Updated at 8:36 p.m.

A proposal to exempt recordings made from police body cameras from Massachusetts' public records law was heard by a legislative committee at the State House Thursday.

The bill (H.2120) was filed by Rep. Denise Provost, a Democrat from Somerville.

The public records exemption is part of a wide-ranging bill that would also create a task force charged with establishing statewide standards and regulations for bodycams worn by law enforcement officers.

“It is to protect the safety and privacy of victims, minors, witnesses and bystanders,” Provost said, “[so that] individuals who just happened to be caught on camera in what are probably not the best moments of their lives are not exposed.”

Even though the Boston Police Department is required to blur or black out faces in most bodycam footage released through public records requests, Provost said she’s concerned about the long-lasting effects of distribution.

“The shame and humiliation of those people can go on and on,” she said, “because a video like that can end up on YouTube.”

Secretary of State William Galvin, a Democrat whose office oversees public records, is urging lawmakers to reject the proposed exemption, calling it "completely unwarranted" and "unacceptable." He says it could defeat the goal of improving transparency through the use of the devices.

"The purpose of body cameras and dash cams is to provide authenticity to the actions of public safety officers," Galvin said. "In many ways it works to record and therefore protect both the public safety officers and the people who they're interacting with."

Galvin says state law already protects against the release of sensitive information, such as that which might identify victims or witnesses.

“The sponsors seem to be raising the issue that somehow third parties they describe as 'innocent bystanders' might be adversely affected," Galvin said. "The idea of taking out altogether any possibility that the results of body cameras be made public is just unacceptable and completely unwarranted.”

Boston police began bodycam training for officers in May. In June, BPD equipped nearly 200 officers with cameras in South Boston and Dorchester, as well as members of the youth violence strike force.

“This new technology is an opportunity to showcase and enhance the department’s commitment to transparency,” the BPD said in a statement at the time, “while further strengthening the level of trust that exists between the men and women of the Boston Police Department and our community.”

According to Galvin, Provost’s proposed legislation “misrepresents what the purpose of the bill is” by creating a total, absolute exception to the public records law for bodycam footage. “If they want to do a study and think about ways that privacy can be protected for so-called innocent bystanders or set up a process by which these matters would be considered or reviewed, then that's reasonable,” Galvin said. “But the idea of totally excepting the whole result of body cameras completely forever is not acceptable.”

The Boston Police are currently investigating the death of a 19-year-old man in Dorchester who was shot by a police officer. Police Commissioner William Gross has vowed that bodycam footage from the incident will, at some point, be released to the public. Galvin says Provost’s bill could negatively impact cases like these.

“There were communities, there were individuals, there were police officers who might well want to get the material out there to prove their version of events and look for communities to know and be assured what really happened,” Galvin said. “That credibility is critically important.”

Provost says the bill would protect people like a constituent who called her office a few years ago, after a local SWAT team came to the wrong apartment in Somerville. “They broke down the door of the first floor apartment where a woman was in the bathroom getting ready for work, they handcuffed her and they marched her out to the street in her underwear,” Provost said. “And then they looked around her little apartment they realized it was the wrong place.”

“Just because people happen to be around when there is a chase or when there's an encounter with the police,” she continued, “doesn't necessarily mean that they should lose their privacy.”

Thursday's hearing was on legislation related to law enforcement and training.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.