WASSERMAN

Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman

Introduction

There are ample advantages of a use of cameras by the policemen and other law enforcement agencies as supported by the Howard Wasserman, a First Amendment scholar at Florida International University's law school. He said to Erica Goode (2011), the author of times article that a world where “all encounters can be recorded by everybody” is “not necessarily a bad state of affairs”. Similarly, I think that the use of Ear-mounted cameras by the police also offers several disadvantages to the public. The use of camera by the police arises several questions such as should the police officer be allowed to edit the footage before concluding the statement of investigation?

Discussion

Video recording by police is the violation of the public privacy. It is the responsibility of the police and other law enforcement agencies to put the privacy as the number one. It has been observed that the video recording by police also promotes the vandalism. For example, if the recording gets manipulated then whole crime scene can be tempered. The use of camera by the police arises, the aggression and anxiety of the public. At many places, the public reacts in an unconscious manner; so recording of that moments and behavior is the violation of civil rights.

Citizens consider video recording without their consent at the shopping places, taking the money out from ATM as an offensive and unethical practice. It puts the question on the public's freedom of speech, cultural, societal norms and beliefs. The citizens also discourage the without consent surveillance as they perceive that their images might be used for the some inappropriate selfish goals (Howars, 2006).

Recording police can create intense clashes in the investigations. For example, consider the case of Kelly O'Neil. She got encountered with the police. At that moment, the police officer stopped the journalists or citizens from photographing the police activity. This scenario arises the questions that the if the police is using the cameras to record the crime scenes then why not the public and journalists use it to arise the unethical and illegal activities of the law enforcement agencies. If the freedom, of video recording is granted to the police, then it must also be granted to the public. It is a fact that the no one can measure the police encounters nationally. The research suggests that the due to excessive dependence of police on video recording, the clashes between the citizens and the law enforcement officers had increased in the last few years.

Furthermore, the excessive video recording lead to ubiquity in the police encounters. That if the recorded content is uploaded over the internet, it creates a lot problem for the judges and lawmakers to distinguish between the innocent and dishonest. The reason being is that there are significant chances that the videos may be misinterpreted and manipulated.Along with the other disadvantages, the other prime demerit of video recording is that it plays a vital role in the investigation by the central police affairs division. For example, there arevital chances that the police department may not disclose the name of unethical officers who may be involved in the blackmailing of the public, illegal shooting on the honest citizens and others matters of high attention related to public privacy and rights.

The camera recording has also created the disparity between the implementation rules ...