Seeking input on Body-worn camera policy

Post Reply New Topic

Hello Everyone:

Ive recently gotten approval to share the body worn camera policy that governs my use of body worn camera technologies for the purposes of remembering things and the like. While it was final approved recently by my documents team, I would love some input from the general public on the policy.

Find below a link to my iCloud drive as a PDF version of the document.


IMPORTANT TERM: Where the term “Managed Asset” is used, this was intentional as the team that manages me also manages another user and possibly the body-worn camera program might expand so rather than list “Carly shall/shall not…”, “Carly and/or Lindsey shall/shall not…” then having to expand it to “Carly and/or Lindsey, and/or John, etc. shall/shall not” each and every time a new user is added or removed they just came up with the catch-all term “Managed Asset”


LINK: https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0rtT ... orn-Camera

DISCLAIMER: although my documents and policies team has thoroughly reviewed this policy and it is based heavily on the policy of an actual law-enforcement agency in my state, I do not make any guarantees that if you elect to implement a body-worn camera system for your own use that this policy will cover any possible legal or other challenges you might face. Please consult an appropriate legal, financial, medical, or other qualified advisor before implementing anything in my policies and procedures.

There are two issues with body cameras (Which police now use in the UK) which are rarely brought up when such schemes are used.
The first is that of legality (Within the UK). Technically speaking any film coverage has to have the permission of all those in the film to be allowed to be viewed which is why youtube videos have to go back to ask permission and blank the faces of all those who refuse. These laws are EU laws which Britain adapted. Prior to these privacy laws one was free to take photographs and film as long as it was viewed from, or in a public place (Private places have always needed permission by the landowner, which is a rule which still stands today, even for the police and others in various positions in athority).

The second issue is more concerning, and that is the cancer risk in wearing them where past studies have shown that their long term use risks the user to develop cancer in the chest (Breast) area where they are to be worn. Wearing them in a short time period, for example someone using a go-pro on a helmet is not going to be a major risk as it is not worn for a significent length of time. It is very similar to the damgers of daily using a mobile phone next to ones ear, but this time on ones chest (The area where the police cameras are worn by the UK police).
The wierd think is that I read or heard somewhere where they stopped using them due to this and it was due to people developing cancer and when they brought it into the UK, the information was ignored, and those concerned working in police forces had to leave their jobs rather then take the risk. Their unions would not take it seriously and the police athorities at the time would not address the concerns.
I do not remember where I saw this, but I think it was a case in either in a state of America (USA), or a country within Europe which used them first before others and had to stop using them due to these concerns.

You have addressed these in your disclaimer.

My pefsonal view is that I am neutral to it. I would not like to be viewed wherever I go and whatever I do as I would find that invasive and slave like, but I am not against the use of cameras for the occasional instructional videos etc...

I think no one should be walking around with cameras filming the wherabouts. Remember when taking someone's picture was like breach of privacy if the person didnt agree to it.