[CamperBob2]

The policy is designed to protect the privacy of people not under investigation or otherwise not involved in crime.

And conveniently, you don't know if you'll be under investigation or accused of a crime until it's too late to turn the camera on.

Sorry, that excuse doesn't fly. This concern should be addressed by controlling the custody of the footage, not by preventing it from being captured in the first place. In reality, body cameras protect good cops.

[bcrosby95]

Policies like this have been adopted with support from the ACLU. Your flippantly dismissive attitude towards this view makes me think you aren't all that aware of why cities might have this policy:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te...

[CamperBob2]

(Shrug) When weighing theoretical abstract harms against everyday atrocities, I find it fairly straightforward to pick a side.

The ACLU says, "There is a long history of law enforcement compiling dossiers on peaceful activists exercising their First Amendment rights in public marches and protests, and using cameras to send an intimidating message to such protesters: “we are WATCHING YOU and will REMEMBER your presence at this event.”"

I don't remember anything like that happening, at least not recently. Do you? The FBI behaved that way towards MLK, certainly, but it didn't have anything to do with body cameras.

In any case, I haven't argued, and won't argue, that police officers, or even the department itself, should have access to the footage except when necessary to defend themselves. Ideally it would be encrypted with a key held by an oversight board with substantial civilian representation.