I wrote last week regarding the risk associated with the red light on the body cam issued to police officers if used for high-risk entries. The article included a photo of same taken at 15 feet in the dark. That is how it looks irrespective of the technical type of light it is configured with.

Former Deputy Commissioner of Police Mark Shields commented that my argument is misleading as he claims the issued product does in fact have stealth mode that removes the red light. Well firstly, I am happy to see someone with his credentials join the discussion, but I’m afraid I disagree with him on this issue. So let’s discuss. I love a good debate.

The body cams that are used by the officers of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), and how they are used, are determined by the training and usage protocol of the JCF. This protocol directs how to use the product by pressing the ‘On’ button that turns the camera and displays that bright red light that is highlighted on the photo. This is not an option. This is the directed protocol. The officers cannot use it any other way, by law. If used this way the bright light makes it unsuitable for high-risk entry. Neither the assertion nor the photo is remotely misleading.

Now, if the product can be re-engineered to accommodate a different display then that can be done, if the JCF chooses to do so. As it stands now, based on the training and protocol that determines its use, it is unsafe to be used in high-risk entries. It’s not a keep and care item that the officers carry home and can play with to learn what its secrets are. It’s a mechanism issued with specific use protocols that allow for the officers’ action to be subject to audit and during the use of which the public knows they are being recorded.

The photo therefore reflects what the person facing the officers conducting the raid would see. No reasonable person could expect anyone facing a gunman to wear a light like that. So let us delve further into the use of a body cam when you enter a person’s home and the experience that is shared by both the officer and the homeowner.

A special operations officer will enter about 1,000 homes a year. Some of these homes are the size of garages. Some yards have up to 10 separate dwellings. Some entries are dynamic, no-knock entries because the circumstances dictate that they have to be. This results in the homeowner often facing the officer nude. Or his woman, or his children. This, for obvious reasons, creates issues.

Who gets to see this footage after? I imagine it is restricted. But I don’t want anyone to see an image of me or my family nude, I don’t care who! So, I wouldn’t subject other persons to that. Always remember, despite the greatest of effort by the JCF, not all homes entered by the police are occupied by criminals. Mistakes can happen. Also, virtually no house is occupied by only criminal; children are in 90 per cent of them. So let’s look on the search that follows. Should this be recorded?

The police are searching underwear drawers, looking on personal data, etc. It’s belittling to be recording the contents of a person’s personal space. To do it covertly is far worse. Always remember, far less than one per cent of homes entered result in shootings. Way, way less.

So let’s play with the idea of removing the light designed to let the public know they are being recorded. This could result in data protection issues as a start. It is also plain wrong. It’s one thing to have JamaicaEye recording your every move, but it’s a totally different issue when you are sharing your personal details or having a conversation with an officer.

Attorney Chuck Cameron, who is also a data protection expert, recently called for a study to be conducted on body cam usage, the impact on data protection rules under the law, and how recording police-civilian interactions could, in fact, be breaching the Act.

Think about it. The Law Reform (Fraudulent Transactions) (Special Provisions) Act allows for people to be charged for being in possession of other people’s personal data. However, we mandate, or at least allow that every time a police officer looks on your driver’s licence, a recording is made by his body cam. This information includes your name, date of birth, address, and TRN.

So now we are to make a decision on whether we record police-civilian interactions surreptitiously, or we endanger police officers in order to assist the investigation that follows by displaying a big red light on his/her chest. There is a point in any war when we have to factor in how important is the enemy’s rights vs the soldiers we send into battle, and the innocent lives we are defending. Look at all of the sacrifices we make in this country because of gangs. When does it come to the point where enough is enough?

The hospital costs for the people they wound, and for when they themselves are wounded by their fellow criminals or law enforcement, are hundreds of millions. The costs related to policing them both in respect of the expanded police force and the opportunity cost of what we can’t commit police resources to because of them is immeasurable.

The damage to our tourism product because of the travel advisories they cause to be implemented by foreign governments is irreversible. The cost to fund Indecom, although there are those unnamed donors, has to be borne by the Government. The cost of the body cams we have already procured and the storage they will require is hundreds of millions.

All of this and more could be spent on a failing education system that I believe promotes more illiterate children to high schools than literate. So now we must sacrifice our data to the viewing of people unknown and allow police to record our home, our women and our children at 4:00 in the morning, coupled with the risk of endangering the lives of our law enforcement officers. When do ‘we’ stop sacrificing for this evil minority? When is enough simply enough?

Is it in our future that we take the legal steps currently being taken by the United States against narcotics traffickers where they are declared terrorists? This step, if implemented against our gangs, would strip the gangs of their legal rights that regular people enjoy.

It’s not really new — President Nayib Bukele did it in El Salvador. We, in fact, did it in 1974 with the Suppression of Crime Act. The United States has done it to terrorists, narcotics traffickers and, most recently illegal aliens. None of the above are more deserving of that stripping of rights than Jamaican gangs, but it’s always about their rights. When can we start discussing victims’ rights?

When can we mandate that people convicted of causing life-altering injuries be compelled to provide support for the people who are reduced for life? I recently interviewed a person who was crippled by a criminal’s bullet. His care has been undertaken by his family — not the man who was convicted of shooting him, not Indecom, not a human rights organisation, not the manufacturer of the gun or the bullet that crippled him, but his family.

He could not be less concerned with the level of scrutiny that goes into the attempts to bring killers to justice. Why does he care less than the voices calling for more scrutiny at whatever the cost? Because he has felt the impact of the hand that so few shout so loudly to protect.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com