Body cameras are small video cameras that police officers wear on their uniforms or attach to their glasses or hats to record their civilian interactions (Laming, 2019). These cameras have been adopted by police forces across Canada, including those in Toronto and Vancouver. For example, according to the Toronto Star, 850 cameras were in use in Toronto by 2014, exceeding one thousand in service at the Vancouver police department as of 2015(Diab & Putnam, 2021). These devices provide additional evidence for the prosecution of crimes and reduce complaints against police officers by providing a complete view of events leading up to an arrest or other incident involving law enforcement. However, some residents have expressed concern over whether such devices will increase surveillance and make it harder for people to speak freely without fear of retaliation by authorities (including potential employment consequences).
Using body cameras by police forces raises questions about how we understand power relations between citizens and law enforcement officers and between citizens. As we see with many other technologies that have become part of everyday life (such as smartphones), body cameras may positively and negatively affect those who use them and those they film. The use of phone cameras has been a growing trend in the past decade, especially with the recent increase in police abuse being publicized on social media platforms (Goldsmith, 2020). The increased use of these recording devices is essential to maintain a safe society and ensure that individuals are treated fairly. However, there are also concerns about breaking privacy laws if law enforcement records civilians without their knowledge or consent. Body cameras have been shown to reduce the use of excessive force and increase the accuracy of police reports. However, they also have a way of making every interaction between officers and citizens feel like an interrogation, making people feel even more vulnerable when interacting with law enforcement officials.
The case of the adoption of body cameras by police forces in Canada is a prime example of how the power and governance of policing can be changed through new technologies. In this case, there is an essential distinction between body cameras and other technologies used by police forces. These other technologies include drones and facial recognition software, also adopted by police forces worldwide. However, these technologies are not comparable to body cameras in terms of their effect on policing because they do not have as much impact on policing authority as body cameras do. This is because body cameras help make it easier for police officers to record interactions with suspects and civilians, which makes it possible for them to prove their innocence if they are accused of misconduct or abuse. This means that body cameras can help increase accountability among officers and make it easier for citizens who police officers have abused to seek justice (Pasternak et al., 2022).
The use of body cameras in policing has been a contentious issue in Canada, as it has in many countries worldwide. However, recent developments have shown that police forces are adopting body cameras more quickly than ever. In this case study, we look at how these developments historically relate to dominant conceptions of policing/security. Historically, police forces have been viewed as an extension of state power and authority. Police officers are responsible for upholding the law and protecting citizens from crime (or at least appearing to do so). This conception of policing means that officers must be able to enforce their authority over civilians; however, this can be problematic when using force on civilians who do not comply with their commands. Body cameras provide an objective perspective on these interactions between police officers and civilians. They allow both sides to see what happened during an interaction with an officer without bias towards either side’s account of events.
This historical context explains why many people are still skeptical about body cameras. They worry that they will fail because they cannot change human nature or remove all biases from our mindsets. However, when used properly by both parties involved in an incident, these devices can help protect both civilians and police officers from false accusations of wrongdoing and encourage more fair and accurate policing. The use of body cameras by police officers has become a contentious issue in recent years. The debate surrounding implementing this technology is often framed as a question: should police forces be required to wear body cameras? Proponents argue that body cameras can help protect officers from false accusations and provide evidence for investigations into misconduct. Opponents contend that the surveillance equipment is an invasion of privacy and an infringement on civil rights.
We can contrast this debate with similar debates in Canada, including one earlier this year over whether or not Canadian police forces should be allowed to use facial recognition software during investigations. The debate over facial recognition software was similar in many ways, but there were also differences between it and the debate over body cameras. For example, while both debates centered on privacy concerns, they differed significantly in how they addressed them. While some argued that surveillance technologies violate civil rights, others argued that such technologies are necessary for public safety. Body cameras have been used by police forces for several years now, but their use is still controversial. In the case of Canada, there has been a lot of debate about how effective they are at preventing police brutality and protecting citizens. The issue has been covered widely in the media over the past few years, with many outlets reporting on cases where people are killed after being filmed by body cameras.
The most recent incident was that of Abdirahman Abdi, who died after being arrested by Ottawa police officers. There was also an incident where Toronto police shot and killed Andrew Loku while carrying a hammer inside his apartment building. According to Wright and Headley (2021), such incidents have led to public outrage over whether or not these officers’ actions were justified, given their body cameras were turned on during both encounters. There have also been numerous articles written about how body cameras are useful for both sides – especially when it comes down to prosecuting crimes committed by people who are already known by law enforcement officials, such as repeat offenders or gang members who may be involved in illegal activities such as drug trafficking or prostitution rings where there is no other evidence available other than what could be captured on video footage taken from these devices installed into uniforms worn while performing patrols throughout the community.
The use of body cameras by law enforcement is a controversial issue that has the potential to lead to the formation of new norms and the creation or maintenance of social distance between police and civilians (Diab & Putnam, 2021). This is particularly true in Canada, where body camera usage is not yet widespread. The case/issue has implications for maintaining the status quo if body cameras are used primarily to gather evidence rather than to build trust between police and civilians. If implemented primarily as an investigative tool, body cameras will likely continue to give officers an unfair advantage over civilians during interactions. They may exacerbate existing tensions between law enforcement and the community at large. However, if implemented as an accountability tool designed to increase trust between officers and members of the public, then body cameras may improve relations between police and civilians by increasing transparency throughout interactions with citizens.
The adoption of body cameras by Canadian police forces reflects the patterns of differential governance and social control practices common in our country. Though body camera technology has been available for years, it only recently became widely used across Canada. There are many reasons for this, including cost, the ability of the technology to protect officers from false accusations, and, most importantly, the increased accountability that comes with using body cameras that could lead some police departments to adopt more aggressive strategies when dealing with civilians who may be deemed “uncooperative.” This could mean some public members feel unfairly targeted or treated differently based on their race or socioeconomic status (SES).
This case study of the use of body cameras by police forces in Canada reveals several economic, political, and social structures. The first is that there are many kinds of police forces across Canada, reflecting the country’s decentralized form of government. This means that each province or territory can have its own laws about how police forces operate and their available resources. The second thing this case study reveals is several different funding sources for police forces in Canada. Some rely on local tax dollars, which they try so hard to maximize, while others receive funding from provincial governments or federal sources (Pasternak et al., 2022).
The third thing this case study reveals is that many Canadian police forces have been slow to adopt body cameras as part of their standard equipment. This is likely because some provinces have not yet required them as part of their standard equipment for officers; however, it may also be because some people worry about privacy concerns related to public disclosure laws surrounding body camera footage (for example).
The police forces’ adoption of body cameras is a complex issue involving various power relations. It is important to consider the role that race and class play in policing and how these factors have been affected by colonialism to understand the processes involved. The use of body cameras by police forces in Canada has been a popular topic of debate. Whether body cameras are effective at capturing the truth and providing justice for victims has been contested, as have questions about their role in racialization, liberalism, patriarchy, class, and colonialism. There is no doubt that body cameras have helped to reduce police brutality by recording interactions between police officers and the public. However, this does not address the underlying power relations involved with racialization, liberalism, patriarchy, class, and colonialism.
Body cameras alone will not solve systemic problems within police departments (Bud, 2016). Police officers need to be held accountable for their actions; however, accountability cannot be achieved without addressing the underlying power relations that contribute to these issues in the first place. While there has been some success in addressing these concerns through increased training for officers who use body cameras so they can better, understand how to approach situations involving people of color without resorting to violence or racial profiling. There is still much work left to do before we can truly say that this new technology will benefit all members of our society equally.
References
Bud, T. K. (2016). The rise and risks of police body-worn cameras in Canada. Surveillance & society, 14(1), 117-121.
Diab, R., & Putnam, M. (2021). Pathways to police adoption of body and dash cameras in Canada: How and why Parliament should intervene. Forthcoming in Criminal Law Quarterly.
Goldsmith, A. J. (2010). Policing’s New Visibility. British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 914–934. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq033
Laming, E. (2019). Police use of body worn cameras. Police practice and research, 20(2), 201-216.
Pasternak, S., Walby, K., & Stadnyk, A. (Eds.). (2022). Disarm, Defund, Dismantle: Police Abolition in Canada. Between the Lines.
Wright, J. E., & Headley, A. M. (2021). Can technology work for policing? Citizen perceptions of police-body worn cameras. The American Review of Public Administration, 51(1), 17-27.
write