After
reading Matt Sledge's article on Huffington Post, "Rochester Woman
Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard," I was
appalled. Not only was the severe course of action taken by the police unsupported
by the law, but the vague nature of the arrest resulting from the inappropriate
wield of authority, was incredibly disconcerting. Pairing this article with
McElroy's post, "Are Cameras the New Guns?" the threat cameras pose
to authoritative power becomes very apparent and raises many questions
regarding the level of trust we put in the people who are meant to protect us.
McElroy raises a very good point in her comparison of cameras as an equivalent
to guns in the eyes of police, though physically harmless, cameras are the best
weapon for protection in the hands of ordinary civilians. The camera’s ability
to capture and recreate a moment in time poses as a huge threat to authority
figures, that abuse their power, due to its exploitative nature. The issue for
me is that this is seen as a threat instead of a positive tool for controlling our
authority’s infrastructure. By instilling extreme eavesdropping laws, a
person’s ability to fight against the abuse of power is not only discouraged
but removed by inappropriate enforcement. If documenting the actions of the
people who are allegedly serving the community to help and do good form a
threat, we should be very concerned for what they may be trying to hide or
protect. The pattern of authority’s dominance is held up in court cases, making
the harmless efforts to create a sense of protection for ordinary people an
uphill battle. Cameras can be a useful tool under the system of checks and
balances, however, it does not seem as though authority figures are willing to have
their absolute control challenged in the least, even for the greater good.
2 comments:
I was also appalled when I saw the video of the women recording an officer on her own property get arrested. The main thing that disturbed me about it was that she was being respectful the entire time but was still victimized. I mentioned in a response to a post by Paige, that I feel each case of recording should be judged by the specific factors of the situation rather than one definite law. I certainly don't feel that this woman needed to be arrested and I'm sure their are other cases that are similar, but sometimes I can understand how the pressure of knowing you are being filmed can change the way you act and make you uncomfortable. If an officer doesn't want to be filmed because it will impact the effectiveness of what they are doing I respect that, but if they don't want it because they know it makes them look bad, I don't think that is ok.
What really struck me about your argument was where you said "The issue for me is that this is seen as a threat instead of a positive tool for controlling our authority’s infrastructure." Why is it that photography and video has to be seen as threatening towards police officers? If only they were doing their jobs properly and efficiently they should have nothing to be worried about. By utilizing our technologies to the full potential, we could stop crime, and get rid of cops who do not do the right thing. Why not use the camera for the greater good? We are all humans, a cop just because he is a cop should not mean that he is exempt from being video taped. If you commit a crime and it is caught on an original tape it should be able to be used as evidence. Photography and video do hold a lot of power, in which I completely see the comparison to them functioning as guns making sense. However, as you said if only we used them to get rid of negativity, then we would be using them to their full potential.
Post a Comment