Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

<em>Forbes</em> recently published an opinion piece that I co-authored with <a href="https://twitter.com/Hydraulist" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Dr. Steve Mann</a>, who founded the MIT Wearable Computing Lab and is widely known as the father of wearable computing. Titled "<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/23/body-cameras-for-police-officers-what-about-for-ordinary-citizens/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Body Cameras For Police Officers; What About For Ordinary Citizens?</a>," our thesis is that body-worn cameras for police officers are only half the solution to the problem of violence between police and citizens. Video recording is a proven tool for solving and deterring crime. But placing cameras in the hands of cops alone creates an imbalance of information, and hence an imbalance of power--power that can too easily be misapplied or abused.

core/paragraph

The other half of the solution is "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">sousveillance</a>," a word Dr. Mann coined to describe recordings made by individual citizens. Available sousveillance devices include the EyeTap device that Dr. Mann wears, the Spaceglasses produced by his company, <a href="https://www.spaceglasses.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Meta</a>, as well as Google Glass and its various competitors. More widespread access to, and use of, such devices would result in a more complete and democratized record of potentially criminal activity.

We conclude our article with this thought:

Indeed, although we did not set out to make a connection between the First Amendment right to gather information and the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the parallels between them are too stark to ignore. In each case, those advocating the liberties provided by the amendment argue that individual citizens should carry devices that give them power to deter other citizens and government officials alike from unlawfully infringing the individual’s liberty. Query, however, which device is more likely to effectively accomplish that goal, and with the least amount of unintended negative consequence? Perhaps an “open carry” movement for video cameras is in order.

core/quote

The full article is available <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/23/body-cameras-for-police-officers-what-about-for-ordinary-citizens/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Video cameras and guns both deter crime--but cameras don't kill. Do we need an “open carry” movement for cameras? <a href="http://t.co/Uli8IEhmUE">http://t.co/Uli8IEhmUE</a>

— Brian Wassom (@bdwassom) <a href="https://twitter.com/bdwassom/status/547782238059122688">December 24, 2014</a>

Augmented Legality

Emerging Media and Technologies

Partner

Brian D. Wassom

Information Technology Transactions

An "Open Carry" Movement for Wearable Cameras?

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

An "Open Carry" Movement for Wearable Cameras?

professionals