On Thursday, Twitter unveiled an iPhone app called Periscope. In a smartphone kind of way, it functions just like it sounds: Users activate the cameras on their phones and begin broadcasting little snippets of their lives. Just as a submarine raises its periscope to get a glimpse of what's on the surface, these users give the world a momentary look into where they are and what they're doing.
Naturally, as with any social media, the early users put it into action showing riveting, very much surface-level scenes as eating their breakfasts or hanging out with friends in a hot tub. Others used it for the traditional sophomoric humor they'll hopefully outgrow one day. But there were others who made the voyeuristic app enticing: the young woman walking through Moscow showing off her city and answering questions as viewers posted them; the lad from Israel offering a panoramic view of his country from his rooftop; and when an explosion in lower Manhattan sparked a huge blaze and caused two buildings to collapse, New Yorkers within seconds had live video streaming from the scene on this new social media app.
What’s the point?
Area law enforcement agencies must seriously consider adoption of body cameras as the public’s expectations for documenting sometimes tragic encounters are heightened.
Time will tell whether the app is just a passing fad or a mechanism for real communication, but its rapid adoption and popularity leaves us all something to think about. Today, we live in a world in which cameras are always nearby. Virtually every mobile phone user carries one in his pocket. Buildings have cameras designed for security. Traffic signals have cameras that help operate the lights but also can document vehicles passing through intersections. Drones can hover overhead and capture images or video.
It's in this atmosphere that law enforcement agencies are evaluating whether to equip their officers with so-called body cameras. In something so much less significant than the day-to-day work of officers, referees gather around monitors at scoring tables to check a replay to determine whether a fouled Michael Qualls deserves two or three free throws. In the public's mind, it simply makes sense that technology would be used to evaluate what happens in far more serious matters. A case in point is the officer-involved shooting of a teenager in Ferguson, Mo. Imagine how many questions could have been answered if the events leading to that tragedy had been documented.
Technology has reached the point a small camera can become just one more part of an officer's gear, creating the ability to capture his interactions and easily transmit them for archiving and review. Many agencies for a several years now have deployed dash-cams in their cars, providing a wealth of information for training and accountability. But dash-cams stay with the car; body cameras go wherever the officers go.
Questions will inevitably arise about the work of law enforcement officers. They're engaged in challenging work, and they are among the few whose jobs require them to step purposely into harm's way. Thank goodness there are brave men and women willing to commit themselves to the dangerous work our communities desperately need them for. But their work will always raise pesky questions about who did what and when, and was the response by trained officers appropriate.
In a world of Periscope-like apps and dash-cam videos, the public is increasingly expecting more than just a type-up report of what happened. If technology can show us a live broadcast of a dancing cat halfway around the world, doesn't it make sense for it to document more serious moments?
The Lowell Police Department deserves kudos for recognizing the benefits of body cameras. The agency plans to have its officers equipped with the devices by the end of April. Lowell Police Chief Randy Harvey recognizes the cameras benefit the agency, the officers and the public.
"It not only reduces complaints against officers but it helps us if we do have a complaint," Harvey said. "We can find out what happened."
We applaud the City Council's commitment of $21,000 for the purchase of cameras and radios, and the generosity from J.B. Hunt Transportation and Firehouse Subs in covering those costs.
Likewise, the Washington County Sheriff's Office plans to deploy body cameras by the end of the year, while several area municipal agencies are testing or otherwise considering their adoption.
Not everyone is convinced. Rogers police say body cameras come with too many unknowns and unanswered legal questions. His department is concerned about how the videos will be used beyond law enforcement. Let's call that the TMZ effect. In critical incidents, the public will demand -- and should have every right -- to see the evidence that either absolves officers or demonstrates a need for change. We're convinced it will, in most instances, show just how professionally law enforcement behaves.
Those are concerns agencies need to have, but they seem shallow compared to the benefits body cameras can delivery. More times than not, the existence of recordings will aid with training that helps officers continue to sharpen their skills.
We live in a highly technological world, and it's changing the public's expectations in so many ways. That applies to the role of law enforcement officers. In the case of body cameras, the greater public good should outweigh concerns that can be worked out through reasonable policies.
Commentary on 03/29/2015