By David Brooks
LIKE a lot of people, I've come to believe that it would be a good idea to put body-mounted cameras on police officers. I now believe this for several reasons.
First, there have been too many cases in which police officers have abused their authority and then covered it up. Second, it seems probable that cops would be less likely to abuse their authority if they were being tracked. Third, human memory is an unreliable faculty. We might be able to reduce the number of wrongful convictions and acquittals if we have cameras recording more events.
I've come to this conclusion, but I haven't come to it happily. And, as the debate over cop-cams unfolded, I've been surprised by how many people don't see the downside to this policy. Most people don't even seem to recognise the damage these cameras will do both to police-civilian relations and to privacy. As the debate unfolded, it's become clear that more and more people have lost even the language of privacy and an understanding of why privacy is important.
Let's start with the basics.
Privacy is important to the development of full individuals. There has to be a zone where half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions can grow and evolve without being exposed to the harsh glare of public judgment. There has to be a place where you can be free to develop ideas and convictions away from the pressure to conform. There has to be a spot where you are only yourself and can define yourself.
Privacy is important to families and friendships. There has to be a private space where you can share your doubts and secrets and expose your weaknesses with the expectation that you will still be loved and forgiven and supported.
Privacy is important for communities because there has to be a space where people with common affiliations can develop bonds of affection and trust. There has to be a boundary between us and them. Within that boundary, you look out for each other; you rally to support each other; you cut each other some slack; you share fierce common loyalties.
All these concentric circles of privacy depend on some level of shrouding. They depend on the understanding that what happens between us stays between us.
Cop-cams chip away at that.
The cameras will undermine communal bonds. Putting a camera on someone is a sign that you don't trust him or that he doesn't trust you.
Putting a camera on an officer means he is less likely to cut you some slack, less likely to not write that ticket, or to bend the regulations a little as a sign of mutual care. Putting a camera on the police officer means that authority resides less in the wisdom and integrity of the officer and more in the videotape. During a trial, if a crime isn't captured on the tape, it will be presumed to never have happened.
Cop-cams will insult families.
It's worth pointing out that less than 20 per cent of police calls involve felonies, and less than 1 per cent of police-citizen contacts involve police use of force. Most of the time, cops are mediating disputes, helping those in distress, dealing with those who are mentally ill or going into some home where someone is having a meltdown.
When a police officer comes into your home wearing a camera, he's trampling on the privacy that makes a home a home. He's recording people on what could be the worst day of their lives and inhibiting their ability to lean on the officer for care and support.
Cop-cams insult individual dignity because the embarrassing things recorded by them will inevitably get swopped around. The videos of the naked crime victim, the berserk drunk, the screaming maniac will inevitably get posted online - as they are already.
With each leak, culture gets a little coarser. The rules designed to keep the videos out of public view will inevitably be eroded and bent.
So, yes, on balance, cop-cams are a good idea.
But as a journalist, I can tell you that when I put a notebook or a camera between me and my subjects, I am creating distance between me and them.
Cop-cams strike a blow for truth, but they strike a blow against relationships. Society will be more open and transparent, but less humane and trusting.
NEW YORK TIMES