SAFETY, DIGNITY & PRIVACY Inherent in video’s power to convey an individual story is the potential for a video to impact the safety, dignity, and privacy of individuals and communities captured in the footage. A video of sexual assault, for example, has the potential to shame, re-victimize, and endanger the abused individual. Widely circulated footage of human rights defenders could make them targets of arrest or violence by repressive governments. Testimony of a police officer describing corruption among his superiors could put that officer at risk of losing his job or worse. Keep in mind that there may be people beyond those identified on camera who are put at risk from the release of footage. For example, if one individual is captured on camera at a meeting, it could be inferred that the individual’s colleagues are also there. If an individual is filmed speaking out against local officials, that person’s entire family could be in danger of retribution. An individual’s on-camera testimony could include the naming of other people and their locations. Potential harm also applies to perpetrators of abuse who may be caught on camera. This point is especially important for human rights groups that advocate for a fair trial or don’t want to put alleged perpetrators at risk of torture. In the absence of clear indicators of informed consent in a video, a curator must make a professional judgment about whether using that footage could violate the consent, privacy, or dignity of the individuals or communities filmed, or otherwise put them at risk of harm. Take the following steps to make an informed assessment of the potential risks to those filmed. Then weigh the different factors to decide how to curate the footage while minimizing those risks. STEP 1 ASSESS CONSENT Certain visual clues can help a viewer assess whether individual subjects consented to the recording. Questions to consider: • • Was the video recorded in a public or private setting? Does the subject appear aware of the camera? In assessing the subject’s agency in giving his or her consent to be filmed, be particularly sensitive to vulnerable populations such as prisoners, children, and the mentally impaired, as they may not be fully cognizant of the risks of being on video or possess the autonomy to decide whether or not to do so.   However, even if visual clues can suggest whether those filmed in eyewitness footage are aware of being on camera or willing to be filmed, it is nearly impossible to assess with certainty whether they gave their informed consent to the recording. For instance, if the video was filmed in a crowded public space such as a protest or violent altercation, they may have lacked the ability to “opt-out” of being filmed. They may have had no way to know whether and to what extent those recordings would be distributed, to whom, and for what purposes. 180 VIDEO AS EVIDENCE: ETHICAL GUIDELINES V 1.2 SHARING PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT