event that the police "find" something they brought with them.
Second, the police already use lots of techniques to create psychological distance between officers and everyone else: Uniforms, badges, and so forth. The only reason Mr Brooks would remotely consider trusting them is that he's a fairly rich white guy in a suit: A poor black woman or a hippie protester already knows to never trust the police, and behaves accordingly.
So with a little bit of thinking this through, you'll realize that Mr Brooks' argument is total nonsense.
29
Davis bemoans a lack of "privacy". How quaint, now that, in our post 9-11 world, our government can read every e-mail, listen to every phone conversation, spy on every text and social media posting.
As the old Police song goes: "Every breath you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you."
Putting cameras on cops should be the least of our worries.
As the old Police song goes: "Every breath you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you."
Putting cameras on cops should be the least of our worries.
20
Privacy is a 20th century concept. Prior to that people lived in caves and small villages where everyone knew everyone else's business. That's why we love gossip so much. It's inbuilt in our evolutionary biology. In olden days, it was a source of information necessary for survival.
4
The number of people in the USA that would commit murder is approximately four thousandths of a percent. So why police everyone?
There are bad cops. Cops are human and subject to having bad days like everyone else. Recent news stories about wrongful convictions have indicated that a small number of Judges and Prosecutors are sociopathic- another reason why we need police to wear body cams.
The concept of "Big Brother" watching over us has been around for a long time. Now we have reached the point where "Big Bother" needs to watch over"Big Brother". So be it!
There are bad cops. Cops are human and subject to having bad days like everyone else. Recent news stories about wrongful convictions have indicated that a small number of Judges and Prosecutors are sociopathic- another reason why we need police to wear body cams.
The concept of "Big Brother" watching over us has been around for a long time. Now we have reached the point where "Big Bother" needs to watch over"Big Brother". So be it!
8
For those who interact regularly with police, the benefits of less discretionary rule-bending are probably far outweighed by the benefits of a life free from fears of police abuse. But I'll use my own experience to illustrate why body-cam implementation might go more smoothly than Mr. Brooks imagines.
Here in South Korea, video and audio recording is commonplace in private school classrooms. At the one where I taught, random samples were used as a basis for evaluations, raises, and yearly re-signing. I learned that:
1. You get used to it pretty quickly. There's too much data on too many interactions to be processed with meaningful frequency, so one largely gets on with things and forgets about it unless a problem arises. When situations get thorny, though, you think twice - and that's a good thing.
2. The observed parties inexplicably transgress anyway. When there WERE complaints, I was called in to evaluate what had gone wrong. Guess what? I listened to a $60 one-to-one adult class in which the teacher delivered an hour-long soliloquy on how she couldn't teach kids because her anger management issues made her "afraid what she might do to them" and how her father had never loved her. She knew she was being recorded!
3. When complaints are unfounded, as many are, it's actually a defense that works in favor of the teacher.
It's just like monitoring customer service calls for quality control: it won't solve everything, but it can provide some redress.
Here in South Korea, video and audio recording is commonplace in private school classrooms. At the one where I taught, random samples were used as a basis for evaluations, raises, and yearly re-signing. I learned that:
1. You get used to it pretty quickly. There's too much data on too many interactions to be processed with meaningful frequency, so one largely gets on with things and forgets about it unless a problem arises. When situations get thorny, though, you think twice - and that's a good thing.
2. The observed parties inexplicably transgress anyway. When there WERE complaints, I was called in to evaluate what had gone wrong. Guess what? I listened to a $60 one-to-one adult class in which the teacher delivered an hour-long soliloquy on how she couldn't teach kids because her anger management issues made her "afraid what she might do to them" and how her father had never loved her. She knew she was being recorded!
3. When complaints are unfounded, as many are, it's actually a defense that works in favor of the teacher.
It's just like monitoring customer service calls for quality control: it won't solve everything, but it can provide some redress.
4
"Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape. During a trial, if a crime isn’t captured on the tape, it will be presumed to never have happened."
Mr. Brooks, isn't this precisely the point? That we prevent police from acting out their anger on so many African Americans due to frustration, bigotry, and cop burnout. That we prevent the future Scott murders, knowing how many were allowed and never prosecuted because of the "trust" we put in police versions of event.
Look, I understand your point about the bonds of trust and respect for law enforcement. But please, you must admit that it's been the alarming spate of unjustified police responses to unarmed African Americans that have led to this "lost language of privacy"?
As the nation grows ever more uncivil in our political discourse as well as our public behavior, including law enforcement, we are forced to monitor what formerly passed as trust and honor. Believe me, I'm as sorry as you that the public deportment of police conduct has demanded this kind of dog-muzzle response.
But it is necessary. Because, as Time Magazine pronounced, "Black Lives Matter." And the only way to ensure proper procedures against crime suspects is to videotape them. It's one more sorry consequence of the confederate legacy that seems to be making a comeback.
Mr. Brooks, isn't this precisely the point? That we prevent police from acting out their anger on so many African Americans due to frustration, bigotry, and cop burnout. That we prevent the future Scott murders, knowing how many were allowed and never prosecuted because of the "trust" we put in police versions of event.
Look, I understand your point about the bonds of trust and respect for law enforcement. But please, you must admit that it's been the alarming spate of unjustified police responses to unarmed African Americans that have led to this "lost language of privacy"?
As the nation grows ever more uncivil in our political discourse as well as our public behavior, including law enforcement, we are forced to monitor what formerly passed as trust and honor. Believe me, I'm as sorry as you that the public deportment of police conduct has demanded this kind of dog-muzzle response.
But it is necessary. Because, as Time Magazine pronounced, "Black Lives Matter." And the only way to ensure proper procedures against crime suspects is to videotape them. It's one more sorry consequence of the confederate legacy that seems to be making a comeback.
31
The unfortunate truth is that David Brooks is right. The cameras will erode privacy and, with it, discretion. However, another unfortunate truth is that police community relationships (and trust) are at an all-time low.
2
Police "discretion" works both ways. Michael Slager used his "discretion" when he decided how to handle his encounter with Walter Scott, and again when he decided not to tell the truth about it. I might feel worse about cop-cams if I felt I could trust the "discretion" of police officers.
There is no place for privacy in a world where life is cheap and power is abused. There’s no privacy for people who are on the streets, or who are part of a permanent underclass that is born under suspicion. There’s no privacy for the millions of black people who are disproportionally harassed, stopped, frisked and incarcerated. Privacy is a perk that comes with wealth, status and the key to a gated community.
The police give up their right to privacy when they abuse, beat or kill those they’re supposed to protect. Only a few may commit the worst offenses, but the worst are protected by other cops who think it’s honorable to cover up for them. The shroud of privacy that gives us a chance to grow and develop is twisted into a veil of secrecy used to cover up murder. If we can’t trust the people who are supposed to protect us, then they can’t expect trust in return.
Brooks worries that such video evidence will coarsen our culture, or entail a loss of dignity for the citizenry, or damage other airy Platonic ideals. The reality is that a police officer calmly pulled a gun, took aim, and shot a man in cold blood. His partner helped cook up a story to justify the crime. I think Platonic ideals have left the building.
Cop-cams don’t damage relationships. Murdering citizens damages relationships.
The police give up their right to privacy when they abuse, beat or kill those they’re supposed to protect. Only a few may commit the worst offenses, but the worst are protected by other cops who think it’s honorable to cover up for them. The shroud of privacy that gives us a chance to grow and develop is twisted into a veil of secrecy used to cover up murder. If we can’t trust the people who are supposed to protect us, then they can’t expect trust in return.
Brooks worries that such video evidence will coarsen our culture, or entail a loss of dignity for the citizenry, or damage other airy Platonic ideals. The reality is that a police officer calmly pulled a gun, took aim, and shot a man in cold blood. His partner helped cook up a story to justify the crime. I think Platonic ideals have left the building.
Cop-cams don’t damage relationships. Murdering citizens damages relationships.
285
"First, there have been too many cases in which police officers have abused their authority and then covered it up."
Guy's a quick study.
Guy's a quick study.
30
"Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting."
Unfortunately there is a distinct lack for trust of police and for good reasons. Police don't treat one of their own who do wrong (or simply make a mistake) in the same way they treat the general public. If you are in law enforcement, your colleagues will almost always give you a free pass when one would think they would be held to a higher standard. This sort of behavior destroys trust between the community and law enforcement. Since we cannot count on law enforcement to police itself, bring on the cameras.
Unfortunately there is a distinct lack for trust of police and for good reasons. Police don't treat one of their own who do wrong (or simply make a mistake) in the same way they treat the general public. If you are in law enforcement, your colleagues will almost always give you a free pass when one would think they would be held to a higher standard. This sort of behavior destroys trust between the community and law enforcement. Since we cannot count on law enforcement to police itself, bring on the cameras.
14
Most folks rarely have interaction with the police. Most folks have never been arrested. Most folks have not had the police to their home for any reason..not even on the "worst day of their lives". For most folks, cops could wear cameras or clown masks and it would make no difference.
For those folks who do regularly interact with the police, those with arrest records and time in jail and those who depend upon the police to mediate violent family disputes these cameras will hardly coarsen their daily lives.
These cameras are a necessary adjunct to lives lived brutally, publicly and with no regard for the concern for privacy you eloquently express. These cameras will protect not erode societal norms.
I share your concerns for the penumbra of privacy which we are losing but not for the reasons you state.
For those folks who do regularly interact with the police, those with arrest records and time in jail and those who depend upon the police to mediate violent family disputes these cameras will hardly coarsen their daily lives.
These cameras are a necessary adjunct to lives lived brutally, publicly and with no regard for the concern for privacy you eloquently express. These cameras will protect not erode societal norms.
I share your concerns for the penumbra of privacy which we are losing but not for the reasons you state.
9
Police are the remnants of posses sent out to re-capture run away slaves. That they treat non-white citizens unfairly is to be expected, and in doing so, they fulfill one of their core assignments--terrorizing communities of color.
Brooks says that 1% of the call cops receive involve use of force. Why not send a different sort of group--not cops--to respond to the other 99% of calls?
Brooks says that 1% of the call cops receive involve use of force. Why not send a different sort of group--not cops--to respond to the other 99% of calls?
4
How ironic, that a member of the conservative movement - moderate as he may be - that has historically argued AGAINST any constitutional right of privacy, put forth the importance of privacy here.
David, the boat has sailed on this. Either you're being obtuse or you haven't been paying attention.
Where were your cries for privacy when cities were putting up hundreds or thousands of cameras?
Where were they with story after story in the new about big data gathering?
Where were they with story after story about the social media and the public's declining interest in privacy?
Before we reached this point, we had private citizens filming one another all the time, and sharing what they filmed - with or without consent - and then posting the resulting material on one of dozens of public websites.
Now I'm going to sound like a conservative! This is a cultural problem. People no longer value the type of privacy that you describe, and advances in technology have massively facilitated this.
But it is extremely cynical for you to jump in and argue for interpersonal privacy now, only when the cameras all of the sudden are going to be turned specifically on the police while these changes that apply to citizens that are (ahem) not paid public servants have been going on for decades and are in many cases much more invasive.
David, the boat has sailed on this. Either you're being obtuse or you haven't been paying attention.
Where were your cries for privacy when cities were putting up hundreds or thousands of cameras?
Where were they with story after story in the new about big data gathering?
Where were they with story after story about the social media and the public's declining interest in privacy?
Before we reached this point, we had private citizens filming one another all the time, and sharing what they filmed - with or without consent - and then posting the resulting material on one of dozens of public websites.
Now I'm going to sound like a conservative! This is a cultural problem. People no longer value the type of privacy that you describe, and advances in technology have massively facilitated this.
But it is extremely cynical for you to jump in and argue for interpersonal privacy now, only when the cameras all of the sudden are going to be turned specifically on the police while these changes that apply to citizens that are (ahem) not paid public servants have been going on for decades and are in many cases much more invasive.
13
Cop-cams are just another step recording in all too graphic detail the decline of human discourse. In a simpler time police officers were considered by many to be part of the foundation of a community. Sure, like most occupations, there were bad apples and cover-ups and falsified reports. But technology has pierced the blue line of silence, and now we all get to see (or will) the bad deeds. One could hope that cop-cams will also record some acts of kindness and bravery, and these too will find their way to social media and the nightly news.
9
"lost zone of privacy" We will be seeing that more and more. And we will be seeing more and more films of people on the worst days of their lives. People will never escape that one moment of screaming at their kids, or drinking too much, or having a melt down, or etc. etc. etc. And it will be used against them, you can count on that. Yet, Like Mr. Brooks I don't see any alternative to the body cameras. Heaven help us all.
3
Bah! “Privacy?”—“get over it!” Young people scarcely understand the concept. They still perform their most intimate bodily functions in private, but that’s about it. They eat, drink, sprawl, stumble about, scratch themselves, smell their armpits, tease their hair, and dress in public (their get-up is really more like what used to be called “undress”) as if they at home and no strangers were present. Of course, the strangers mostly aren’t present either, being absorbed in their hand held electronic devices. It’s a world the chap whose photo I’ve put up as my icon wouldn’t recognize.
8
Lean on the officer for care and support? Oh, to live in Mayberry...i wish it were so. But your final conclusion is, unfortunately, the right one. Considering the myriad ways our privacy is invaded, I guess I can bear this one. Cop-cams are going to show a picture of reality that we need to see in order to address it.
11
I guess I never thought about it like that ---- in using the camera to keep the parties honest, we ended up, never quite knowing the real people we can be, which will work to erode our trust in one another.
But, we have learned, some can't be trusted --- so, I guess this is the trade we will have to make. We might also come to the point where we want everything filmed and we won't know how to act without it -- the Twilight Zone?
But, we have learned, some can't be trusted --- so, I guess this is the trade we will have to make. We might also come to the point where we want everything filmed and we won't know how to act without it -- the Twilight Zone?
2
If there are any members of our society whose privacy I am not concerned with, it has to be the police while on duty. If only we could also get politicians to wear body-cams.
30
AS EACH DAY GOES ON, WE ALL HAVE LESS PRIVACY . . .
...as I view the demographically appropriate emails I get. I take especial care in terms in many of my behaviors due to this now nation where less and less is private.
Once I commented on an essay sent to me and pressed "SEND ALL" rather than just 'SEND." So, Mr. Brooks, I share some of your reluctance in terms of this brave new world.
But, if not for the video which clearly showed the eight shots in the back, the police officer would be believed and never charged with murder. So, how many others such incidents have occurred which where the false police reports were the only documentation and felonies committed by the police were ignored?
Then, there is a comment I heard long ago which I believe has some validity. As the officers are self selected, there is some congruence between the "good guys" and the "bad guys." If one utilizes a Venn diagram, there is a section of some magnitude which includes a motivation to experience and enjoy aggression and violence. Of course not completely among many cops.
I do believe this to be so. A civil society needs policing -- but, people are flawed and it may be posited that many officers are more flawed in terms of a propensity for violence than say, school teachers. So, yes, we need these body cameras.
I have never trusted Rev. Al Sharpton as it is clear to me that he has hurt race relations for many decades -- including blacks. But, even a broken clock is correct twice each day.
...as I view the demographically appropriate emails I get. I take especial care in terms in many of my behaviors due to this now nation where less and less is private.
Once I commented on an essay sent to me and pressed "SEND ALL" rather than just 'SEND." So, Mr. Brooks, I share some of your reluctance in terms of this brave new world.
But, if not for the video which clearly showed the eight shots in the back, the police officer would be believed and never charged with murder. So, how many others such incidents have occurred which where the false police reports were the only documentation and felonies committed by the police were ignored?
Then, there is a comment I heard long ago which I believe has some validity. As the officers are self selected, there is some congruence between the "good guys" and the "bad guys." If one utilizes a Venn diagram, there is a section of some magnitude which includes a motivation to experience and enjoy aggression and violence. Of course not completely among many cops.
I do believe this to be so. A civil society needs policing -- but, people are flawed and it may be posited that many officers are more flawed in terms of a propensity for violence than say, school teachers. So, yes, we need these body cameras.
I have never trusted Rev. Al Sharpton as it is clear to me that he has hurt race relations for many decades -- including blacks. But, even a broken clock is correct twice each day.
8
Only an authoritarian like David Brooks could worry about a camera "becoming the authority", as opposed to the *abuse* of authority by police.
Yes there is great value in privacy and a real danger when it is lost through the actions of government authorities like the NSA. The police, on the other hand *are* authorities, and their abuse of this is just as frightening.
David Brooks as usual get it all backwards, defending the actions of the NSA and fretting about curtailing the actions of the police, even while reluctantly acknowledging the need to curtail their abuses. His concern isn't primarily for private citizens in either case, it's for authority itself.
Yes there is great value in privacy and a real danger when it is lost through the actions of government authorities like the NSA. The police, on the other hand *are* authorities, and their abuse of this is just as frightening.
David Brooks as usual get it all backwards, defending the actions of the NSA and fretting about curtailing the actions of the police, even while reluctantly acknowledging the need to curtail their abuses. His concern isn't primarily for private citizens in either case, it's for authority itself.
18
Seems that we humans have had some real difficulty learning to live with each other in peace and harmony. Given that sad state of affairs, it is necessary that we employ a running record of our interactions with each other until such time that we have learned to control our behavior and treat each other with justice, mercy, and humility.
3
And please don't forget RESPECT.
David, you write "as a journalist, I can tell you that when I put a notebook or a camera between me and my subjects, I am creating distance between me and them". Better distance than unwarranted death or injustice done. The police have used cameras and recording devices forever to help them convict people of crimes. Rarely are police devices used to prove someone's innocence. We need the police. Because of their power and the machinery of the justice system,we also need a certain amount of protection from the police.
14
"Cop cams strike a blow for truth but also strike a blow against relationships"? Mr. Brooks, what kind of relationship did Michael Brown, or Eric Garner, or Tamir Rice, or Walter Scott, or Eric Harris, or even Amidou Diallo, have with the police who took their lives? When you're pulled over for DWB (that's driving while black to you), or stopped on the street for BWB (that's breathing while black, again to you), it's got nothing to do with relationships or with the privacy you so cherish; a potential life-and-death dynamic has jumped out at you from nowhere. Cops own the power of the state. Your bullet-points of corny reasons that cop-cams will ruin the fabric of society by ripping up private moments presupposes that every cop in America is an avuncular, friendly Andy Griffith, a gentle hayseed with nothing to do but watch the day go by. Mr. Brooks, put on black. Try that for a day. Then decide if you'd trade a recorded assault on your life for the warm, cozy, intimate, shadowed, hidden virtues of privacy.
225
Did Mr. Brooks really suggest that cop-cams would make it less likely for him to be able to charm his way out of a ticket?
29
Yep. Privilege. It's a wonderful thing.
No. He really didn't. Please try harder to be witty.
yup. Police discretion only looks good if you are the kind of person who benefits from it.
4
Some very good points but do we as individuals have a right or reasonable expectation of privacy when having official dealings with the government. I am a defender of privacy on most all levels but we have always held that on an official level the public has a need to be nosy. We set a high bar before the government can lock the public out of the court room, even with divorce cases the public can sit in and watch the official proceedings. We require more and more of our government officials to keep their email so the public can snoop. We need to in fact open all civil settlements so corporations cannot buy their way out of wrong doing via sealed settlements. That is too much privacy and endangers us all.
In an effective democracy the public's right to know, to be nosy is very important. Now peeking in your windows is too far but standing in the yard or at the door no. Stopped on the street by the government (police) no there is and should not be an expectation of privacy. I am sorry but when you are out in the open or in the case of your castle being entered via warrant, no you cannot expect privacy and I do not see it as a loss of privacy.
We are indeed losing too much privacy in this modern age but I think we have in many ways had too much expectation of privacy when in fact it does not apply.
Evil and wrong doing thrive in the dark and do not so well when exposed to the light and a nosy concerned public.
In an effective democracy the public's right to know, to be nosy is very important. Now peeking in your windows is too far but standing in the yard or at the door no. Stopped on the street by the government (police) no there is and should not be an expectation of privacy. I am sorry but when you are out in the open or in the case of your castle being entered via warrant, no you cannot expect privacy and I do not see it as a loss of privacy.
We are indeed losing too much privacy in this modern age but I think we have in many ways had too much expectation of privacy when in fact it does not apply.
Evil and wrong doing thrive in the dark and do not so well when exposed to the light and a nosy concerned public.
119
But isn't the standard response that notion that crime hides in the noise? In the overwhelmed apathy of the human brain? Once something becomes common it loses its power. Awareness and anger appears like a flash in the pan, burns bright and is forgotten. Look what information and exposure has gotten us in Congress? Deadlock.
No one knows how to navigate because every person has a little bit of jerk in them. And they know how focused people get on even the slightest transgression. No kind sir you run on the emotion of the moment and forget that in everything there is a price to be paid. In this case our trust and our ability to navigate and create big things.
No one knows how to navigate because every person has a little bit of jerk in them. And they know how focused people get on even the slightest transgression. No kind sir you run on the emotion of the moment and forget that in everything there is a price to be paid. In this case our trust and our ability to navigate and create big things.
I think if a swat team crashed into your home at 2am for whatever reason and your terrified family was screaming in panic and fear and those images were out there being viewed by whomever and revisited later by your family you might concede like Brooks that there is a downside to probably an otherwise good policy.
Read "1984" again, please.
You are looking at loss of privacy in the rear view mirror, Mr. Brooks, and, no, objects in the mirror are *not* closer than they appear.
Security cameras, installed by both governement and private individuals, are everywhere. Dash cams on police vehicles have been in existence for quite a while now.
Data warehouses by private companies and government contain information on pretty much everything we do. EZ passes track your movements by car. NSA probably knows more than even Snowden has revealed.
I am afraid we are in Huxley's "A Brave New World" *and* Orwell's 1984, as summarized in this illustration: http://i.imgur.com/rrxW1.png. Too late to turn back.
Security cameras, installed by both governement and private individuals, are everywhere. Dash cams on police vehicles have been in existence for quite a while now.
Data warehouses by private companies and government contain information on pretty much everything we do. EZ passes track your movements by car. NSA probably knows more than even Snowden has revealed.
I am afraid we are in Huxley's "A Brave New World" *and* Orwell's 1984, as summarized in this illustration: http://i.imgur.com/rrxW1.png. Too late to turn back.
7
COP CAMS & GENERATION GAP While I agree with David Brooks's interesting and well-written piece about the need for privacy, I also believe that it places him on the other side of a generation gap. These days, many younger people use Facebook as a place where they engage in emotional catharsis. In public. There is great controversy about nude selfies made and distributed by adolescents, where police have been involved and asked to judge whether kids under 18 should be charged with the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. To the kids on the other side of the generation gap, it's a mystery why anybody would think twice about sending nude selfies to friends; while on the other side, adults are confused and troubled about how to respond. The cause of the problem is the revolutionary change in interpersonal communication attributable to the Internet. People are unaware of its power, both for good and for harm. Now police officers are being asked to grapple with this ongoing dilemma in fulfilling their duties as resource persons in the community who work toward keeping the peace. It is no secret that police work attracts some severely disturbed people, as does any other line of work, who have impaired judgment and lack of insight. So the change brought about by police cams holds the potential for screening out those who never should have been entrusted with police work in the first place. We're talking about cold-blooded murderers who end lives brutally.
3
There is nothing more inherently public (and less inherently private) than an official interaction with a public servant enforcing the law. Perhaps if these interactions are recorded, the objective self awareness will cause both the public and the police to behave more appropriately.
76
The "Mayberry" brand of policing that Mr. Brooks fears will be lost if officers wear body cameras hasn't existed for decades--and probably never existed for people of color. The militarized, power-drunk, us-vs.-them culture of America's police is out of control, and if we must sacrifice the ability to occasionally talk our way out of a traffic ticket in order to prevent the police summarily executed people in the streets, so be it.
150
And Andy didn't carry a gun.
5
It depends on where you live. In our area, Mayberry still exists albeit the expansion of drugs and gangs has posed a serious problem but for routine interactions with police and sheriff's, it is business as usual. Nope, you never could and never will talk your way out of a traffic ticket here.
That inner private place Brooks refers to is also where we decide how we will present ourselves to the world at any given moment. When you have a conversation with a friend or family member you play a familiar role, but when involved in any encounter with the very public face of society (the police) the first thing you say to yourself is "it's show time!" and, depending on the circumstances, perhaps try on different faces in rapid succession. Kelly is partially right in that the "officer friendly" cop has all but disappeared, but there are still some number or polite, respectful cops who are well trained, disciplined, extremely professional and do use discretion, even on camera. If you've ever watched "Alaska State Troopers" or some of the shows about various states' game wardens you'll know what I mean. I've found that to be the case here in Pima County, where, as in Alaska, most folks have and many carry firearms. but I recall the exact opposite in NYC and on Long Island. Some departments still teach their officers that it's better to cover the exits and wait for a warrant rather than breaking down the door and shooting under the cover of "exigent circumstances" or "furtive movement". Cameras can only make those movements and circumstances more empirical and less subjective. On the other hand, I'd like to see the right not to be filmed, like the right to remain silent, the exercise of which would be plainly visible on the initial video.
May we put cameras on investment bankers? I would be more than happy to forfeit our economy's intimate relationship with them.
Also, forgive me, but when you said, "All these concentric circles of privacy depend on some level of shrouding," the image you conjured for me included white sheets.
Also, forgive me, but when you said, "All these concentric circles of privacy depend on some level of shrouding," the image you conjured for me included white sheets.
237
I didn't have that explicit image, but wow, you got it. That line was so creepy I got a chill. Perhaps my subconscious mind saw the Klan.
6
David Brooks is a Republican. No member of his party would ever think of putting a camera on an investment broker. Some have, however, voted to pass laws mandating that women seeking abortions, even rape victims, be assaulted with ultrasound vaginal probes and be required to view the embryos and fetuses.
Forced ultrasounds and forced viewing of ultrasounds is common in states where Republicans dominate the legislatures. That type of filming is a much worse violation of privacy than the monitoring of cops in public while they do their jobs.
Forced ultrasounds and forced viewing of ultrasounds is common in states where Republicans dominate the legislatures. That type of filming is a much worse violation of privacy than the monitoring of cops in public while they do their jobs.
10
Yes, this article made me think. The fact that I focused on the probability that I would be paying for tickets more frequently told me something about me. Darn, he's right, I thought. Cops will be less likely to cut me some slack when I roll through a stop sign. Embarrassing that my impulse was to bemoan paying a ticket I had duly earned rather than to be grateful that cameras make unjustified killing less likely.
96
"Cop-cams insult individual dignity." No kidding. Just watch "Cops"- basically just a way to just fun of poor people.
20
Have you seen "Bait Car"? Police leave a shiny new vehicle with the keys in the ignition and the driver's side door open in a low-income minority neighborhood. Hidden cameras inside record ignorant locals taking the bait and driving the car away. Suddenly the cops remotely cut the engine and lock the doors so escape is impossible. Then they yank the entrapped black and Latino thieves out, place them in handcuffs and haul them off to jail. Great fun. Ha ha. It's their own fault. We placed temptation before them, but they should have resisted. Poor people just have no morals. (See every third David Brooks column for more on that subject.)
5
Mr. Brooks' direct experience with cops must be limited to asking them to get his cat out of a tree. Here is a news flash: they don't trust you. You are crazy if you trust them. As for the majority of calls that the writer assumes are embarrassing domestic calls - if you are calling a complete stranger, as a government functionary to come into your home to monitor a fight between you and a family member, you have already made your own privacy decision. In Florida, all state, city, and county records are public. In my work I have read thousands of probable cause affidavits as well as petitions for restraining orders and transcripts of 911 calls. They are available to the public. All the embarrassing, humiliating details are there. The outcome I see is more along the lines of respondents hamming it up to be on "America's Stupidest 911 Videos". And anyway, with Twitter and Facebook, most people have thrown their privacy away with both hands.
61
miss,
There is one thing that Davis Brooks does know and that is cops. Covering the police beats in inner city Chicago David Brooks knows cops.Maybe those years of covering the seedier side of life is what allows him to see a small spark of humanity in today's conservatives.
There is one thing that Davis Brooks does know and that is cops. Covering the police beats in inner city Chicago David Brooks knows cops.Maybe those years of covering the seedier side of life is what allows him to see a small spark of humanity in today's conservatives.
3
The purpose of police cams is to protect us citizens from those ostensibly sworn to protect and serve us and give some sense of accountability to police.
How sad is that? How did it come to this?
How sad is that? How did it come to this?
8
"Most people don’t even seem to recognize the damage these cameras will do both to police-civilian relations and to privacy. As the debate has unfolded, it’s become clear that more and more people have lost even the language of privacy, and an understanding of why privacy is important."
Mr. Brooks then explains why people need to feel as much as possible, that they aren't being treated with suspicion. Werner Heisenberg's 'Uncertainty Principle' (1925), says anything observed, is modified to some extent , by the act of observation. All white people today seem under scrutiny, this being an established part of how society works today, being suspected of possible bigotry. Can't this then deeply affect feelings?
But it's supposed to help improve society as a whole.
Yet any writing, speaking, or alluding to anything to do with minorities, whether immigrants, blacks, or differently-gendered people, that might be considered derogatory, is seen as wrong on its face, because it might connote bigotry. How can that be, if it is just being neutrally scientific, and without therefore any inherent bias? But no, objectivity is always now considered impossible; there must have been a basis in bigotry! Yet there can be none when whites are generally, all of them, treated as suspicionable, as being prejudiced somehow. Did civil rights lead to unequal application of judgment, contrary to its intention?
Mr. Brooks then explains why people need to feel as much as possible, that they aren't being treated with suspicion. Werner Heisenberg's 'Uncertainty Principle' (1925), says anything observed, is modified to some extent , by the act of observation. All white people today seem under scrutiny, this being an established part of how society works today, being suspected of possible bigotry. Can't this then deeply affect feelings?
But it's supposed to help improve society as a whole.
Yet any writing, speaking, or alluding to anything to do with minorities, whether immigrants, blacks, or differently-gendered people, that might be considered derogatory, is seen as wrong on its face, because it might connote bigotry. How can that be, if it is just being neutrally scientific, and without therefore any inherent bias? But no, objectivity is always now considered impossible; there must have been a basis in bigotry! Yet there can be none when whites are generally, all of them, treated as suspicionable, as being prejudiced somehow. Did civil rights lead to unequal application of judgment, contrary to its intention?
1
I'm white, and I don't feel this sense of scrutiny.
5
As we all have seen, lives are at stake during many police-civilian encounters, and so is the good reputation of each arresting officer. It has become painfully apparent, moreover, that where the civilian stopped by the policeman is a young black male, there is a strong possibility approaching a likelihood that the rights of the arrestee will be abused. Cameras will save lives, protect the reputations of good cops and help identify and weed out bad cops.
The police-civilian confrontation is an odd scenario to cause anyone to be offended by any invasion of privacy presented by cameras and audio recording. There are so many other situations in modern life which present real privacy issues. For example, we all are forced to accept that viewing anything online generally creates a profile of our interests, as does making any purchase. We meekly accede to the wishes of the government or of corporate vendors that our privacy must be sacrificed to the interests of national security or efficient business practices.
Perhaps the most egregious privacy issue facing America today is the destruction of the physician-patient privilege and medical confidentiality, which is being forced upon women by the anti-abortion crowd and Republican legislators. We would like to see a column by David Brooks on that invasion of privacy.
The police-civilian confrontation is an odd scenario to cause anyone to be offended by any invasion of privacy presented by cameras and audio recording. There are so many other situations in modern life which present real privacy issues. For example, we all are forced to accept that viewing anything online generally creates a profile of our interests, as does making any purchase. We meekly accede to the wishes of the government or of corporate vendors that our privacy must be sacrificed to the interests of national security or efficient business practices.
Perhaps the most egregious privacy issue facing America today is the destruction of the physician-patient privilege and medical confidentiality, which is being forced upon women by the anti-abortion crowd and Republican legislators. We would like to see a column by David Brooks on that invasion of privacy.
131
You're insane. There is no trust whatsoever -- that is precisely why we, the civilians, must forcibly strap cameras on our policemen for pete's sake. Moreover, as the literal embodiment of the "Law", there is no expectation of privacy with cops for any reason.
You are right though that Youtube will get marginally fuller with videos doing insane people doing insane things.
You are right though that Youtube will get marginally fuller with videos doing insane people doing insane things.
"Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn't trust you."
Yes, absolutely it is.
Many Americans don't trust the police (and the police don't trust civilians-- ever been to a police BBQ?). And why should they? We don't trust teachers, journalists, doctors, bankers, lawyers... All of them are overseen by some authority. Why should cops be different? Oh yeah, they carry guns, and can kill people. And when they do, who do you call? The police?
Police accountability has been zero for a long time. Too many officers view the public as "animals" as I've heard one say to me. Cameras have started making a dent in that impunity. And thank goodness.
I'm a white lawyer, well-off, middle-aged, and look it. My interactions with police have generally been courteous. But I recall those times when I was wearing an old t-shirt, or riding a bike, or otherwise didn't look like I would have powerful friends, and let me tell you, those times were much more confrontational and not at all like an "intimate friendship."
I would much prefer a society where we could put 100 faith in the police but that society has never existed. I mourn, as you do for the loss of privacy. But for those people who have never had "friendships" with the police, or have been cut some slack, the loss of privacy will be small compared to the freedom from fear.
Don't want cameras? Fine, establish civilian review boards with teeth and fire and jail bad cops. But that won't happen.
Yes, absolutely it is.
Many Americans don't trust the police (and the police don't trust civilians-- ever been to a police BBQ?). And why should they? We don't trust teachers, journalists, doctors, bankers, lawyers... All of them are overseen by some authority. Why should cops be different? Oh yeah, they carry guns, and can kill people. And when they do, who do you call? The police?
Police accountability has been zero for a long time. Too many officers view the public as "animals" as I've heard one say to me. Cameras have started making a dent in that impunity. And thank goodness.
I'm a white lawyer, well-off, middle-aged, and look it. My interactions with police have generally been courteous. But I recall those times when I was wearing an old t-shirt, or riding a bike, or otherwise didn't look like I would have powerful friends, and let me tell you, those times were much more confrontational and not at all like an "intimate friendship."
I would much prefer a society where we could put 100 faith in the police but that society has never existed. I mourn, as you do for the loss of privacy. But for those people who have never had "friendships" with the police, or have been cut some slack, the loss of privacy will be small compared to the freedom from fear.
Don't want cameras? Fine, establish civilian review boards with teeth and fire and jail bad cops. But that won't happen.
I lost an expectation of privacy in the late '60s.
Anti-war demonstrations at Stanford brought out FBI agents, taking photos of people involved and people like me who were bystanders listening to the speeches. I decided then to live my life with the presumption that someone would be taking my picture, storing it, and possibly using it in ways that could negatively impact my future.
All this was before digital cameras and Google Glass, Facebook and Twitter.
Anti-war demonstrations at Stanford brought out FBI agents, taking photos of people involved and people like me who were bystanders listening to the speeches. I decided then to live my life with the presumption that someone would be taking my picture, storing it, and possibly using it in ways that could negatively impact my future.
All this was before digital cameras and Google Glass, Facebook and Twitter.
First time I have ever come close to agreeing with Brooks. Although I am not as concerned as Brooks is with how cop-cams will affect the personal relationships between citizens and cops, his discussion puts my in mind of the fact that cop cams will exponentially increase the amount of governmental surveillance in society at large. Remember how Bloomberg locked up hundreds of marchers and protestors, how NYPD infiltrated all sorts of political groups. Cop-cams mean that a vast amount of ordinary, supposedly private action in civil society, will now be in the hands of the state, a big oppressive state in fact--otherwise we wouldn't be sticking cop-cams on police people's heads. There is a real trade off here. Where I disagree with Brooks is this. Brooks thinks the problem of police brutality can be eradicated without addressing the causes of this stuff. Police engage in brutality because they are the front lines of a state sponsored effort to repress the black population. And the state has great need to repress the black population because it is disinclined to used social and economic policy to deal with social, political, economic, and educational inequalities, not to mention a vast amount of de facto segregation that was been required by the Roberts Court. When you adopt laissez faire--except when big bankers are in trouble--you must use repression instead. And that of course is the Republican solution to a complex and unevenly developing society.
Since Privacy's too precious to lose,
To avoid violation let's choose,
Cell phones must go
Too often they show
Brutality against Blacks turned loose.
To avoid violation let's choose,
Cell phones must go
Too often they show
Brutality against Blacks turned loose.
52
“Cop-cams will undermine communal bonds. Putting a camera on someone is sign that you don’t trust him, or he doesn’t trust you.” I thought it obvious, but the neighborhoods and communities that so desperately need law enforcement reforms exist in this state already; this statement is the very reason change is required! The less “intimate and private, and the more professional, contact between law enforcement and community members in these neighborhoods can be made, the better off everyone will be. As you stated, privacy gives rise to all kinds of secret, half formed, ideas and emotions. These secrets too often become a golem, built of racist and bigoted beliefs, that is allowed free, and destructive, reign in the “intimate” and “safe” communal interactions of a dark alley or empty park. I’m happy that you have lived a life that has afforded you the opportunities to describe relations with law enforcement as “intimate friendships.” I’m also happy that life has brought you to a place where you fear the loss of a slap on the wrist instead of ticket for a traffic crime as a viable argument against body cameras. Again, this is the complete opposite experience of a large portion of Americans though. The fact that you get that slap on the wrist while other Americans get, not only, the ticket, but also car searches, threats of violence, fear of death and every other fine that can possibly tacked on, all for a simple traffic stop, is the reason these cameras are so necessary.
295
TV is going overboard with constant repeats of the cop videos to avoid boring the TV viewers with talking heads discussions of cop abuse. Or they say they are exposing gross injustice or controversy.
But to keep repeating videos of citizens actually dying from cop actions is a cruel insult and disrespect to the families of the victims. They know these videos of their loved ones’ deaths are on the TV all the time, and it must make things even harder for them.
This increase in videos will help justice, but continued showing may contribute to hardening and coarsening public reactions also. TV should definitely be more sparing with it. TV should alert the audience in advance to the showing if they must, labeling it as disturbing viewing, not just throwing up on our screens for us to witness scenes of death over and over. Children see this in their home TVs over and over.
The media could direct the public to a video on line, so we’d choose to see it or not. And I’m talking especially about Walter Scott and Eric Garner, and also the beating by police ganging up on 1 man, helpless, out west. There was also one of a cop beating a woman on a highway he claimed he couldn’t control. These are true atrocities, where the cops just indulge their propensity for legal violence. How much can those families bear of repeated public viewings?
But to keep repeating videos of citizens actually dying from cop actions is a cruel insult and disrespect to the families of the victims. They know these videos of their loved ones’ deaths are on the TV all the time, and it must make things even harder for them.
This increase in videos will help justice, but continued showing may contribute to hardening and coarsening public reactions also. TV should definitely be more sparing with it. TV should alert the audience in advance to the showing if they must, labeling it as disturbing viewing, not just throwing up on our screens for us to witness scenes of death over and over. Children see this in their home TVs over and over.
The media could direct the public to a video on line, so we’d choose to see it or not. And I’m talking especially about Walter Scott and Eric Garner, and also the beating by police ganging up on 1 man, helpless, out west. There was also one of a cop beating a woman on a highway he claimed he couldn’t control. These are true atrocities, where the cops just indulge their propensity for legal violence. How much can those families bear of repeated public viewings?
11
Certain pictures I've seen n recent months suggest there already is a distance between police and at least certain sections of the public - one which a cop-cam can scarcely make any worse.
77
Historically, privacy has had its ups and downs as the 5 volume series, History of Private Life (Harvard University Press) has shown.
In the ancient world even private was public. Life was entirely public. As time progressed there was a trend toward privacy, at least in the home.
Body-mounted cameras on policemen, however, has more to do with the public sphere than private, in spite of Mr. Brooks's arguments and from a public-privacy perspective, there can be no claim for privacy. The "chipping away" that Mr. Brooks describes pales at the recent violations of police normalcy. The "humane and trusting" will just have to re-calibrate. Better "open and transparent" when it comes to police.
In the ancient world even private was public. Life was entirely public. As time progressed there was a trend toward privacy, at least in the home.
Body-mounted cameras on policemen, however, has more to do with the public sphere than private, in spite of Mr. Brooks's arguments and from a public-privacy perspective, there can be no claim for privacy. The "chipping away" that Mr. Brooks describes pales at the recent violations of police normalcy. The "humane and trusting" will just have to re-calibrate. Better "open and transparent" when it comes to police.
43
Amazing: civil society has no private element? Joshua collapses society into the public sphere. Civil society, the sphere of interaction of property owners and contractors, is in many ways a private sphere. In this Brooks is right. Though of course it is not an entirely private sphere. No sphere of society is entirely public or private, but civil society as distinct from the state has particularly large component of privacy.
Privacy is important for all the reasons Mr. Brooks mentions, but the idea that recording interactions between police and citizens threatens individuals, families, and communities is silly. How much time does the average citizen spend in contact with police? Not much, and if it is recorded it will likely fade quickly from view, covered by the flood of personal information and photos people voluntarily post on social websites. The benefits of car and body cameras, already known to reduce police misconduct, far outweigh privacy considerations in a society where most citizens seem intent on getting as many others as possible to examine their lives.
90
Mr Brooks, you note, "Most people don’t even seem to recognize the damage these cameras will do both to police-civilian relations and to privacy."
The relationship is between the police and citizenry. Identifying non-police as "civilians" helps explain why we have such a weaponized, antagonistic police force.
If we have to force a return to protect and serve by diminishing public servants' (since that is what the police are, rather than an occupying army) privacy, then, as best I can tell, the police have no one but themselves to blame for that loss.
The relationship is between the police and citizenry. Identifying non-police as "civilians" helps explain why we have such a weaponized, antagonistic police force.
If we have to force a return to protect and serve by diminishing public servants' (since that is what the police are, rather than an occupying army) privacy, then, as best I can tell, the police have no one but themselves to blame for that loss.
237
Just on your verbal quibble: the police are “citizenry,” like everyone else, but they are not “civilians.” Unlike most of us, they are under a form of military discipline.
5
@Elizabeth in Seoul - it is not just "public servants" whose privacy is diminished. It is the privacy of the citizens they swear to protect and serve. Suppose police are sent on a well-being check on someone who is depressed, and find him drunk and in a state of semi-undress with self-inflicted cuts on arms and legs (a situation I encountered when I worked as a nurse). Now suppose that that video is posted online. That person, going through a very rough patch, but having a job, family etc., is humiliated. In addition, his job is put at risk not to mention his reputation.
Police enter all kinds of highly personal situations about which the people involved certainly do not want the wider world to know. If we cannot prevent those private events from becoming U-Tube entertainment for the masses we have a profound loss of privacy, which can be very destructive not to public servants but to those they claim to serve.
Police enter all kinds of highly personal situations about which the people involved certainly do not want the wider world to know. If we cannot prevent those private events from becoming U-Tube entertainment for the masses we have a profound loss of privacy, which can be very destructive not to public servants but to those they claim to serve.
1
Over my 7 decades I have seen most of Quebec's police police forces evolve from vigilantes who protected the wealth and power of the privileges from the ravages of the police peers in working class society to a well trained and educated middle class professional organizations.
America has yet to learn that you get what you pay for. If you want professional police officers you educate them, and pay them as you would anyone who you would entrust with he responsibility for your health and safety. When you hire vigilantes you get vigilantes.
America has yet to learn that you get what you pay for. If you want professional police officers you educate them, and pay them as you would anyone who you would entrust with he responsibility for your health and safety. When you hire vigilantes you get vigilantes.
4
Dear David,
The problem here is with the police not with the people. Did you know US police officers killed 111 people in March alone. Now let's compare that to some other Western countries:
1. In the UK less than half that many people (52) in the past 115 years (!)
2. In Germany in 2011 the entire police force fired just 85 bullets, that 1 bullet per 1 million people
I could go on, but you get my drift. Other police forces just don't go around shooting unarmed people in the back. It's just that simple.
The problem here is with the police not with the people. Did you know US police officers killed 111 people in March alone. Now let's compare that to some other Western countries:
1. In the UK less than half that many people (52) in the past 115 years (!)
2. In Germany in 2011 the entire police force fired just 85 bullets, that 1 bullet per 1 million people
I could go on, but you get my drift. Other police forces just don't go around shooting unarmed people in the back. It's just that simple.
498
No other country has a constitutional amendment misinterpreted to require gun anarchy.
400
How many bullets were fired by German citizens during 2011, either at the police or at other citizens? There is clearly an excessive use of force by the police in the US and no excuse for shooting unarmed citizens. However, police violence is part of a wider social context. So it is not "just that simple." Our problem with the police stems in part from a much wider culture of violence not experienced in Western European countries.
28
A contributor to the problem of police shootings that is not mentioned enough is that cops these days are scared. Our gun-loving culture and the ease with which anyone can obtain one has forced police to see every encounter as a potential gun battle. Other countries do not have a citizenry as excessively well-armed as this one. In the UK, there's very little reason for a cop to pull a gun when he knows that he is the only one with a gun. I'm not trying to excuse the police but the blame lies not just with them but with a society that has allowed the gun lobby to inundate society with far too many guns.
189
I agree with Brooks on the lost zone of privacy we humans are losing but it seems to me that the greater lesson here is this: why didn't we listen to the other humans who were screaming with voices, stories, scars, screams that their zones of privacy, safety were being diminished? Why do we listen to some voices and not others? It looks like we are deciding by default that we'd rather ignore the canaries ...
34
What Brooks writes is correct, but we're driven to it by police not holding themselves accountable, and by the very fact that no one can even tell how many times an officer has shot a citizen last year - right or wrong on the discharge of the weapon, no one has been tracking the data.
That's over, now, and the police brought it upon themselves.
And we have to remember that only those of us above a certain age still believe in privacy, since it has been commonplace for decades now that children have been filmed in their school hall-ways, so their zone of privacy was pierced long ago.
Which, when you think about it, is a reason they are even madder than older people about police un-accountability that exists because of the lack of video of police inter-actions.
btw - a very surprising interview between Brooks and Terry Gross yesterday on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/13/399391894/take-it-from-david-brooks-career...
regarding both himself and reflecting on our spending too much time concentrating on our world of the Big Me, which appears on our resume, instead of spending our lives concentrating on what will be said at our funerals.
Very pleasantly surprising :)
That's over, now, and the police brought it upon themselves.
And we have to remember that only those of us above a certain age still believe in privacy, since it has been commonplace for decades now that children have been filmed in their school hall-ways, so their zone of privacy was pierced long ago.
Which, when you think about it, is a reason they are even madder than older people about police un-accountability that exists because of the lack of video of police inter-actions.
btw - a very surprising interview between Brooks and Terry Gross yesterday on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/13/399391894/take-it-from-david-brooks-career...
regarding both himself and reflecting on our spending too much time concentrating on our world of the Big Me, which appears on our resume, instead of spending our lives concentrating on what will be said at our funerals.
Very pleasantly surprising :)
27
There must be an election coming up and Brooks wants to broaden Republican appeal by making it seem like a Republican can be other regarding and not just self-regarding. But give him time and he'll reduce the former to the latter.
Here in South Korea, video and audio recording is common in private school classrooms. At the one where I taught, random samples were used as a basis for evaluations, raises, and yearly re-signings. I learned that:
1. You get used to it pretty quickly. There's too much data from too many interactions to be monitored with meaningful frequency, so one tends to get on with things and forget about it until a problem arises. When things do get thorny, you're likely to think twice - and that's a good thing.
2. Observed parties inexplicably transgress anyway. When there WERE complaints, I was called in to evaluate what had gone wrong. I listened to a teacher turn a $60 one-to-one adult class into an hour-long soliloquy on how her anger management issues precluded her from teaching children because she "didn't know what she might do to them" and how her father had never loved her. She knew she was being recorded!
3. When complaints are unfounded, as they often are, recordings actually provide protection and defense.
It's just like monitoring customer service calls for quality assurance: it won't solve everything, but it can provide some redress.