[usrusr]

Both battery requirements and basic privacy expectations (officers are humans too) deserve some balancing versus the public's interest in always on cameras.

I wonder how much of a middle ground could be reached by turning off-switches into maybe-off-switches or very-very-low-quality switches.

While maybe-off could greatly reduce the "ready for mischief" effect of off switches while keeping much of the battery advantage, I doubt they will bring much relief in terms officer privacy: the great majority of all that toilet/smartphone footage won't ever be reviewed anyway, so reduction by one more stochastical factor won't make much subjective difference.

But low quality is an accepted privacy feature. Think blurred faces etc, it's everywhere. Of course the "nearly off" camera would low-res the whole frame instead of faces and preferably at a not only very low but also jittery frame rate. This could be enough to take the sting out of both battery drain and privacy intrusion, while at the same time yield sufficient information to determine wether the switch has been used in an acceptable deactivation situation or not (e.g out on the street vs at the office). Since this world not only reduce abusive camera deactivation but also make it easier to defend acceptable deactivation, this could even be sold as a plus to both sides.

[bunderbunder]

Officers are humans, too, and should get intense protection of their privacy whenever they are off duty.

When they're on duty, though, they are acting in the service of the public, not as private citizens. We need to be very careful about letting them have much or any privacy while they're at work. There's just too much opportunity for abuse.

No, I don't think this is unfair. It's certainly no less unfair than when restaurants like Chipotle and Steak n Shake use open kitchens. Having employees do their work in full view of the customers is not very different from requiring police to use body cameras from a privacy-at-work perspective, and is done for much the same reason.

[brador]

How about always on recording but only a court can authorise viewing?

So if someone has a complaint the video is pulled out and watched, else it goes in a vault and is auto deleted after 60 days.

I'd happily pee while wearing one if that was the case.

[Eridrus]

If we start allowing any deletion, police will simply find a way to stall until the deadline is passed. This has happened several times in Seattle with dash cams

[RobertoG]

I certainly would hate to be watched all the time in my job, I don't see why officers should be.

It seems to me that a compromise can be reached.

Probably the rules already exist about reporting the headquarters when they are starting a police action, you just have to add the requirement to start the camera.

[leesalminen]

Are you provided a firearm, taser, mace, and baton as part of your job? Is your job funded by taxpayer money? Are you expected to be able to deal with stressful situations that could endanger your life daily?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, I think it's an apple to oranges comparison.