4 ms·
This is, of course, a terrible thing, but it's nothing new. From personal experience, back in 1991 I was with a group of friends, one of whom was using a camco
by CWuestefeld 16y ago
This is, of course, a terrible thing, but it's nothing new.
From personal experience, back in 1991 I was with a group of friends, one of whom was using a camcorder to record a police officer. The cop threatened him, exclaiming "Get that camera thing away from me!".
The difference now is the ubiquity of video recording devices, and thus increased perceived urgency on the part of police to defend themselves against them.
- jacquesm 16y agoIf they're doing nothing illegal, they've got nothing to fear, right ? Or so the argument goes when the 'other' side wants their goodies (dna samples, finger prints, all your mail headers (and probably their contents), your browsing history, your credit card purchases, surveilance footage and so on). What goes around comes around, if transparency is a 'good thing' and we're all to be tracked and followed then it stands to reason that police officers can and should be tracked and followed by citizens, as long as the recordings do not interfere with the police work.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoThey are not robots. They behave differently on camera, just as you and I do. They can be embarrassed, clutch, and act out. Just watch an episode of a real crime show on cable for any number of examples.
- stakent 16y agoChange in their behaviour is secondary effect. In most cases it is change for better one so maybe there should be mandatory recording of all proceedings of authorities? Well, at least the public ones.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoYou're kidding! Just watch Cops. On camera, policemen get macho, brutal and generally act out for the audience. This is NOT better behavior.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoWhat's the control in this experiment? Obviously you can't know how the Cops guys behave off-camera.