Video Cameras: An Invasion Of Privacy

If someone were to be asked thirty years ago if it is necessary or even possible for a police officer to wear a video camera on his or her uniforms, the answer would be no. Why has this changed? The answer is quite simple; time has changed. People do not trust one another anymore. The only way people believe each other now is through rock-hard evidence. An idea of a police officer wearing a video camera mounted on their uniform or vest has a multitude of positive and negative reasons as to why these video cameras are useful. A camera can be viewed as an invasion of privacy but in today’s world of social media what is an invasion of privacy? People may think that it is not an invasion when it is something for the public’s protection but there

It is like a never-ending circle of problems because no matter what the opinion is someone will always have an issue with it. Many issues come with these mounted video cameras, and there is much good that comes with these mounted video cameras. It is essential to keep an open mind as to why they were placed there in the first place. It comes from fatal shootings and police brutality like in the case of Micheal Brown from Ferguson, Missouri. Issues like these make it essential for a video camera to show the exact events of what happened. Questions can still come up from the point of view the camera is facing since it is the police officer’s point of view that something happened outside of the camera lens. Then why not have a civilian record everything that happens? It is a ridiculous idea, and everyone can agree as well. The theory there though says that any solution is not perfect, but there is a solution to be used so why not use

To make a full opinion about something, both sides of the picture has to be looked at. For example, Griggs brings out that “As Austin noted, a 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that "both officers and civilians acted more positively when they were aware that a camera was present." On the other hand, though Griggs also brought out that “Some officers also view the cameras as unwanted scrutiny and a sign that their supervisors do not trust them.”, When two different pieces of evidence are looked at as such, then it can be seen why the use of video cameras should be used and should not be used as well. Yes, it is good to have evidence in that case that it is needed but what did officers do twenty years ago when such technology was not around. It is interesting how in the last century that events have changed people so much that there is no trust between anyone. It is important to be talked about as Griggs brings out the views of officers “Some officers also view the cameras as unwanted scrutiny and a sign that their supervisors do not trust them.” The view of the officers can affect their work because it would make them feel unneeded to the community which then can lead them even to quit their jobs. It is understandable how uncomfortable it could be to record every second of the workday, and it can even be uncomfortable for the public as well but when it is