The Justice Department announced today that it will tie federal grants for police body camera programs to the existence of good body camera policies. This is great news and the department is to be praised for using its leverage to help ensure that this technology increases community trust rather than eroding it, and fulfills its potential to reduce police violence.
According to the , 鈥渟uccessful applicants must demonstrate a commitment and adherence to a strong BWC Policy framework.鈥� The for grant applications from the DOJ鈥檚 Bureau of Justice Assistance includes further detail:
Policy and practices should at minimum address technology usage, evidence acquisition, data storage and retention, as well as privacy issues, accountability, and discipline. They must also consider the impact of data collection and use on public trust and police legitimacy. Public record laws, which allow public access to information held by government agencies, including law enforcement, should also be evaluated and, when practicable, modified to protect the privacy of the individuals whose records they hold and to maintain the trust of the community. These policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility, provide appropriate access to information, allow for public posting of policy and procedures, and encourage community interaction and relationship building.
This language is highly confidence-inspiring, as it hits all of the key question marks that we have with any camera deployment. Simply requiring departments to have a policy, and make it public, is a good step all by itself, but as we have learned (most recently in the case of the ), that is not enough as some departments are deploying cameras in ways that will NOT increase 鈥減ublic trust and police legitimacy.鈥� As with everything to do with police body cameras, the devil lies in the details, and we hope that when it comes to those details the Justice Department鈥檚 implementation of this grant program will live up to its promising announcement. We would also like to see the department use its power of the purse in other ways to pressure police departments that do not have appropriate camera policies in place.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
老澳门开奖结果 Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA老澳门开奖结果 Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX 鈥� In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people鈥檚 DNA, saying that a person鈥檚 limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose鈥攊n this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest鈥攄oes not overcome that requirement. The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession鈥攚hether that鈥檚 blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors鈥攖o investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that 鈥渋n reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State鈥檚 position that it was free to analyze Mitcham鈥檚 blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.鈥� 鈥淕overnment analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don鈥檛 consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government鈥檚 argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.鈥� In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose鈥攖o extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent鈥攚hile investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government鈥檚 rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. 鈥淥ur DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,鈥� said Jared Keenan, legal director of 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona. 鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans鈥� information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.鈥� -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events 鈥� and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events 鈥� and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.