[kbenson]

> a victim who has asked not to be recorded

That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure this specific case matters? Are there things a person speaking to a police officer has any expectation that the officer may not relay as said to them? I would rather have it always recorded and strong laws about it's accessed.

> Do the math sometime on what kind of bandwidth and storage capacity a large agency like NYPD, LAPD, Chicago PD, etc. would need to upload several hours worth of officer-recorded video each day. I've done that math and the numbers are staggering.

It's a lot, but it's really just a matter of funding. If there's money to be paid for the service that someone can make a profit on, someone will step in to offer that service. I think the amount of storage required is actually pretty close to the amount Youtube adds in content every day (if we assume not all of the 800k police officers are recording every day, and not all of them are out on the street with a need to record). That's a lot, but the requirements aren't quite the same (you could start at high quality and re-encode to lower quality at age intervals unless flagged as important) instead of encoding to many qualities initially. Additionally there wouldn't need to be nearly as much serving infrastructure as youtube. It's the sort of problem the Federal government could throw a couple billion at a year that went to departments through grants and we would pretty quickly have a competitive field of companies offering storage for this as a service. Managing the security of the data would definitely need some regulation though.

[davidf560]

> That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure this specific case matters? Are there things a person speaking to a police officer has any expectation that the officer may not relay as said to them? I would rather have it always recorded and strong laws about it's accessed.

If you watch the Jussie Smollet video he requested that officers turn off the cameras and they did so. I have no idea what the laws around this are, but as I understand it people have that right. That may not apply out in public but it seems to in private homes at least.

[kbenson]

There are laws in some states about parties consenting to be recorded, I'm not sure how that interacts with the police and their recording, but my guess is that it's mostly untested until it hits a court or if specific exemptions exist or were added.

I understand and agree with people's need and right for privacy (although I'm not quite sure how the right interacts with this depending on who starts the interaction), but I think if HIPAA like stringency requirements were enacted on the data, with severe penalties, we could possibly hit a sweet spot where people had an expectation that their interaction videos would be private, and yet we could still rely on active monitoring by video of what those we've enabled with extra rights and abilities for the purpose of protecting us actually do, as a form of oversight.