The article can be 100% written by the Guardian but with a seed planted by a “leak” from Meta.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/police-...

Since 2016, 2 out of 3 US officers supported body cameras. That percentage increases after uptake https://ircommons.uwf.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Pol... with even skeptical Police unions & advocacy orgs gradually speaking up in favor of cameras https://fop.net/letter/abc-act-hr-3248/ https://www.policeforum.org/trending6jan24 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comments/1uf0d3a/did_the_dema...

Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.

I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube

It's more mixed. They like it because shields them from frivolous complaints, and lets them document evidence against subjects.

They don't like it when management uses it for frivolous minor policy enforcement or they feel like it reduces their ability to use discretion.

But overall police officers who are given cameras tend to me more positive after using them.

One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.

Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.

To add. It was not that long ago that most police unions were resisting the implementation on the grounds of collective bargaining. This was 15 years ago so I guess sentiment could have changed but I would be shocked with how often you see thin blue lines.

Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.

My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.

https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police...

Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.

Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.

Why?

People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.

Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.

Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.

Number one doesn't necessarily apply in the United States. A lot of our prisons (but not all) are privately run.