Body-cams pose a threat to our rights
Sir — Last week in these pages the Justice Minister described our concerns about body-worn cameras for the gardai as “premature and misguided”.
We were surprised by the accusation that our intervention was “premature”. We responded to an invitation by the Department of Justice to feed into a consultation process to help them develop good policy in this area. And we were concerned the minister would brand our concerns as “misguided”.
Our initial reaction to the proposal for body-worn cameras was not one of opposition. We highlighted our concerns but also understood that there were possibly benefits to the technology.
Since then, a carefully guided reading of emerging research from the US and elsewhere has shown us that the promised benefits are not delivered. In fact, the oft-cited Rialto study which has been used as the justification for body-cams around the world has been discredited numerous times, including by its own authors.
The concerns we had for our fundamental human rights remain.
Our privacy is important because it protects our right to be ourselves without judgment or fear of retaliation. Privacy protects our right to free speech, to associate with whomever we choose, and to participate in our democracy through protest and voting.
It’s proven that we change our behaviour when we know we’re being watched, even if we’re not doing anything wrong. That’s why the Government is obliged to show that any interference to our privacy is both necessary and proportionate.
It’s neither necessary nor proportionate that close-range images of our faces and audio recording of what we’re saying on the streets or at protests should be gathered by mobile State cameras. How long is this data stored and what happens when it is misused? What mechanisms exist for redress when, for example, sensitive personal information is breached and shared on social media?
The balance of power is already tipped towards gardai, who can arrest, detain and prosecute us. Their word is often given more weight in court. Not only do they not need cameras for protection, but research shows the cameras don’t offer them protection anyway.
Much has been made of the evidence-gathering potential of the cameras. But, as with any camera, it only captures one angle. The notion that this kind of evidence might be relied upon in court is frankly terrifying.
The question we at ICCL are left with is why Government would proceed with this expensive project if it doesn’t achieve the benefits promised? Wouldn’t those resources be better allocated elsewhere, in a way that doesn’t threaten our fundamental rights?
Liam Herrick,
Executive Director,
Irish Council for Civil Liberties