Thousands of police officers are getting body-worn cameras, there’s just one massive problem

Support us and go ad-free

The Metropolitan Police are issuing body-worn cameras to 22,000 front-line officers. The cameras are being touted as a way to improve police accountability, but there is a massive problem. No one is saying what will happen to the reams of data recorded by the units.

The data

All footage from the cameras is automatically logged on a secure server. According to the Met police:

Video not retained as evidence or for a policing purpose is automatically deleted within 31 days.

But it is this ambiguous term – “policing purpose” – which causes problems. A “policing purpose” is commonly defined as:

the investigation, detection and prevention of crime.

The problem is highlighted by the ways police already retain data on political activists. Protesters are routinely monitored and those included on the domestic extremist databases include journalists, politicians and other people without convictions.

Previously, the police have admitted that it only takes two factors to be included on the database. This can include attending several demonstrations and talking to people already on the database. Furthermore, the police will go to extreme lengths to gather this data, including tactics such as stop-and-searches and mass arrests.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Therefore, a legitimate “policing purpose” could include keeping footage of protesters, even if they haven’t committed any criminal acts. As such, with these body cameras, it is possible that the police could gain and keep even more data for possible prosecutions in the future.

Which law?

Perhaps even more shocking, the police appear unsure which law allows people to request the footage of themselves. According to the Met police website:

If the public wish to view footage taken of them they can request, in writing, to obtain it under freedom of information, data protection laws.

The problem is, these are two different acts with very different criteria. Furthermore, if a person is requesting their own footage, they would not be able to access that data through a freedom of information request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) makes this clear:

If the information constitutes the personal data of the requester, then it is exempt from disclosure. This is an absolute exemption, and there is no duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held.

The ICO continues, saying that any request for personal data should be made through a Data Protection Act (DPA) request:

Instead, the public authority should deal with the request as a subject access request under the DPA.

But for the police, as their own website suggests, to be unclear on how a person can access their data speaks volumes about their attitudes towards the data they are collecting.

Other problems

The police can also pick and choose when they turn their cameras on, so it will still not necessarily mean that the many incidences of police brutality will be recorded. And while there are claims that the use of body-worn cameras has led to fewer complaints against officers and more guilty pleas, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said they were “not fit for purpose for firearms incidents”.

We should all want a police force that is more accountable. But a system which can easily be used for mass surveillance, with a police force which does not even now how a person can access their data, is not the answer.

Get Involved!

– Know your rights. Find out more and/or attend a training session.

– Sign up to the Network for Police Monitoring’s email list.

Featured image author’s own

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us

Comments are closed