Bodycams for civilians
core77.com
core77.com
Where I live (not the US), it's increasingly common for retail employees in sketchy areas to wear highly conspicuous bodycams of the Taser Axon type due to increasing concerns about theft and assault. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent they are, but they certainly provide an insight into incidents that often isn't provided by standard fixed CCTV systems. The clear downside is the implicit message sent by their use - everyone knows what that bodycam says about the relationship between the store and the community they serve.
If I were a social worker or a nurse, I could see a great deal of value in a product like this. The designers seem to have struck a neat balance between discreetness when it's switched off and conspicuity when it's switched on. Obviously there are very significant privacy and data protection concerns that need to be seriously considered, but I could see a product like this offering significant benefits in terms of personal safety and professional liability.
This doesn't seem "less conspicuous", to me at least. It has a literal light ring that turns on when it's in use, which makes it seem like it'll be pretty obvious and hard to miss.
If the light could be turned off while it's in use, then it might be "less conspicuous".
Covert body-worn cameras are a well-established technology, but a completely different class of device. A bodycam records people who know that they are being recorded, which has substantial behavioural and legal implications. Current bodycams are - often intentionally - very conspicuous even when they're turned off. They're big blocky devices and some of them have bright yellow markings that say "VIDEO & AUDIO". That's potentially useful as a deterrent, but it's also a bit hostile because it clearly implies a degree of caution or suspicion on the part of whoever is wearing it. A bodycam that's subtle and non-threatening when turned off but very visible when turned on is a different class of device again.
If I were a nurse, there's no way in hell that I'd wear a covert camera unless I had a very clear reason for doing so and very strong assurances that it's legally above board. If I did wear one, I'd be constantly worried that someone would find out, because I'd be furious if the shoe were on the other foot. Unless the hospital was genuinely so dangerous that I was constantly worried for my safety, I'd be very reluctant to wear a big lump of a bodycam, because it's going to put a lot of my patients on their guard when that absolutely isn't warranted. I'd be quite happy to wear one of these cameras. Unless I turn it on, most people aren't going to notice it; If they do notice, I can very easily explain "it's a bodycam, because occasionally we get a patient who might be a bit aggressive", demonstrate the very obvious red recording light and reassure them that they aren't being spied on.
Anyone else found this an odd sentiment? In my experience, a device like this will not likely receive much praise around Europe, regardless of social or professional setting.
In effect they are an occupying force.
This video explains it well:
For my longer weekend rides, I tend to turn it on at the start/end of a ride, where the worst driving happens, then turn it off for the middle to save battery. There's a good few police forces across England and Wales that act on camera footage and hand out fixed penalty notices for dangerous driving. Usually this is:
* Passing too close, especially at speed (40mph+)
* Passing when it's not safe (usually into an oncoming car)
* Jumping red lights
I have noticed drivers are more aware of the lights, now, too. It's so stark that I can noticeably see an increase in dangerous driving when I've not got the camera, or it's switched off. It's a sad situation but the reality is that the only language some drivers understand is the threat that the police will take their toys off them if they don't behave.
This is the sort of footage you can get: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzeNjG0c0Eo
I assume there also have to be carveouts for newspaper/magazine editorial.
Also there are limitations, e.g. implicit consent or "panoramic freedom" (when the people on the picture are not recognizable).
It's long been settled that recording police in Germany is totally fine, but they keep claiming that once you have an audio track, it's recording "the spoken private word" which has special protection. Doesn't matter they're there in an official capacity, and also doesn't matter if you don't record audio. They'll just assume you are.
Even the press get targeted.
https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/02/reportit-poli...
ADDED: And it looks like there’s no out of the box way with the default iPhone camera app to record video without audio.
But the above is for private conversations. If the interaction is in a public area, then there isn't an expectation of privacy, so the number of parties informed is moot, but this has been the subject of legal disputes notably when it comes to police being recorded. If anything it would seem like government representatives would have less expectations of privacy when conducting official business, but it's been argued.