Perpetrators in an altercation or civilians simply interacting with beat or traffic cops, take heed: smile, you'll soon be recorded on candid camera, all day, all the time.
Modern Malaysian policing is innovating into a revolutionary phase come September: mobile, motorcycle patrol and traffic officers will begin utilising 7,648 body-worn cameras (BWCs) in 157 district police headquarters and 640 police stations nationwide as a routine but consequential aspect of law enforcement.
Police's perspective on deploying the BWCs: besides enhancing their image, it improves good governance during crime prevention patrols and mutual public ties.
Moreover, BWC footage shot on duty is admissible in court and instrumental as evidence and legal due process. That high definition audio-video resolution will test the wide legal implications when a first case is tried in court.
But here's an unwitting sample, a maiden implication of sorts: while driving a van, a British couple stopped by the roadside by three policemen surreptitiously recorded the engagement using an on-board camera.
The 51-second video clip uploaded on YouTube allegedly filmed the cops' soliciting a RM100 bribe to settle a traffic summons. Once exposed, the three cops were immediately arrested, but imagine an alternate universe: would they be moronic enough to demand dirty money, knowing intimately that the interaction was recorded?
In any case, police BWCs are already a standard feature worldwide but infamously, it was underscored by the 2014 deadly police shooting of Michael Brown, an African-American youth, in the United States.
Then president Barack Obama initiated a US$263 million federal government funding for body camera programmes and police training. What are the pros and cons derived from these police forces' BWC experiences? Certainly, it improved police accountability and transparency, reducing misconduct to become a vital reform tool that help mend mistrust and relationships.
BWCs usefully assess domestic violence where attacks, including injuries to victims and their statements, are recorded "spontaneously and honestly" for court evidence. But the cons are just as dramatic: equipment and maintenance cost are technically unreliable (poor integration, on/off switches work poorly, battery drained by freezing weather).
Also, the costs are so exorbitant that it could spike to US$35 million per department. There was also an extreme case where a BWC burst into flames while worn, resulting in a massive recall.
This one is for the ages: BWCs invade privacy, exposing victims to facial recognition software while susceptible to civil right violations. Malaysians, who have long forfeited their privacy, may not regard this as a major issue.
Then the fear of retaliation: police informants are unlikely to pass reliable information if their conversation is recorded, particularly in high-crime neighbourhoods.
This is the heart of contention: BWCs don't guarantee police officers' safety while it negatively affects physical and mental health.
Assaults on police officers went up by 14 per cent when BWCs were used. As BWC footage dispassionately verify events, the question of a half-full or half-empty cup nonetheless has to be tried and tested.