Introduction

Police brutality has historically been a social issue for the United States and is one of the most controversial, polarizing, and contentious American issues. This is largely due to the widespread emergence of news and media footage that depicts police officers shooting and killing unarmed people of color. Civilians increasingly use their smartphones to record interactions with law enforcement to surveil officers and combat police misconduct against the most vulnerable. Contrarily, the government is often criticized for overexercising its ability to surveil citizens, which has raised concerns about privacy and misuse of power. Therefore, the practice of civilians surveilling law enforcement is perceived as both a safety measure and a check on government overreach and power.

Surveillance itself, however, has several unintended consequences and threatens privacy. While retaliatory civilian surveillance is meant to enhance safety, it only contributes to a broader culture of mistrust and overuse of surveillance. The best solution to address this challenge is to limit both excessive police and retaliatory civilian surveillance. Proper boundaries must be set where surveillance is not seen as the solution, because without boundaries, these practices risk perpetuating a vicious cycle of invasive oversight that compromises privacy and the very safety that they intend to promote.

The Rise of Civilian Surveillance

Smartphones provide ordinary citizens with the power to be vigilantes who are capable of documenting instances of police brutality and misconduct in real time. In the last decade, this has becoming increasingly popular with viral videos, such as the killings of Eric Garner in 2014 and George Floyd in 2020, which led to public outrage and demands for accountability by law enforcement. For example, a New York Times article entitled “Black Lives Upended by Policing: The Raw Videos Sparking Outrage” provides readers with 34 cellphone and dashboard camera videos that display police brutality. One of the videos features cellphone footage of yet another unarmed black man, Alton Sterling, being tackled, held to the ground, and eventually shot by two white officers. Excessive force is a growing problem as police in the United States are said to use force against 300,000 people each year, according to a report by The Guardian. Ultimately, as more and more individuals feel defenseless in their encounters with police, civilian surveillance provides folks with a sense of empowerment. With retaliative surveillance and the ability to capture and share evidence of brutality, individuals can challenge official narratives, garner public support, and fight for justice.

Social media platforms, such as Instagram and X, add to the impact of these videos as isolated incidents can transform into broader conversations and national controversies. For example, on X, hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #NoJusticeNoPeace have become a battle cry for movements seeking systemic change. According to a PBS NewsHour? Report, the instancy and convenience of social media allows users to share raw, emotionally charged content, which helps to foster solidarity and drive action amongst its viewers.

The Comfort and Consequences of Surveillance

Civilian and government surveillance can enhance safety and offer accountability, but it also poses risks of overreach and can lead to unintended consequences. Surveillance’s primary intent, to deter misconduct and offer safety, backfires when it is perceived as an intrusive weapon that threatens privacy rather than offers accountability. Filming police interactions provides folks with a sense of security and empowerment. Many believe that dashcam/bodycam footage is often manipulated and altered to produce a particular narrative that aligns with law enforcement. Therefore, civilian documentation or recording potential misconduct can deter officers from brutalizing others. This visibility forms somewhat of a protective shield and civilian surveillance can be seen as a form of resistance and retaliation. Government surveillance, however, is often motivated by national security concerns, crime prevention, and an effort to maintain “law and order.”

Surveillance comes at a cost though as it contributes to a culture of invasive monitoring that infringes individual rights, affects decision-making, and threatens privacy. (Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.) For civilians, overuse of surveillance causes individuals to censor their speech and lose autonomy, principles that are foundational to the United States’ “democracy.” (Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023)) Rather than provide civilians with a sense of security, the increased surveillance fuels folks’ mistrust of law enforcement, Alternatively, for law enforcement, constant surveillance can make officers hesitant to act during critical moments, which compromises their ability to make proper judgment calls and perform their duties (Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016)). Retaliative surveillance makes officers fearful of public backlash for any action they take, even those made in good faith. Therefore, it risks exacerbating police inaction, since some officers may prioritize themselves and their well-being over community engagement and public safety. These dynamics have bred a very tense relationship between officers and the civilians they’re expected to “protect.” As a result, community trust has been lost and the potential for a collaborative relationship has nearly diminished.

Solutions & Conclusion

There needs to be a balance between accountability and privacy. While excessive surveillance may be some form of deterrence, its misuse feeds the public’s mistrust of law enforcement. To address retaliatory surveillance, policies should govern police officers’ use of body cameras so that it is transparent, respects the privacy rights of officers, and prevents manipulation or alteration when wrongdoing arises. For civilians, governments should explore alternative ways to maintain national security and prevent crime without infringing on citizens’ inherent rights. To improve the relationship between law enforcement and civilians, states should explore community outreach programs and opportunities that aid an understanding between law enforcement and the public with a shared goal of safety. Ultimately, surveillance is a powerful tool that often contributes to an invasion of privacy and manipulation, so it’s paramount that we seek out balanced solutions that limit it and protect privacy and prioritize trust.

Sources: Christopher Slobogin & Sarah Brayne, Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law, 6 Ann. Rev. Criminol. 219 (2023) Dan Barry, Video Evidence, and a Question of Race, The New York Times (Aug. 19, 2017) Randy K. Lippert & Bryce Clayton Newell, Debate Introduction: The Privacy and Surveillance Implications of Police Body Cameras, Vol.14 No.1 (2016) Sam Levins, Police Use of Force Data Reveals Violent Trends, Analysis Finds, The Guardian (Aug. 28, 2024) Tonghan Zhang et al., A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, arXiv:2212.