zlacker

I personally think body camera footage should be public. I would even go as far to say security cameras owned by public institutions should also be public. I think the answer to “who watchers the watchers?” should be a group of trustworthy people beyond reproach, but the absence of such a group necessitates that this responsibility fall upon the public at large [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...

>>tareqa+(OP)
I don't know about you, but I don't really want my various encounters with the police to be broadcast to the public. They would need to algorithmically blur out all of our faces or something in order to make that palatable.

>>nyhc99+97
I share the same discomfort at the idea, but I think if everyone is subject to the exact same treatment, then it should be a lot less so. I would not be opposed to algorithmic blurring as long as the raw, unedited footage remains available via system of approved requests with the appropriate access controls.

For what it is worth, I have not been questioned by a police officer for something I did or did not do. I do think that me having the mindset that I am always being watched in public helps me better police myself, so I think the more obvious and ever-present version might instill a similar feeling in others.

At the same time, I can see that having this footage available has a slippery-slope effect when it comes to privacy and authoritarian control. However, this issue of groups of people using technology to control or manipulate others is fundamentally a non-technical issue to me because these people exist irrespective of that technology's existence.

>>nyhc99+97
i'd be ok with at google maps street view approach where they blur out the faces. the original unadulterated should still be available though when the time comes for using it.