Cameras are ubiquitous and increasingly mobile. While CCTV has captured considerable attention by surveillance researchers, the new visibility of police activities is increasingly produced by incidental sousveillance and wearable on-officer camera systems. This article considers advocacy for policing’s new visibility, contrasting that of police accountability activists who film police with designers and early adopters of on-officer cameras. In both accounts, these devices promise accountability by virtue of their mechanical objectivity. However, to each party, accountability functions rather differently. By attending to the social and legal privileging of police officers’ perspectives, the article provides an explanation for design decisions that produced Taser’s AXON Flex on-officer cameras and for why police are embracing these new technologies. Critics of these cameras cite privacy concerns, officer discretion in operating cameras, and department disclosure of footage. Nonetheless, advocates of police accountability often presume more video documenting police use of force is always helpful. However, the utility of surveillance video is conditioned by point of view. Police agencies in the U.S. are rapidly adopting on-officer camera systems, because they acknowledge ubiquitous surveillance and that these devices aid in nullifying third-party documentation in favor of a perspective that favors officers. As such, these cameras are counter-sousveillance technologies.