3 ms·
>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In m
by literallycancer 9y ago
>There is a decent privacy argument to be made against body cams. Not just for the officers themselves, but also for the people approached by the officers. In many cases, when police need to get involved people aren't showing their best sides. Recordings of that kind of stuff are rather sensitive.
Why would there be any expectation of privacy for public officials?
- mulmen 9y agoI think the privacy argument is about the members of the public the police are interacting with.
- rocqua 9y agoPublic officials go to the toilet. Public officials get calls about private matters during the day. Those are just the basics where a public officials is essentially a private person. These alone should be enough. There is a whole 'nother set of cases where it is good for a public official to not have to take into consideration they are being monitored. Most of this comes down to helping communication. There is also value in letting people make small mistakes, or even letting people slack of on occasion. In short, there is a very large overlap between the arguments against a surveillance state and the arguments against always on body cams. Consider also the phenomenon of 'glassholes'. That is, people really disliked talking to someone wearing google glass because they were being filmed.