Lights, action, wallop

Pros and cons of video cams attached to uniforms of Victorian police ... A check on heavy handed law enforcement ... A disincentive to concoct complaints against the coppers ... Sexting under review by Victorian parliament ... Sylvia Varnham O'Regan reports from Yarraside 

Police body cams - US-style. (What about the ears?)

ONE of the most common complaints about the police is their tendency to be heavy-handed and inflammatory when confronted with awkward situations.

For their part the coppers say they are accused of things they didn't do.

In an attempt to kill both birds with a single stone Victoria Police is launching a trial of small video cameras attached to the wallopers' uniforms. 

Chief Commissioner Ken Lay gave the trial the green light a week ago: 

"When police are put in difficult or dangerous situations these body cams are an enormous help in actually proving cases."

Presumably he had some evidence for this, but if so he didn't share it with us.

The trial will start this month and run till November.

Volunteer officers from the southern suburbs will be the first to tog-up with body cams, which will record video and audio footage, rather like the sort of thrilling actualité you see from bikes in the Tour de France. 

 It will not be a 24/7 reality show because officers will be instructed to turn on the cameras only as events unfold. 

In other words, there is a discretion surrounding "unfold". 

Interestingly, the Police Union, usually so solicitous of the safety of its members, has come out against the cameras, apparently deeply concerned about privacy.

Commissioner Lay cut through the negativity: the cameras will be used with discretion, they will ensure the safety of police working in dangerous situations, etc, etc.

As far as the rest of us go, cameras seem likely to present a number of problems, specially on the consent and accessibility front. Will we have the option of refusing to be recorded? Who will have access to the footage, immediately and at a later date? And whose evidence will it be - the filmer's or the filmee's?

A spokesmodel for the Vic Police told me:

"The footage is public record data collected for law enforcement purposes."

Well, you can't get much clearer than that, or perhaps you can:

"The concept is still in the development stage so we are unable to provide any further information."

Traditional policing. Handy cams might be handy

What is known is that after the trial the pros and cons will be considered by the government and the Police Union. Then they'll be whirring across the entire state. 

We are not the only place on the planet for cameras to be embedded on coppers' costumes.

In the United States they are already a de rigeur fashion accessory for policy on the beat in Cincinnati and Oakland.

According to reports from National Public Radio there has been some backlash among police who feel the surveillance is over-the-top. 

Maybe the cameras excite exhibitionism and provocative behaviour. 

On the other hand, the footage is mighty handy evidence for people reporting incidences of abuse by police and a disincentive to concoct complaints. 

*   *   *

Parliamentary inquiry into sexting: shocking revelations

THE state parliament is also taking a hands-on approach to "sexting". 

So popular is this pastime, with both young people and adults, that the parliamentary law reform committee is hearing submissions on what to do about it. 

Although sexting may seem flirtatious and innocuous, it can be harmful, particularly when people have images of themselves published without consent.

Are existing laws appropriate and adequate? The terms of reference are here and the committee has until the end of December to come up with something. 

There's a list of submissions here. 

Tweet me @sylviavarnham