Pros and cons of body cameras

There is a lot of debate in the media and among the public on the relations between the Police and the public, which are not very healthy to say the least. In the light of recent incidents such as the assault on HNDA students at Ward Place, there is a lot of resentment towards the Police in society. However, it is too early to jump to conclusions without a proper investigation, which is precisely what the National Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission are doing, albeit separately.

Video camera

But there is another form of evidence that no one can escape from. It is called the video camera, which is far more sensitive than the human eye and can record events for posterity in stunning clarity. With the advancements in mobile phone technology, almost everyone now has a video camera recorder in his or her hands which can instantly be activated. Some of them can actually record in broadcast standard 1080p or even 4K resolution, which is four times more detailed. Here and abroad, these ubiquitous smartphone cameras have been used by the public to catch instances of police action which are not really lawful.

Once these clips go viral on the Internet and are picked up by the traditional television stations for free to air broadcast, it is usually very difficult for the law enforcement authority concerned to refute a particular incident.

Despite the popular (and true) notion that cameras never lie, it is indeed possible for someone with the right equipment (and these are not really expensive) to manipulate recorded images digitally in a way that affects the reputation of a particular person or organisation. This has always been a bone of contention in situations where video evidence is available and indeed, sometimes courts do not accept video imagery submitted as evidence precisely for this reason.

Body cameras

But now, there is a movement in many parts of the world for police body cameras, which can record their interactions with the public whenever it is worn and activated. Here is a more technical description: "Body Worn Video (BWV), commonly called Body Cameras, is a video recording system that is typically utilized by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public or gather video evidence at crime scenes, and has been known to increase both officer and citizen accountability, although arguments have been made that BWC's primarily protect police.

BWCs are notable because their placement, often on the front of a shirt, provides for first-person perspective and a more complete chain of evidence. BWV is actually a form of closed circuit television that can be monitored in real time from a remote location if the cameras are networked over 3G or Wi Fi." The cameras are usually worn on clothing in the chest area, but can also be worn on helmets to give a slightly different view.

Body worn video cameras were first adopted by Danish Police way back in the early 2000s but have since spread to many countries including the UK and USA, where there is a raging debate on their usage. Despite being initially hailed as a tool to enhance the quality of evidence, the focus has begun to shift away from exclusively benefitting prosecutions. Reports have highlighted that BWV also had the significant potential to "prevent and deter crime".

A UK report titled the "National Pilot for BWV" announced that complaints against the officers wearing the cameras had been reduced to zero and time spent on paperwork had been reduced by 22.4%, which led to a 9.2% increase in officer time spent on patrol.

This report found that body cameras Increase public reassurance; reduce fear of crime in local communities; resolve complaints about the police more quickly and reduce any assaults on officers. Police are not the only personnel who can benefit from body cameras since others including rescue personnel can also benefit. However, some groups have raised privacy concerns because there are no clear guidelines on what can be recorded.

Recording devices

The only stumbling block to this programme, even in developed countries, is the cost of the cameras and the associated infrastructure. In the US, one report estimated that it would cost a little more than US$ 75 million (Rs.10,500 million approx) over three years to help purchase 50,000 recording devices, without counting costs such as electricity used for charging, training costs, networking costs, battery replacements and repairs. Data storage is by far the biggest driver of cost related to body camera programs. When it comes to storing video recorded by body cameras, police departments have two options: local storage or cloud-based storage. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but storage is a must because some cases drag on for years and video evidence will have to be made available throughout that period.

However, the cameras do not have to be on all the time - the device can be programmed to begin recording automatically when a certain action is taken. For example, it can be customized to start automatically when lights and sirens are activated, or when the police vehicle door has opened. This will minimize some costs. At the end of the day, the true cost of body camera ownership is a simple equation: the number of cameras necessary each day; multiplied by the average number of hours filmed by police officers daily; and the average amount of necessary retention time.

Fair hearing

The Sri Lanka Police Department must seriously consider the use of body cameras on a trial basis, beginning with a very small number of cameras (say, 100). This will not cost the earth and due to economies of scale, camera costs are decreasing every month. It will be very interesting to see what the results are - whether the cameras can literally improve the image of the police and provide a more accurate view of events.

The police can also opt to share these images with the media, so that the public can gain an understanding on how the whole body camera system works. This calls for a totally new approach to law enforcement methods since it will be a novel experience for both the police and the public. But the technology looks very promising and should be given a fair hearing.