Vancouver Police body-cam meeting ignites fresh round of debate

The Vancouver Police Department is conducting virtual town hall meetings on Monday and Thursday nights to gather public opinions on its six-month body-worn camera (BWC) pilot project.

This initiative, set to begin in January, follows years of debate on whether these cameras will enhance transparency and accountability in police interactions with the public.

The scheduled meetings have reignited the debate over the contentious technology. Critics such as the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) argue that BWCs could lead to the sharing of highly personal information among agencies, granting officers access to sensitive data. Concerns have also raised about the level of discretion officers will have within the VPD pilot’s guidelines when using BWCs.

Aislin Jackson, policy staff counsel for the BCCLA, highlights the potential limitations of individual officer discretion in low-visibility environments, making accountability challenging.
Jackson emphasizes that officer-worn body cameras should not replace democratic regulation of the police.

“The more there’s discretion for the individual officer, who makes decisions in a very low-visibility enviornment, that makes it difficult to review them, the less effective they’re going to be as an accountability tool, because police will be more in control of how they’re structuring the evidence the body-worn cameras are capturing,” Jackson said.

And while the VPD’s draft guidelines include some privacy protections, Jackson believes it falls short, calling for stronger democratic accountability and civilian oversight for the police.

“I don’t think they go very far, and they don’t highlight how important privacy interests are in their constitutional protection,” Jackson noted. “Body-worn cameras, like any other technocratic strategy, are not a replacement for proper democratic regulation of police.”

Addressing privacy concerns, Kirsten Thompson, a lawyer specializing in privacy and cybersecurity, acknowledges valid concerns but notes that protocols are usually in place to safeguard data. She highlights standard procedures, such as limited retention periods, controlled access, and cloud storage to restrict availability.

“Some of the standard protocols you’ll see to reduce those kinds of risks are, for instance, the recordings are generally not kept indefinitely; in fact, they’re usually overwritten in a short period of time. These cameras are only on for a certain period of time, triggered by some sort of interaction. Access to these things is not with the individual officer; it’s usually stored in the cloud or some other server, and that access is controlled and restricted to a small number of individuals. It’s not made widely available to a large number of individuals within the organization and certaintly outside the organization,” Thompson said.

In statement to CityNews, the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioners emphasized that BWC used by the VPD must comply with privacy laws, including B.C.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

Despite limitations on disclosing information, it did confirm the VPD submitted a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to the Privacy Commissioner’s office, which is being monitored.

The VPD plans to equip around 100 officers with cameras as part of the pilot project, initiated following a test run earlier this year. This move follows the coroner’s inquest into the death of Myles Gray in 2015, prompting increased scrutiny of police actions. More details about the BWC rollout and usage can be found here.