First it was cameras in police cars, mounted on dashboards to film interactions between police and members of the public. Now, according to a New York Times article that was published in The Bulletin last week, those cameras have gotten up close and personal, mounted not on the dashboard but on an officer’s body or glasses.

The trend may be enough to give privacy proponents the heebie jeebies, but there are advantages to both sides when police/public interactions are filmed.

The most obvious advantage is having a hard record of the transaction. According to the Times article, the introduction of body cameras was at least partially responsible for an 88 percent drop in complaints against Rialto, Calif., police officers the first year they were in use. At the same time, the article notes, police officers themselves behaved better, knowing they were being filmed.

Not all is so positive, however.

From the public’s point of view, there should be serious privacy concerns about body cameras. No one we know relishes the idea of being filmed during a routine traffic stop. And, in this age of technological wonder, there should be genuine concern about the possibility of seeing one’s lapse in judgment on YouTube anytime soon.

Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton points out another problem: Cameras are expensive to begin with, and keeping them operating is bound to be expensive as well, as the bills for parts, software and other gear mount up. There are also questions about storing evidence.

It may be that body or glasses cameras are everything their supporters say they are — in the right setting. But we can’t imagine a police agency rushing to the nearest camera shop to outfit everyone.

Like any new tool, they’ll take time and study to prove their worth, and that’s good. Even for a small police force, the idea of an initial investment of $900 per camera, plus ongoing expenses after that, is likely to limit their use for the time being.