This article appeared in The Mayo News on Tuesday, June 4, 2024.

It’s not new technology – currently, body cameras are worn by police in several jurisdictions across the globe – but a Friday, May 31 marked in a new departure in policing in Ireland as members of An Garda Síochána in five Garda stations donned them for the first time on active duty as part of a pilot designed to test both the concept and three different types of camera technology.

It’s a move that has implications for us all.

Last December, the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023 was enacted, providing for body-worn cameras, Garda CCTV, automatic number plate recognition, and Community CCTV. This pilot will run for the best part of a year, but footage gathered can be legally used from today as evidence in prosecutions. Once a garda finishes their shift, footage will be automatically be uploaded to cloud storage once the camera is docked back at the station. Files not required as evidence will be deleted after an agreed time period.

It’s fair to say that An Garda Siochana to date could not traditionally be regarded as one of the most technologically advanced forces on the planet. As recently as 2018, it was noted that over 100 garda stations in Ireland could not even connect to the internet. Modernisation and digital technology has improved under An Garda Síochána’s Modernisation and Renewal Programme and Connect, An Garda Síochána’s Digital Strategy.

Body camera technology is another layer of technology to assist with efficient policing, and while the potential benefits are clear, ethical questions also arise. Therefore, close attention must be paid in this pilot to achieving the right balance between accountability and privacy, and to acknowledging the risks of misuse.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee last week put forward the very compelling argument that until now, videos online featuring interactions between An Garda Síochana and the public are filmed and produced from a single perspective and agenda only. Many videos appearing on social media show members of the force being verbally abused, threatened and sometimes physically assaulted. The only people not recording these events are often the Gardaí themselves, which hardly seems fair.

Bodycams – in theory – can serve almost as an objective witness, offering a clear record of interactions between Gardaí and the public. As well being an efficient means of producing evidence for legal proceedings, the act of recording can serve to protect both Gardaí and the general public, acting as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviour from civilians and Gardaí, and protecting Gardai from false accusations of misconduct. This should foster community trust in the force.

Gardai, however, decide when – and when not – to use the technology, so it will be interesting over the course of the pilot to pay attention to the times when the decision was taken not to use the technology.

Bodycam use is not without ethical dilemmas and privacy concerns. At the discretion of Gardai, bodycams can capture sensitive and deeply personal information, not only of suspects but also of victims, bystanders, and individuals in private settings. Genuine concerns should exist about the extent to which these recordings are stored, accessed, and used.

Let’s rewind to 2017, when journalist Dara Quigley took her own life after CCTV images of her naked on a Dublin street were shared an estimated 125,000 times. These images were in the possession of An Garda Síochána, and yet neither they, nor the individual who shared the footage has ever been held to account.

When sensitive footage is more widely available, what safeguards will be in place to protect civilians, and how will these protocols be communicated? What external bodies will be responsible for auditing and reviewing usage policies and implementation of same? There is also the potential for selective use of the technology, which can undermine the accountability bodycams are proposed to promote.

The line between accountability and surveillance also needs to be carefully considered, in order to protect the human rights of the civilian population.

Facial recognition technology (FRT) is not a feature of the current pilot, but in December, a bill was published by Minister McEntee to allow for the use of FRT by An Garda Síochána. Major concerns have been raised, not least by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, who are unequivocal in their stance that there is no lawful basis for its use in law enforcement in Ireland, raising concerns about potential misuse, particularly with regard to vulnerable people, for example in situations involving domestic violence.

Several experts, including Dr Abeba Birhane, an assistant professor specialising in artificial intelligence at Trinity College’s School of Computer Science, and Elizabeth Farries, Assistant Professor at the School of Information and Communication Studies at UCD have objected to the use of FRT on ethical grounds, pointing out the risks of discrimination, the tendency of the software to misidentify people of colour and the potential use of the technology for mass surveillance.

It remains to be seen how this technology will be used in Ireland, but we won’t have to wait long to find out.

As Ireland navigates this new territory, it is vital that all stakeholders, including civil rights organisations, legal experts, and the public have a say, if the benefits of bodycams can be harnessed and the safety of Gardaí protected, while upholding the ethical standards that we assume form the cornerstones of effective, fair policing.