In his article, Stanley poses a good ethical question. Officers shouldn't be able to just switch on or off their body-cameras as they please, but how should that be implemented (2013, 2015)? Ideally, the camera would record for the entirety of their shift to eliminate any abuse of the officer, however, that idea intersects with another ethical issue (Stanley, 2013, 2015). Privacy becomes a concern if body-cameras are recording non-stop through shift. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) pointed out that crime victims (especially victims of rape, abuse and other sensitive crimes), and witnesses worried about possible retaliation have all the more reason to desire the upholding of their privacy (Stanley, 2013, 2015). More privacy concerns arise over whether or not sensitive information recorded by a body-camera (ie. Social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, etc.) will be sufficiently protected from misuse (Bakardjiev, 2016). Bakardjiev that a fear that video may be publicly released or abused for the purpose of personal gain is not unreasonable (2016). A legal issue concerning body cameras involves the 4th amendment rights of citizens. Welty notes that body-cameras alone "would be unlikely to form a Fourth Amendment mosaic ..." (2016). Supplementarily, he notes that in addition to every other officer's body-cameras, vehicle cameras, light and utility pole cameras, drones, and license plate readers, the body-camera may become part of a broad Fourth Amendment mosaic, implicating possible legal issues (Welty, 2016).