Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

You can put body cameras on police — but who controls the footage?

Police departments around the country are buying and using body cameras for their officers — partly in response to the public outcry over the deaths of Michael Brown and other unarmed men in 2014, which prompted calls for “cop cams” as a way to promote police accountability.

But as police departments move cop cams into the field, the an important question becomes whether there are things that shouldn’t be recorded to protect civilians’ privacy. And if so, who controls the footage — and will police be able to manipulate it?

Vox covered this problem earlier this year, in a video about police dashboard and body cameras:

In Seattle, one of the major police departments that's rolling out body cameras, the department held a "hackathon" last week to find an automated, technological solution to the privacy problem. As reported in Slate, the programmers that participated in the hackathon focused on ways to automatically redact police footage so that, for example, civilians' faces and license plate numbers were blurred.

With this fix, local officials would still need to make decisions about what gets blurred: they wouldn’t be legally obligated to blur faces of adults in public spaces, for example, but it might be a good idea to do so for ethical reasons. Still, the fundamental appeal of automatic redaction for a city government is pretty clear. If you can write an automated program that takes care of any privacy concerns, you can release body-camera footage to the public en masse. Without an automated solution, the city would have to rely on the police department to edit the footage — which opens the door to manipulation.

Unfortunately, as long as police officers are able to control the on/off switch on their cameras and departments have access to the video after it’s taken, automatic redaction doesn’t totally eliminate the potential for manipulating footage.

Policy
Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?Is Trump’s Justice Department trying to discredit itself?
Policy

The DOJ used to avoid spectacles like the Louise Lucas raid.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
What the Supreme Court still has left to decide this termWhat the Supreme Court still has left to decide this term
Politics

Democracy and Donald Trump dominate the Court’s remaining docket.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phoneThe Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phone
Politics

The justices were concerned that the Trump administration is asking for too much in a major police surveillance case.

By Ian Millhiser
Politics
The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track youThe Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you
Politics

Chatrie v. United States asks what limits the Constitution places on the surveillance state in an age of cellphones.

By Ian Millhiser
Policy
Pam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerousPam Bondi’s ouster makes Trump’s Justice Department even more dangerous
Policy

The best thing about Bondi was her incompetence.

By Ian Millhiser
Culture
Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?Me Too revealed a lot of villains. Why is Epstein the one we still care about?
Culture

How the Epstein story became an American parable.

By Constance Grady