4 ms·

The party in question that might object is the person being recorded, not the officer.

• CamperBob2 5y ago
  Too bad. The camera, like the officer himself, is supposed to be there for the individual's protection. Or, more accurately, the officer's job is to protect and serve those in his or her charge, while the camera's job is to protect society. That's a compelling interest if there ever was one. The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist. They can't do that if the footage never existed in the first place... but they will cheerfully take the officer's word regarding what he saw. It's misguided at best to think that this state of affairs is preferable from a privacy and security standpoint.
  • kansface 5y ago
    Police officers go to the bathroom. They take lunch breaks. They go to doctors appointments. They notify next of kin after a death. > The courts can decide when it's appropriate for the footage to be viewed where privacy concerns exist Any data that is recorded will be made public eventually, one way or another, which is why it shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
    • CamperBob2 5y ago
      Again: too bad. There are other professions besides law enforcement, if you can't deal with the requirements. It's certainly one of those jobs that I could never do. I have nothing but respect for ethical, professional LEOs. They are among the people who will benefit the most from having a full AV record of their interactions with the public.