Increased surveillance sign of extreme paranoia

In Oakland, Calif., big brother is watching.

Edwin Rodriguez | Daily Trojan

Police officers in certain cities around the country are now allowed to wear video cameras the size of pagers on their chests. It seems like a good enough idea; police actions with the public will be subject to monitoring, and evidence can now be provided in the utmost level of clarity.

The passage of this law brings to question how far the scope of privacy is going to be pushed, and how the future will be if laws such as the personal camera continue to be passed. The whole affair is very Orwellian, and the law represents an extreme form of paranoia and monitoring.

The issue with personal video surveillance is that it overrides the right to privacy, and, as of now, rules of discretion in using the personal camera are not concrete.

The only established rule of consent regarding wearing the cameras is that officers are asked to briefly mention they are filming to any members of the public they encounter.

According to National Public Radio, wearable cameras have already posed problems. Cameras are extremely unsympathetic to potentially sensitive cases. Say, for example, a police officer walks into a scene of child abuse or domestic abuse.

To walk into a situation of such gravity constitutes a breach of privacy. The last thing a victim of an awful circumstance needs is a camera staring them in the face. Proponents of wearable cameras say this problem can easily be solved by just turning off the camera. But a stipulation of wearing the camera is that once police officers start recording, they cannot stop at the risk of making it seem as if the recording is censored.

The cameras, which proponents claim promote an honest depiction of events, could actually do quite the opposite. It’s important to remember who has the power in police-civilian interactions. In most cases, it’s the police officer. The only people with complete access to the tapes are the authorities.

In a recent event in Oakland, NPR reported a victim shot by a police officer was denied access to the wearable camera recordings before his trial. In such a case, the tapes can be used against the victim. There’s no way to guarantee honesty, even if an instrument of supposed honesty is present. There is always a chance of corruption and a camera won’t simply eradicate it. People will just find ways around restrictions.

To be granted access to recordings is often a long and arduous process as most dealings with city officials are. So the personal camera fails in the respects of honesty and efficiency.

The most disturbing feature of the personal camera is that an officer is not allowed to stop recording — even if they are asked to stop by civilians. It’s unnerving that people have no control over their sense of privacy.

It appears as if 1984 has manifested itself in 2011.

Mellissa Linton is a sophomore majoring in English. Her counterpoint runs Fridays.