Body cameras on police could have a “chilling effect on people’s civil and political rights”, but it was still possible to use them well, the Privacy Commissioner says.
Commissioner Michael Webster outlined the privacy concerns for body cameras during a presentation at the Police Association Conference in Wellington today.
Referring to himself as the “technology fun police”, Webster cautioned the right to privacy was a “precious taonga” but said his office’s position had long been that body cameras could be used in keeping with the Privacy Act.
The cameras, which have been discussed for years as a tool for frontline officers, could have abilities to livestream incidents, provide real-time translation services and allow officers to broadcast their location to colleagues during high-pressure jobs.
Police delayed a decision over introducing the cameras last year after they began issuing a new model of Taser, which was not equipped with a camera.
Webster today said if cameras were rolled out to New Zealand officers, there needed to be a “demonstrable operational need” and there should be plans in place to consult with the community.
He noted the results of a 2025 privacy survey showed the majority of people were accepting of “privacy-intrusive technology” being used if it prevented crime. For example, 65% accepted the use of this technology if it reduced theft.
But Webster warned it could have a “chilling effect on people’s civil and political rights” and indiscriminate collection of personal information would be “highly concerning”.
He said there were increasing issues with police officers accessing information without authorisation, and that would need to be considered for body camera footage.
“We all live in what has become, I guess, an increasingly fractured and fractious world, and it’s a world where personal data, including audio and visual data, has significant value,” Webster said.
“If our citizens lose their agency over their personal information, they risk losing more than that. The right to privacy and living in a democratic society are precious taonga.”
Webster said the privacy of police officers also needed to be considered and that the technology should not be used to monitor their performance or work hours.
It should be acknowledged that body-worn technology was “inherently privacy-intrusive” and there must be a lawful basis for using it to collect somebody’s personal information.
Access to the camera footage needed to be considered in connection with the Privacy Act and Official Information Act, and NZ Police would also need to figure out how long footage could be held and how much footage would be recorded.
“Indefinite retention is incompatible with the Privacy Act,” he said.
While continuous recording was preferable for accountability, from a privacy perspective it was better to only record necessary interactions, he said.
JR Miller, sales engineer for Axon, a company that supplies body cameras to police in Australia, told the gathered police staff about the technology’s capabilities.
He said if an officer was entering a “dicey” scene, a remote colleague could access a livestream of his body camera so the officer knew the situation was being monitored for safety.
When the cameras are activated it automatically activates nearby colleagues’ cameras and allows other staff to see the location of the officer who triggered it. They could be activated manually or by certain actions, such as deploying a Taser.
Miller, who is based in Queensland, shared multiple figures about the rollout of body cameras in Australia, saying in some places there had been steep drops in complaints about police.
Some studies had also shown a 37% reduction in police use of force and a 26% drop in aggression towards officers.
The camera would integrate with existing systems, such as Taser software, and could save “millions of dollars” in evidence storage alone, Miller said.
He was unable to answer questions from the attending staff about the cost of equipping New Zealand cops with body cameras.
Outgoing Police Association president Chris Cahill has previously raised concerns about the cost, saying some police services in other countries were withdrawing body cameras because of the “excessive cost of the storage and issues around disclosure of the material”.
He wanted to ensure the funding for the rollout wouldn’t come out of the budget for frontline officers and police cars.
Melissa Nightingale is a Wellington-based reporter who covers crime, justice, and news in the capital. She joined the Herald in 2016 and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.