Since their introduction over a decade ago, body-worn cameras have become virtually indispensable in law enforcement. Study after study has confirmed what officers already know: cameras reduce false complaints, deter misconduct, and provide crucial evidence when force is used. Today, they are standard equipment in almost every police department in America.

Private security, however, tells a very different story. Despite outnumbering police officers two-to-one, most private security officers don’t wear body cameras at all. Even the largest firms in the country have resisted adoption, and the few that do often undermine the very purpose of the technology. The result is an industry that hides behind appearances while leaving clients exposed.

The problem shows itself in three ways:

1. Security Companies That Ban Body-Worn Cameras

Believe it or not, many security companies take a hostile position against body-worn cameras and prohibit their use entirely. On paper, this looks like a “policy choice.” In practice, it’s a way to shield themselves from scrutiny.

No Footage, No Liability

Vetting and training officers properly is expensive, and in an industry driven by aggressive cost-cutting, that’s an expense most companies simply can't take on — or won't.

With poorly trained or poorly motivated officers in the field, cameras are seen as a liability that highlights everyday incompetence and misconduct. Companies are painfully aware of where they fall on the professionalism spectrum, and banning body-worn cameras eliminates the risk of having their shortcomings exposed.

The Old-School Mindset

Many private security firms are owned and managed by retired law enforcement officers. While most of today’s police have come to accept bodycams, there’s still a contingent that view them as unnecessary or even insulting — a suggestion that officers can’t be trusted.

When those attitudes move into the private sector, the result is an outdated policy that prohibits bodycams altogether, framed as a show of “trust” in employees. In reality, it strips away accountability for both officer and client.

2. Security Companies That Pass the Buck

A step up from outright bans, but in some ways just as irresponsible, are security companies that permit bodycams — but don't issue them. Instead, officers are allowed (or required) to purchase and manage their own.

Transparency and Accountability Issues

‍Footage captured on an employee-owned body camera legally belongs to the employee, not the company or the client. That means there’s no guarantee footage will ever see the light of day. If an officer doesn’t want to share it — or worse, wants to edit or delete it — there’s little anyone can do about it. With no oversight, auditing or chain of custody, evidence loses all credibility.

Clout-Seeking Behavior

Some officers wear cameras not out of professionalism, but for entertainment value. They use them to relive “cool” moments, or worse, to post clips online for attention.

In extreme cases, officers may even escalate situations just to capture dramatic footage. At best, this creates liability and privacy issues. At worst, it turns a tool for accountability into a medium for reckless behavior.

3. Security Companies That Issue Substandard Junk

Finally, there are the companies that do issue cameras — but only the cheapest, lowest-quality devices they can find. Often these are generic imports with unreliable, consumer-grade parts and no real data security.

Unreliable Evidence

Professional body-worn cameras are built with ruggedized components to withstand the rigors of public safety usage. Naturally, this comes with increased costs that most security companies refuse to take on.

Cheap cameras are made with consumer-grade components, not intended for public safety use. This leads to corrupted files, distorted audio, and a host of other reliability issues. In fact, some of the budget units we've stress-tested have failed in the Nevada heat, resulting in total data loss.

Bottom line? What looks like “accountability” to the client is more often, in practice, an unreliable prop.

LIttle (or No) Data Integrity

Cheap body-worn cameras often have little to no protection against tampering or remote access. Footage can be altered, deleted, or even hacked.

In some cases, the very tool that’s supposed to protect clients actually creates new vulnerabilities. Numerous reports have warned of the dangers of espionage and cyber threats stemming from imported devices; such risks could be catastrophic for clients that produce or handle sensitive information.

The Illusion of Professionalism

Outfitting officers with budget gear allows companies to market themselves as “cutting-edge” without actually delivering the benefits of public safety technology. Clients see cameras on uniforms and trust that the standards are up to par— but the system behind them is built on sand.

The Bigger Picture

Whether it’s banning cameras, pushing the burden onto employees, or issuing junk, the underlying problem is the same: security companies that prioritize their own bottom line over accountability, officer safety, and client trust.

If you’re considering a private security provider, the question isn’t just “Do your officers wear body cameras?” It’s how those cameras are deployed, who controls the footage, and whether the equipment is reliable. Start with:

• Do you issue body-worn cameras to every officer?
• Who owns and manages the footage?
• How do you preserve evidentiary integrity?

Until those questions are asked — and answered — the value and advantages of body-worn cameras in private security will remain more illusion than reality.

We're here to help.

Get started now by contacting us or use our Instant Estimate Tool to get a quick cost projection for a custom patrol plan.