[lotsofpulp]

What is the limit for monitoring? Is a GPS tracker too much? Video too much?

My wife is in healthcare and knows how to properly administer vaccine injections so that the kid gets thee best immune response. She has had to notify our clinic that their nurses are not proper administering the vaccine. How would someone audit this if it is not recorded?

We have also had doctors write notes stating they checked or discussed so and so issues, when it blatantly did not happen, so we have to send a message correcting them. I understand that the doctor is likely covering their ass from excessive liability, but they’re also concerns from the patient side that proper care is not being delivered and the patient will never know.

I am not intending to pick on healthcare, it is just the first example that came to mind for when I thought of instances where recorded evidence would benefit me. But it is interesting to think about changes in societal trust and perception of societal trust now that recording is so cheap. Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?

[JaimeThompson]

Those at VP and above levels should subject themselves to the same sort of monitoring as delivery workers so as to lead by example.

[lotsofpulp]

Definitely. If managers want to monitor delivery workers for productivity, shareholders should want to monitor managers for productivity too.

[bryanrasmussen]

>Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?

are delivery workers regularly shooting or beating up people as part of their jobs and then saying it was necessary force?

[lotsofpulp]

Sure, but would one codify this if they wanted to make it law? The complexity of that is what I was trying to point out. And obviously, in its absence, we have deliver workers being recorded on the truck, because it’s simply so cheap now.

[bryanrasmussen]

you do it on a law that says jobs that are involved with public safety are surveiled and otherwise not. I guess I don't see the complexity of this in comparison to other laws and regulations.

[lotsofpulp]

What is public safety? Surely, driving a vehicle on the road affects public safety, so recording the driving would be allowed.

A nurse giving injections to people is public safety, so recording that would have to be allowed.

Cleaning floors so they are not slippery is public safety, as well as preparing food.

Playing with spreadsheets on a computer is maybe one thing that does not involve public safety.

[bryanrasmussen]

first of all in an American context the cleaning floors example would probably be laughed out of court as in no way being understood as Public safety, which would probably go with something like this https://www.austintexas.gov/blog/what-public-safety

>Legal scholars define public safety as “the protection of the general public,” and they reference groups like police officers and firefighters as Public Safety Officers. Many governments form their policies on this idea of protecting people’s physical welfare. They often focus on combating crime in an effort to help community members feel secure, and they hire for roles like law enforcement officers and medical emergency responders.

however I am getting the feeling you have never actually been involved in the writing of a law before

Defining public safety occupations would be pretty easy, although a lot of lawmakers in order to cut down on the misunderstandings might just go ahead and write a list of occupations that count as public safety if they did not want to let the courts decide. In a Napoleonic system I might expect the defining of public safety and it's meanings to take up a page or two of work, depending on how the makers wanted to define it (list of occupations affected, defining characteristics of occupations that would be affected)

[heavyset_go]

> Surely, one would agree that recording a cop while on the job is necessary (for both cop and others), so what is the line that separates a delivery worker?

I don't know any delivery drivers who have state approval to use force and kill with little to no impunity. They also don't have billion dollar unions that will go up to bat for them when they do face liability for their actions.

One is one of the very few checks on power that exist, the other is used to punish workers for using the bathroom instead of peeing in bottles.

[supert56]

The line is when surveillance becomes a means to subject people to demeaning conditions.