Public Service Cams

[dre]

Got a kick out of that, and I think its something we should do with all police and public servants. People dont behave if they think nobody is watching.

[The_Squid]

Certainly law enforcement....

But a researcher sitting at their desk crunching data? Why bother.....?

[dre]

Certainly law enforcement....

But a researcher sitting at their desk crunching data? Why bother.....?

I was thinking more along the lines of a politician, meeting with an industrial lobby or other politicians. Anybody with any decision making power what-so-ever.

[Boges]

They have talked about this in Toronto. Would have helped clarify the Sammy Yatim case if we could see what that officer could see before he shot at the kid 9 times.

Of course the Unions oppose this because it's provides irrefutable evidence if an officer did something wrong or not. A lot harder to grieve suspensions that way.

[Michael Hardner]

I was thinking more along the lines of a politician, meeting with an industrial lobby or other politicians. Anybody with any decision making power what-so-ever.

Given that we can't even get governments to easily publish things like ER waiting times, it seems like a stretch.

[GostHacked]

They have talked about this in Toronto. Would have helped clarify the Sammy Yatim case if we could see what that officer could see before he shot at the kid 9 times.

Of course the Unions oppose this because it's provides irrefutable evidence if an officer did something wrong or not. A lot harder to grieve suspensions that way.

It would also quell the line that is used often by police forces. You know where they say that the amount of force was warranted and they operated clearly within police protocol.

[Remiel]

Watching the average government employee for malfeasance would be a colossal waste of time (the viewers) and money (the governments/the publics). Watching politicians 24/7 would be stupid because even if it worked it would just lead them to putting on a pure act 100% of the time. It would be the death of the little remaining honest and earnestness. And it assumes that it would not in fact detract from the sort of work they are obligated to do (and I believe it would). Keeping an eye on government is not about literally keeping an eye on government at all times.

[Argus]

They have talked about this in Toronto. Would have helped clarify the Sammy Yatim case if we could see what that officer could see before he shot at the kid 9 times.

Of course the Unions oppose this because it's provides irrefutable evidence if an officer did something wrong or not. A lot harder to grieve suspensions that way.

Would have helped in the various police riots we've had too. I'm all for equipping all police with cameras and mikes. I'm just not sure it's legal. I require a court case a few years back in which it was found to be unconstitutional for the police to put a microphone on a cop who was making a drug buy from a known dealer.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

Would have helped in the various police riots we've had too. I'm all for equipping all police with cameras and mikes. I'm just not sure it's legal. I require a court case a few years back in which it was found to be unconstitutional for the police to put a microphone on a cop who was making a drug buy from a known dealer.

If the cops are not doing anything wrong, then they won't mind some surveillance.

[bleeding heart]

If it's a specific sort of undercover operation in which the surveillance is dangerous to the officer, I doubt most folks would object to an occasional moment of (lack of) clarity.

But, as with matters of Power generally, the onus should be on the powerful to justify legitimacy; in this case, the onus should be on the police to explain exactly why the personal surveillance apparatus could be (temporarily) avoided.