More Money for Police Cameras Is Good. Data and Clear Rules Even Better

President Obama yesterday asked for $263 million over the next three years to, among other things, equip and train police with body-worn cameras. Scientific American published an Agenda item on body worn cameras in the December issue (currently on news stands).

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


President Obama yesterday asked for $263 million over the next three years to, among other things, equip and train police with body-worn cameras. Scientific American published an Agenda item on body worn cameras in the December issue (currently on news stands). Among our points:

>>>"Chances are that the movement to adopt body-worn cameras is unstoppable. The American Civil Liberties Union, a traditional opponent of surveillance, has cautiously embraced the technology. This momentum makes the urgent need for clear rules and training guidelines all the more apparent. Towns and cities that are planning to use the cameras should ensure that the community has an ongoing say in those plans, as well as a mechanism to resolve disputes when videos are subject to contradictory interpretations.

>>>"Finally, the DOJ, which will probably end up subsidizing the purchase of many of these cameras, should buy devices only for police forces that participate in larger research efforts and share the results with the wider public. This way we can all see what is going on."

Read more: Cities Want Cops to Wear Cameras, but Technology Could Heighten Distrust if Not Carefully Used

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe