I have posted many times regarding the ubiquity of surveillance cameras. Those devices are everywhere and more are being sold and installed every day. Some estimate that there are close to 100 million security cameras in the U.S. There are only 335 million of us here, and so the cameras are catching up. And, there are an estimated 310 million smartphone users in the U.S. That is a lot of cameras.
See Surveillance, Conflicting Rights, and Balance (May 2021).
For whatever reason, I recently found myself on Twitter and a video came up regarding an alleged incident that resulted in a popular video on another social media platform. The popular video involved a nice lady who had an upsetting experience at a business and she took to social media to complain of being assaulted, manhandled, and abused. Apparently, the video in which she describes these offenses in detail made an impression and generated sharing.
The business, however, had some of those surveillance cameras on their premises. Soon, apparently, the business published its own video. The theme was to run the complainant's original video and complaints next to the alleged real-time video of her departure from the business. To be clear, it is difficult to judge the authenticity of either side of the story. But, it is fair to say that what has been portrayed may present a very divergent "two sides to every story.")
You can view the side-by-side here: https://www.tiktok.com/@hubbardinnchicago/video/7345947161005133102
Or here: https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/1bes198/hubbard_inn_responds_to_tiktokers_allegation_of/
Some outlets have reported that "the accuser has shut down all of her socials and gone dark online," since that side-by-side was published. Others have questioned why the accuser has not refuted or contested the response video with the purported video evidence that may contradict her original accusations. One of the posters on Twitter has questioned, somewhat colorfully, whether something has gone wrong with our world?
Commenters also make allegations and accusations against the original poster. Some are strongly worded. Others note their interpretations of the videos, the outfits worn by those portrayed, and the absolute control that the business has over the video. Those are issues of credibility, authentication, and the weight afforded to evidence. All of those are litigator concerns in each and every context. Video is potentially helpful and yet potentially challenging.
Believe it or not, I soon began seeing more video examples appear in my Twitter feed. Is it not amazing that these things seem to coincidentally come in groups? Or, is it possible that Twitter is studying me covertly and directing my attention next to things similar to what I viewed last? Preposterous, huh?
The next video that came up purports to depict a confrontation on a New York subway that ended with gunshots. The NY Times reported on the situation. And it is fair to say that is a developing investigation. The press expressed uncertainty as to whether criminal charges will result against either of the individuals. There seems to be some reluctance in the press regarding who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
However, believe it or not, there is purported video of the event. However, I noted this looks more like smart phone video. https://twitter.com/i/status/1768599451025756530.
It is likely that videos like this will be viewed and reviewed repeatedly in days to come. The natural question might be why the subway cars do not have security cameras. That is being considered also and NY News 1 reports that there are plans to significantly increase the 400 cameras currently on that train system (665 miles of track). The News 1 story says the planned cameras are a response to a "rise in assaults" that persists despite "upwards of over a thousand additional cops deployed in uniform each day in the New York City subway system." That is intriguing. The cost of 1,000 extra police seems significant and ongoing, but cameras are a challenge?
These stories remind us that cameras can be engaged in daily life. They may record us without our knowledge. They may reflect our recollections of events, or perhaps refute them. They seem omnipresent, and they are multiplying. There is every reason to believe that video may find its way into litigation, whether it supports someone's complaint against another or refutes recollections and explanations.
As to the initial video example, some will wonder if the business or employees might pursue defamation actions against the original poster. Or, if the "different outfits" are persuasive whether the original poster might file such a suit. The subway video may be relevant in determining criminal charges, or be involved in a civil suit by someone alleging injury. And as those situations are worked through, more cameras will be put into service.
In 2015, among my early blogs, I noted Rockwell's perceptions, see Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015). I would reiterate it here and suggest that knowledge of authentication, privacy rights, and digital record keeping may all be valid issues for study by attorneys. The litigation practice seems destined to continue its path into video relevance and prominence.