[hugh3]

Under certain circumstances I can see it as legitimate to protect officers from retaliation for doing their jobs.

Example: Police officers raid a [whatever] belonging to an organized crime syndicate. Some dude is standing by with a video camera as the officers carry the evidence to their cars. Two weeks later, every officer involved finds that his house has burned to the ground.

[pmorici]

You don't need to video tape for that to happen.

[hugh3]

No, but it makes it a lot easier.

[mindcrime]

Well, those guys/gals chose to become cops; knowing it was a risky career. That is all completely orthogonal to the point that public servants must be held accountable to their employer - the public. Police even more so, since "society" gives them something that - in essence - NO one else is given... a monopoly on the "legal" use of force.

If you're going to send guys with guns around - assuming that they have the authority to use violence to conduct their jobs - and they're being paid out of my tax dollars, and claiming to be part of an organization that represents me; I damn sure expect to be able to monitor them.

[isleyaardvark]

I was under the impression that this sort of information is already publicly available. Cops are already uniformed, they have badge numbers, their names are on the police reports, and their names show up if it goes to court since the accused has a right to confront witnesses under the 6th amendment.