Why would a Chain of Command be against helmet mounted GoPro cameras?

A lot of units purchase them for AAR's. The 82nd makes them mandatory on jumps. The issue is who owns the footage. If you use your own camera, the footage is yours to distribute as you please. While "you" may handle that in a responsible manner, others do not. All it takes is one new Private to get filmed in a shoot house saying, "I shot that fucking rag head" to get accidentally uploaded, and it will become an international incident with a Congressional inquiry. As any NCO can attest, it will absolutely happen. Or something even worse.
If you want cameras get your unit to purchase them. There's plenty of precedence for it already, so it's an easy sell if your unit has the funds.

Also, the unit has the funds. I'll ask CSM Paquin about it tomorrow.

I used unit funds to purchase some for my unit for exactly the reason you mention. I would encourage it as long as we keep it internal for AAR. As a future CSM, I will prob wear one as well.

Honest answer SSG - When I had a platoon I had a standing directive, no phones , no cameras on missions, Not because I feared that someone would do something illegal, but more the fact that trying to control 30 people from uploading footage and photo's to their social media, which have location, date/time stamps, and a host of other intelligence that could be utilized against us. The second reason is, these things can and often are used by pundits and activists, usually cherry picked scenes and photo's, to discredit the military.

Initially, I thought, this will be easy. It's authorized, or not; not so much. Three main issues I discovered were mission security, control of the video information (VI) after recording, and ownership. For the record, the command team has an obligation to "CYA" you, individual Soldiers who may appear on the video, the command, and the Army.

I don't believe mission security applies here.

There is undoubtedly value for AARs, but the COC authorizing VI on personal devices assumes liability and responsibility for the disposition of the video (see reasoning below). My initial thought was, and remains, "why not use it as a tool."

I understand the security risk for operational missions, and the risk for Soldiers who may be caught on video acting in a manner that doesn't reflect well. I no security risk for the intent in this discussion. With regard to the "acting in a manner," if it rises to the level of becoming an issue, a video record may not be a bad thing, except for the person acting out.

I didn't find definitive results of the review that began in March 2018, but it began after the use of helmet camera from the Islamic State-linked fighters ambush in Niger was exploited to make a propaganda, but there were at least a couple of DoDIs updated.

Before the Nigeria ambush video, there was an OSD memorandum, dated November 8, 2016, SUBJECT: Guidance for Use of Visual Information Captured by Department of Defense Personnel on Personal Equipment, stating "office is working to update DoD policy to clarify security review responsibilities for the public release of mission-related VI captured by DoD personnel." The memo also acknowledged the AAR value of VI, but the issue was the security risk. The memo stated standards would be included in the references, which were:
(a) Department of Defense Directive 5230.09, "Clearance of DoD Information for
Public Release," August 22, 2008 (Latest I found is January 25, 2019)
(b) Department of Defense Instruction 5040.02, "Visual Information (VI)," July 8,
2016 (latest I found is Change 2, Effective April 23, 2018)
(c) Department of Defense Instruction 5230.29, "Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release," August 13, 2014 (Latest I found is Change 1, April 14, 2017)
(d) Department of Defense Instruction 8550.01, "DoD Internet Services and Internet-Based Capabilities," September 11, 2012 (Found no more current)
(e) ALDODACT message 11/06, "Information Security/Website Alert," DTG090426Z AUG 06

A December 2017 article from DIMOC, "Modern Military’s Quandary: Personal Cameras on the Battlefield, By Lee Thomas DVI, Chief, Policy and Programs," raised the following issues:
One issue is control of the video after recorded. DoD Directive 5230.09 and ATSD(PA) memorandum, “Guidance for Use of Visual Information Captured by Department of Defense Personnel on Personal Equipment,” November 8, 2016, requires a security review for clearance from the appropriate level of command before it ca be released.
Further, "if the operations they are documenting are connected to their official duties (regardless of who owns the equipment), or (3) the government employee is charged with creating imagery as part of their official duties and voluntarily uses their personal equipment to do so; that imagery is normally considered official United States Government federal records under Title 17, U.S.C (§ 101. Definitions) (A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties)."
"For example, the Naval Special Warfare command recently determined that approximately 20,000 images taken by a Navy training instructor using his personal camera with the intent of publishing a commercial book for sale were in fact all Navy VI Records."

Personally, I recall a Senior SGL (SFC) at the Chemical NCO Academy, Ft McClellan, AL, who took all the class photos and captured training events, and personally would love to see his photos, especially the smoke and Field Flame Expedients range pics published.

It seems the answer to this conundrum is as complicated as the technology that drove the question. I have a bit of research to do on the subject, and reselling the idea as well. I even got an answer from a Naval officer, which I wasn't expecting, but glad to receive. Thank you for all the guidance from the Commanders, CSMs, 1SGs, and fellow NCOs.

Personally I'd be against it for OPSEC reasons. If your unit is doing lanes and practicing TTPs it would be hard to maintain control of the video data and if the enemy knows how you plan to react to contact then they can adjust their tactics to better counter your TTPs.
We all know TTPs morph and change to meet the threat as deployments progress (or they should) but giving the hooligans an edge at the outset could be a bad deal.

Some here may remember the policy issued down range during the 05-07 rotation in Iraq and later when we were told not to post photos of vehicles that were hit with IEDs and EFPs because it was found that the enemy was using them for BDA and adjusting their angles of attack to make more effective devices. That real life instance supports not using the cameras.

Conversely I understand the argument of using the videos for AARs and have been in facilities where this was done. However the recording was controlled by the range cadre and supposed to be deleted after the AAR process and there were checks and balances to ensure this and consequences for release of the material covered under punitive action.

Just try running around with a Go-Pro in a Navy shipyard or say Delta Pier or MLA at Bangor/Kings Bay and you'll be face planted and typically given a Bad Chicken Dinner. There are a lot of regulations out there about recording devices. When not in those areas, then it's at the policy level. As a matter of ownership, the MIL may own images etc. captured by personal stuff. The policy then goes on to state the recording is to be vetted by the PAO side for release. The other aspect of the policy typically gives free reign to things like dinners, ceremonies, etc. But then again I once went to a dinner where it was all banned lest everyone had to wear a ski mask. If you are not explicitly authorized, then they can easily decide you are not after the fact. Tickle the Dragon at your own risk.

Can they be "hacked"?? Maybe it is a security problem that they don't want the Chinese or Russians to know how we train.

AR670-1 comes to mind as one source document. And since a GoPro isn’t generally a CIF item, that may be the reason. You might also consider that the commander can also set uniform policy as it relates to missions or training.

GoPro type cameras are used in select SPECOPS events...again, the commander decides.

So, I would go to the source, through the chain of command and ask the question. The answer may be a curt “no” with no further explanation. The NCO support channel is also always a good way to float these types of questions up. PLT SGT, 1SG, CSM to the CDR. If the question passes muster with your senior NCOs, then, most likely your CO with provide his reasoning.

From a macro standpoint, are the camera authorized to be worn on the ACH? If not, how does a chain of command get approval? Who is authorized to download the video once complete and on what medium? The camera isn't government issued (and I would assume not authorized), how would a user go about getting approval in order to video other Soldiers without their permission? While there are liability concerns that need discussing, are there other means available to achieve the same outcome?

We have the PAO to develop the information campaign for the command.

From a command perspective, mostly just too much of a liability. If someone is injured or there is an accident we already have procedures in place to investigate but the last thing a command needs is that footage of the mishap leading to a potential break in the notification process of a casualty. As far as your tactics statement yes true our manuals are online readily accessable, but our adptive style as a military leaves some TTP's still unavailable unless present and participating in training, for the most part anyway. Just my 2 cents.

Like anything else that could possibly find its way into the public domain, releases of verbal or written statements, videos, etc. need to go through the Public Affairs Office (PAO). If everyone in the US Military decided to video events, and release footage (edited or not) at their own discretion, the PAO would be very busy putting out fires these servicemembers started. Just look at how certain unit commanders react when their troops put memos and pictures on US Army WTF Moments....

One simple term, "LIABILITY".

It's mainly the army wtf moments a d something's that a unit may find that works isn't in the Manuel's , but you still don't want bad guys knowing what you can or would do. As far as who owns the footage? When you signed that paper you became Uncle Sam's property so they own you and everything about you. Sorry

These do not belong in battle or training situations...PERIOD. If you want to record your physical stuff....do it on your own time.....not the military's. Serving in the military is not a social media/millenia person thing. This is the defense of our nation not gotcha moments...

Let me begin by saying I am a leg. Now that I have surrendered my credibility

NO GO with this CSM!
Personally I want Soldiers focused on their teammates, leadership, and mission not on a personal hero video. Secondly and most importantly are those personal videos are dangerous to SIGSEC AND OPSEC. My proof is to look at the Ukrainian War and how personal electronic communications (phone calls, social media posts) have led to effective targeting.

Where in any FM or AR or DA PAM 670-1 are Go Pro's authorized accessories to be mounted on uniforms?
Can you guarantee that every GoPro will be turned off in the TOC? Or by the SIPR computers? Can you guarantee they won't "accidentally" make it into the latrines?
No reg authorizes them, and there's a world of liability issues for the Commander to eat... It's easy to call a Commander "scared" when you're not the one who'll be fired or scapegoated when things go wrong.

The world has become PC they are scared