[Rushy]

For the past few months the notion of body cameras on all law enforcement officers (LEOs) has come up repeatedly on various sites. This is odd, considering not but a year or so ago, the entire country was up in arms about mass surveillance of everyone via the NSA, Facebook, and other organizations. Now we not only have the idea of creating a perpetual state of cameras watching from CCTV on the corner to cameras on LEOs, but many people are begging for more of it. Am I in the twilight zone? I'm guessing it is safe to assume that the people against mass surveillance aren't the same people wanting these cameras everywhere.

In addition, how would you trust the authority (that you already don't trust) to handle the cameras and subsequently huge amounts of data storage it would require? Even worse, who is paying for all of this new equipment? None of this really adds up to me.

[Particle Person]

Do you really not understand the difference between indiscriminate electronic surveillance/data-mining and body cameras for on-duty LEOs? Because that's a pretty dumb comparison.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I'm not falling for this le epic ruse. No one thinks this way.

[Rushy]

Do you really not understand the difference between indiscriminate electronic surveillance/data-mining and body cameras for on-duty LEOs? Because that's a pretty dumb comparison.

Mass surveillance is mass surveillance.

Some people argue that LEOs would only tape things that are publicly available so it isn't the same, but then I could argue that the Internet is a public place. Furthermore, do police officers suddenly lose their right to maintain some semblance of privacy when conducting their job? Less than 1% of the video captured using those cameras would actually contain footage of arrests or ticketing.

[Particle Person]

Furthermore, do police officers suddenly lose their right to maintain some semblance of privacy when conducting their job?

Absolutely. Are you retarded?

[Rushy]

Absolutely.

Why?

[Particle Person]

Why should somebody providing a public service have any right to privacy while doing so?

[Rushy]

Why should somebody providing a public service have any right to privacy while doing so?

Most of a what a police officer does isn't done publicly.

[Particle Person]

Why should somebody providing a public service have any right to privacy while doing so?

Most of a what a police officer does isn't done publicly.

Do you think the guys sitting behind desks will wear body cameras too? Also, yes, everything a police officer does is done publicly, because they are public servants. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're always operating on actual public property.

[Rushy]

Do you think the guys sitting behind desks will wear body cameras too?

The general sentiment seems to be that all police officers should wear body cameras at all times that cannot be turned off at any time.

Also, yes, everything a police officer does is done publicly, because they are public servants. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're always operating on actual public property.

That's a pretty extreme precedent to set. Should all public servants wear these cameras or just police? I don't think anyone understands the full implications of making this mass surveillance possible.

[Tau]

Do you think the guys sitting behind desks will wear body cameras too?

The general sentiment seems to be that all police officers should wear body cameras at all times that cannot be turned off at any time.

Also, yes, everything a police officer does is done publicly, because they are public servants. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're always operating on actual public property.

That's a pretty extreme precedent to set. Should all public servants wear these cameras or just police? I don't think anyone understands the full implications of making this mass surveillance possible.

Public servants who carry guns and have the legal authority to kill people under certain situations should also carry body cameras. I can't think of any examples of that aside from LEOs, but if anyone else falls into that category then they should also wear body cameras.

[Particle Person]

The general sentiment seems to be that all police officers should wear body cameras at all times that cannot be turned off at any time.

I'm not familiar with that general sentiment. I've never seen anybody advocate detectives wearing cameras while at their desks.

That's a pretty extreme precedent to set. Should all public servants wear these cameras or just police? I don't think anyone understands the full implications of making this mass surveillance possible.

LEOs are the largest group of public servants who are authorized to administer lethal force, so yes, there is more justification for closely monitoring their actions than, say, that of USPS workers.

[Rushy]

Public servants who carry guns and have the legal authority to kill people under certain situations should also carry body cameras. I can't think of any examples of that aside from LEOs, but if anyone else falls into that category then they should also wear body cameras.

Who controls all of this footage? The police? A third party company? If the corruption is so broad that we need these cameras, who could possibly be trusted to manage them?

I'm not familiar with that general sentiment. I've never seen anybody advocate detectives wearing cameras while at their desks.

Then I won't mention it again.

LEOs are the largest group of public servants who are authorized to administer lethal force, so yes, there is more justification for closely monitoring their actions than, say, that of USPS workers.

I don't disagree, but I still think the wide enforcement of camera surveillance across the entire country is more disturbing than the crimes this will attempt to prevent. If we're willing to glue cameras everywhere to stop crime, why not take it steps further? The innocent have nothing to fear.

[rooster]

The general sentiment seems to be that all police officers should wear body cameras at all times that cannot be turned off at any time.

I'm not familiar with that general sentiment. I've never seen anybody advocate detectives wearing cameras while at their desks.

I think the real concern is officers going to the restroom.
If you have cameras that you can turn off, then people will always suspect that the officer turned the camera off to beat someone. But if they have cameras that they can't turn off, then they'd be filmed while using the little girls'/boys' room.

They could just take the camera off and leave it in their car for the duration of the potty break. But I have literally seen that exact argument on a FB thread.

[Tau]

The general sentiment seems to be that all police officers should wear body cameras at all times that cannot be turned off at any time.

I'm not familiar with that general sentiment. I've never seen anybody advocate detectives wearing cameras while at their desks.

I think the real concern is officers going to the restroom.
If you have cameras that you can turn off, then people will always suspect that the officer turned the camera off to beat someone. But if they have cameras that they can't turn off, then they'd be filmed while using the little girls'/boys' room.

They could just take the camera off and leave it in their car for the duration of the potty break. But I have literally seen that exact argument on a FB thread.

That's a pretty valid concern. I don't think it's enough to derail the idea, but police do have the right to be comfortable using the bathroom. Perhaps they could turn the video off but leave the audio on?

[rooster]

Yeah, I'd really love it if the farting and explosive diarrhea could be recorded.

[Tau]

I suppose we could always just impose legal restrains on when they can turn it off. If they turn of their camera to arrest someone, perhaps that should be a fireable offense? I guess in-the-bathroom violence would be a loophole here, but that's acceptable to me.

[Lord Dave]

For the past few months the notion of body cameras on all law enforcement officers (LEOs) has come up repeatedly on various sites. This is odd, considering not but a year or so ago, the entire country was up in arms about mass surveillance of everyone via the NSA, Facebook, and other organizations. Now we not only have the idea of creating a perpetual state of cameras watching from CCTV on the corner to cameras on LEOs, but many people are begging for more of it. Am I in the twilight zone? I'm guessing it is safe to assume that the people against mass surveillance aren't the same people wanting these cameras everywhere.

Body cameras only show criminals.  Therefore it's not mass surveillance.  (also, I'm not a criminal so I won't be video taped)

In addition, how would you trust the authority (that you already don't trust) to handle the cameras and subsequently huge amounts of data storage it would require? Even worse, who is paying for all of this new equipment? None of this really adds up to me.

If the data is lost, we assume they're guilty and covering it up.  Duh.
Data's only lost for guilty people, not innocent people.

As for whose paying for it?  Pfft, someone else.  Not from my taxes, that's for sure.

[Rushy]

Body cameras only show criminals.  Therefore it's not mass surveillance.  (also, I'm not a criminal so I won't be video taped)

If the data is lost, we assume they're guilty and covering it up.  Duh.
Data's only lost for guilty people, not innocent people.

As for whose paying for it?  Pfft, someone else.  Not from my taxes, that's for sure.

This is some pretty heavy Poe's law. I've seen people actually hold all of these opinions.

[Lord Dave]

Body cameras only show criminals.  Therefore it's not mass surveillance.  (also, I'm not a criminal so I won't be video taped)

If the data is lost, we assume they're guilty and covering it up.  Duh.
Data's only lost for guilty people, not innocent people.

As for whose paying for it?  Pfft, someone else.  Not from my taxes, that's for sure.

This is some pretty heavy Poe's law. I've seen people actually hold all of these opinions.

You asked a question, I gave you the most likely answer, as I see it,from the perspective of the people involved.