3 ms·
Because unless I am mistaken, you had not mentioned it being public data. Private surveillance is not really much use to him. I've worked in places where the su
by eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Because unless I am mistaken, you had not mentioned it being public data. Private surveillance is not really much use to him. I've worked in places where the surveillance tapes were wiped or mislaid when it wasn't in the interest of the footage owner to have its existence known.
Making it all public data would be totally different. That opens another can of worms: Would it then be a crime to delete the data if you were the owner of the footage?
- chrischen 13y agoRegardless of it being public or not, fundamentally it still stands that more surveillance means the OP would have been vindicated. If you want to talk about abuse of the data, that's a whole other issue. The question is, if surveillance is benevolent, would it have helped the OP? Yes. It would have.
- eliasmacpherson 13y agoThat's a big if. The owner of the footage can be ambivalent, malevolent or benevolent. If I was ambivalent over an incident, I wouldn't be motivated to get involved and hand over my footage.