We’ve had many people asking two questions. Why are federal agents using personal devices to record interactions? And why are federal agents sitting near peaceful protests simply recording people?
Federal agents have deliberately taken a different approach and it is deeply concerning. Instead of using agency-issued body cameras, which are required by policy, agents are increasingly recording peaceful protesters with personal devices such as cell phones, GoPros, and other consumer-grade cameras. This is not accidental. Body-worn cameras are governed by strict rules footage is automatically logged, retained, audited, and far more difficult to delete, alter, or selectively release. Personal devices do not carry those safeguards.
By using phones and GoPros, agents sidestep transparency requirements and avoid automatic ingestion into official DHS evidence and records systems. This allows footage to exist outside normal oversight, with no clear chain of custody, no guaranteed retention rules, and no accountability for how (or whether) that data is preserved, edited, shared, or destroyed. That represents a clear departure from established policy and a serious breakdown of public trust.
We have already seen how selective recording can shape the narrative. In the case of Renee Good, Vance released personal footage from the ICE agent involved. Had this been comprehensive body-camera footage, it would have provided a fuller and more revealing account of the incident. Instead, the public was shown a partial version.
At the same time, this behavior serves another purpose and that’s intimidation. Recording peaceful protesters with personal cameras is not about professionalism, safety, or lawful documentation. It functions as a psychological tactic meant to chill speech, discourage lawful assembly, and remind people they are being watched. Law enforcement officers are trained to act with restraint and professionalism. Pointing personal cameras at civilians engaged in peaceful protest is the opposite of that standard.
This is not normal procedure, this is not transparent policing, and it is not compatible with democratic norms. When agents abandon required body cameras in favor of unregulated personal surveillance, it raises serious concerns about efforts to control the narrative, evade oversight, and intimidate the public rather than uphold the law.
Source