Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:Maowi wrote:OOC: I'm not just talking sharing. There is nothing in this proposal that means the police have to even look at the footage unless there's an allegation of some sort of crime. With these measures in place, your nation could even pass a law forbidding anyone from viewing the footage except in those cases, and still be compliant.
OOC: Besides the fact that it seems like the proposal doesn't even mandate that the cameras be set to record anything (or am I misreading it?), there is - regardless of current legislation - a significant risk of abuse w.r.t. privacy. In some countries, that may be worth it (e.g. the US) because the cameras provide a significant benefit, but in other countries like the one I mentioned, the marginal benefit does not outweigh (the risk of) infringing privacy.
I mean, I think it would be pretty blatant bad faith compliance to have the police officers going around wearing cameras which are switched off the whole time. Regarding the "significant risk of abuse" - if a state wants to monitor its police officers using the cameras mandated in this proposal, it could have done so anyway. This does not affect that, outside of the cases of misconduct.