[jlund3]

While there are cases where privacy rights should kick in (your example of private phone calls is a good one), I cannot imagine how an on-duty and in uniform officer doing something in public (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) should expect to not be recorded. That officer is armed and dangerous. In some circumstances, is legally allowed to use deadly force against citizens. Abuse of that power has happened to frequently to claim that the officer needs privacy to carry out their public service.

[enknamel]

I agree you should be allowed to record anything a police officer does in the line of duty. I'm all for going one step further and requiring all uniformed police officers to wear bodycams at all times. But we just shouldn't set the bar at "if I can see it or hear it I can record it".

[kaspiCZ]

I agree with you two above, but think the unmodified recording should not be for the public to see. To avoid pitchforks. Below is why I agree that bodycams are the real solution instead of citizens with cams.

Imagine someone records police violence and posts it online. Only they cut off the first half where the suspect did not comply and was aggressive.

Now there's an angry Internet mob which crowdsources the address, phone and a lot more, just from the recording of the police officer's face.

Sadly, in our time and age, it's the first one to report that has the patent to "truth".

[icebraining]

So who should have access to the recordings? And who should be able to publish them? If the first to report gets to make the truth, shouldn't that imply the cops should publish everything preemptively?

[kaspiCZ]

That is a good point. But that brings a bunch of its own problems.

E. g. your significant other sees you somewhere you should have not been.

I honestly don't have the answer. Hopefully, the police can keep them stashed for when they're needed.

I'd like to get the media outlets and public more educated. To get the story confirmed or denied (by the police).

Maybe a few "police cameras (again) prove wrong accusations" with wide coverage would go a long way to discourage fabricated stories.

Now about the access and publishing. That one is the hardest to get right considering presumption of innocence and privacy.

The only idea for now "here is the recording, faces blurred. If it's not enough, we'll gladly see you in court. What? No court? We didn't think so either." Hopefully I can come up with a better one.

[Rusky]

"angry Internet mobs" are an important reason for making such recordings public in the first place. And if it's not the public making and publishing the videos, what's to stop whoever it actually is from making the same kinds of edits?

[kaspiCZ]

That is why any clip should obtain a hash on the device. Or that pulling the relevant data would checksum them by the device.

I'm almost asleep, but there probably is some sort of solution that would prove the authenticity of the recording.