5 ms·

While I agree with the sentiment that public workers should be accountable to the tax payers, let's not forget they are still humans. Would you like your employ

While I agree with the sentiment that public workers should be accountable to the tax payers, let's not forget they are still humans. Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times?

grawprog 6y ago
Fortunately, my job doesn't require me to carry firearms, detain citizens or uphold laws. Furthermore, when I was being paid by government grant money, we were accountable for every thing we did while being paid and every penny we spent. We were required to make regular reports and justify everything. It'd be nice to see even that level of accountability with policing.
emilfihlman 6y ago
If my desk was the outside and I was enforcing "laws" with possibly deadly force, I shouldn't have a say in if I like it or not: it (should) come(s) with the work.
gruez 6y ago
>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? You can always... get another job. If you don't accept the surveillance that comes with your power to inflict violence with impunity, maybe you shouldn't be given the power in the first place.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  I agree with that sentiment, however... In EU there are shows where TV crew is embedded in highway police (traffic police). They never let people off with a warning. I literally never seen it happen. And in Europe in real life you have a chance to be caught for small infraction and receive waggle of the proverbial finger of the law. So having all police live stream their cams might not only curb bad behavior of bad cops, but also good behavior of good cops.
  - gruez 6y ago
    I hear this argument a lot (ie. "body cams will eliminate/reduce police discretion"), but I always wonder, is that a bad thing? If the department policy is that everyone that goes 10mph over the limit is ticketed, and you don't get off because of your charisma (or not being a minority), is that a bad thing?
- lodovic 6y ago
  That's not a good way to deal with this. If you leave, the next guy will have the same shitty spying going on. Plus, nothing stops your next gig from spying on you as well. Until you've quit so many times that no employer is interested anymore. Better to tackle the problem at the root. No spying unless specifically defined how.
wadkar 6y ago
Well, my understanding is that there is no expectation of privacy if you’re using your employers equipment or network. I think it’s pretty clearly written on that offer letter when you sign the contract - or at least the ones I sampled. Not to mention the proliferation of CCTVs in almost all work places. So to answer your question, yeah, I fully expect my employer to record what I am doing all the time and it’s a price that unfortunately I have to pay to survive in this digital world.
- lodovic 6y ago
  Even bathroom breaks?
  - wadkar 6y ago
    I wouldn’t be surprised if they counted those as well. I don’t think they’ll go so far as installing cctv inside the bathrooms lol
krapp 6y ago
>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? I mean, many employers go as far in that direction as they legally can. See the recent thread here about "bossware."[0] However, my employer can't seize my private property, lock me or my family in a cell, torture me or simply shoot me dead in the middle of the street in broad daylight and get away with it. Police can, and do, all of those things all the time. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495
pmoriarty 6y ago
On the one hand: Police having privacy while on the job. On the other hand: Not letting police get away with torture, murder, planting evidence, lying about what happened, throwing innocent people in jail. Hmm... tough choice.
- headsupernova 6y ago
  The issue is the privacy of the people they're interacting with.
hyperman1 6y ago
That's a bad idea. A lot of policing is taking someone aside an giving them a warning, defusing a situation between angry people, etc... A camera only complicates these matters. What might be a better idea is stripping them of their privileged position. Today, if a police officer says something in court, it is automatically the truth. Take that away from the police, and let the camera be the official truth teller. Give accused people automatically a full version, so prosecutors can't edit against them. UPDATE whoops, this should be attached to the grandparent post.
djohnston 6y ago
The takeaway here is that while I wouldn't want that, the consequences of my dicking around on YouTube are significantly less severe than the consequences of police misconduct
akira2501 6y ago
It's simple. You encrypt the data. Only the DA has the key. This also prevents the police from being able to use their own footage when trying to make a statement, a benefit the public doesn't have. If the DA determines that a crime was likely committed, then they can decrypt the footage and review, otherwise it stays stored for a short period of time, then destroyed.
- catalogia 6y ago
  This scheme assumes DAs are trustworthy, but there are a plethora of cases where DAs have protected bad cops. If only the DA can decrypt the video, that severely limits the opportunities of would-be whistle-blowers.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Cops are civil servants with power of life and death over people. Do not compare it with other jobs.

grawprog 6y ago

Fortunately, my job doesn't require me to carry firearms, detain citizens or uphold laws. Furthermore, when I was being paid by government grant money, we were accountable for every thing we did while being paid and every penny we spent. We were required to make regular reports and justify everything. It'd be nice to see even that level of accountability with policing.

emilfihlman 6y ago

If my desk was the outside and I was enforcing "laws" with possibly deadly force, I shouldn't have a say in if I like it or not: it (should) come(s) with the work.

gruez 6y ago

>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? You can always... get another job. If you don't accept the surveillance that comes with your power to inflict violence with impunity, maybe you shouldn't be given the power in the first place.

me_me_me 6y ago
I agree with that sentiment, however... In EU there are shows where TV crew is embedded in highway police (traffic police). They never let people off with a warning. I literally never seen it happen. And in Europe in real life you have a chance to be caught for small infraction and receive waggle of the proverbial finger of the law. So having all police live stream their cams might not only curb bad behavior of bad cops, but also good behavior of good cops.
- gruez 6y ago
  I hear this argument a lot (ie. "body cams will eliminate/reduce police discretion"), but I always wonder, is that a bad thing? If the department policy is that everyone that goes 10mph over the limit is ticketed, and you don't get off because of your charisma (or not being a minority), is that a bad thing?
lodovic 6y ago
That's not a good way to deal with this. If you leave, the next guy will have the same shitty spying going on. Plus, nothing stops your next gig from spying on you as well. Until you've quit so many times that no employer is interested anymore. Better to tackle the problem at the root. No spying unless specifically defined how.

wadkar 6y ago

Well, my understanding is that there is no expectation of privacy if you’re using your employers equipment or network. I think it’s pretty clearly written on that offer letter when you sign the contract - or at least the ones I sampled. Not to mention the proliferation of CCTVs in almost all work places. So to answer your question, yeah, I fully expect my employer to record what I am doing all the time and it’s a price that unfortunately I have to pay to survive in this digital world.

lodovic 6y ago
Even bathroom breaks?
- wadkar 6y ago
  I wouldn’t be surprised if they counted those as well. I don’t think they’ll go so far as installing cctv inside the bathrooms lol

krapp 6y ago

>Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times? I mean, many employers go as far in that direction as they legally can. See the recent thread here about "bossware."[0] However, my employer can't seize my private property, lock me or my family in a cell, torture me or simply shoot me dead in the middle of the street in broad daylight and get away with it. Police can, and do, all of those things all the time. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705495

pmoriarty 6y ago

On the one hand: Police having privacy while on the job. On the other hand: Not letting police get away with torture, murder, planting evidence, lying about what happened, throwing innocent people in jail. Hmm... tough choice.

headsupernova 6y ago
The issue is the privacy of the people they're interacting with.

hyperman1 6y ago

That's a bad idea. A lot of policing is taking someone aside an giving them a warning, defusing a situation between angry people, etc... A camera only complicates these matters. What might be a better idea is stripping them of their privileged position. Today, if a police officer says something in court, it is automatically the truth. Take that away from the police, and let the camera be the official truth teller. Give accused people automatically a full version, so prosecutors can't edit against them. UPDATE whoops, this should be attached to the grandparent post.

djohnston 6y ago

The takeaway here is that while I wouldn't want that, the consequences of my dicking around on YouTube are significantly less severe than the consequences of police misconduct

akira2501 6y ago

It's simple. You encrypt the data. Only the DA has the key. This also prevents the police from being able to use their own footage when trying to make a statement, a benefit the public doesn't have. If the DA determines that a crime was likely committed, then they can decrypt the footage and review, otherwise it stays stored for a short period of time, then destroyed.

catalogia 6y ago
This scheme assumes DAs are trustworthy, but there are a plethora of cases where DAs have protected bad cops. If only the DA can decrypt the video, that severely limits the opportunities of would-be whistle-blowers.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

Cops are civil servants with power of life and death over people. Do not compare it with other jobs.