[mikeash]

It does seem terribly hypocritical to complain about the police capturing images from a public street, while simultaneously defending people's right to record the police in public.

I wonder what people would make of it if someone released a highly popular smartphone app that did this same sort of thing, just crowdsourced rather than done by dedicated police. You could build a gigantic, publicly-accessible, searchable database that would absolutely destroy privacy in the same way that having the police do it would, except it would be available to all instead of just to the government. Somehow, I imagine that the same people fighting against this would fight for people's rights to run this app.

It's a tough problem, certainly. I'm sympathetic to the privacy argument, but on the other hand, it seems like that ship has sailed. Maintaining privacy in public just because it's too hard to correlate all of the available data is becoming as anachronistic as riding a horse into town.

Edit: it's so wonderful how people are downvoting me apparently because they disagree. Before you downvote, click the reply button to explain why you think I'm wrong, and then don't downvote. Seriously, you can't take a little bit of differing opinion? I didn't insult anyone or say anything unproductive here, I just went slightly against the hivemind. And yes, I realize that complaining about downvotes is against the rules, and I don't care.

[sambeau]

You are a private citizen. A police officer is not while in the process of carrying out their duty. This is, in part, why they wear a uniform and why the are badged and numbered.

The police have a very special and privileged place in our society. They apply the law which means that they individually (and as a group) are given special rights by society for our protection. However, they are in a unique (and uniquely easy) position to abuse those extra rights.

How can we fight corruption if the people who's job it is to fight corruption are corrupt? How can we prove that they aren't? The extra powers the police are given make it very easy for them to be corrupt and to hide the fact.

Complaints against the police force are rarely about them recording their work, it is about them recording private citizen't going about their business for no good reason. Legitimate protestors legitimately protesting.

The police complain that they shouldn't have to be recorded going about their business as no-one else puts up with that. But they are wrong. They apply the law, the final step in the chain — and that isn't recorded. Everything said in parliament is recorded, everything said in court is recorded.

Hell, even truck drivers have tacographs!

Should police cars have dash-cams in this day and age? Yes. Should police have google-glass-like recorders recording what they see and what they do? Yes probably. Should a police gun record everything it shoots? definitely.

And the same applies for prisons and prison officers.

These are exactly the people who society has a valid, just reason to record in their duty.

A good cop has nothing to fear from more cameras. Even better—automating the process should, if done correctly, mean the death of a ton of paperwork.

The other argument for the police recording themselves is the fact that recording equipment is now so prevalent on walls and in the hands of the citizenry that they would surely need their own evidence to back up what the cops say. How many jury's will continue to take the word of a cop over two conflicting video recordings? Imagine how persuasive video footage of a cop being punched in the goggles would be? Surely the cops need that?

[betterunix]

"It does seem terribly hypocritical to complain about the police capturing images from a public street, while simultaneously defending people's right to record the police in public."

The police have great power over the general public; we must keep that power in check, and one of the ways to do that in the modern world is to record police abuses and police brutality and publish those recordings on the Internet. I would rather see people who are dissatisfied with law enforcement aim cameras at the police than to have guns aimed at the police. We generally do not want our cities to become war zones.

On the other hand, when the police record the general public, the balance of power is further tipped toward the police. They already have paramilitary teams, armored vehicles, even attack helicopters, and they have vast surveillance powers; it is hard enough to prevent such an organization from become an oppressive, tyrannical force. Further expansion of police power is unnecessary and dangerous.

[belorn]

I downvoted you because you imply that government collecting and recording data about their citizens is the same as citizen collecting and recording data about their government. You don't support such implication with anything, and just states it as an fact.

It is false. Actions made by Government, and actions made by private people has different effects on society.

A transparent government is a good thing. it allows for accountability and protects the individual. Its the only defense against power abuse.

A lack of privacy for the individual is a bad thing. It destroy modern society, breaks the court system, and encourage politics to focus on conservative efforts against political threats. Suddenly, one can identify any future political leaders before they has risen to a point of power.

If a popular smarthpone allowed people to identify any movement of an other person, FSF would likely not cheer on. Such app would be used to steal identify, provide stalkers with location data, allowed thieves to know where house owners are, and so on.

[sp332]

It does seem terribly hypocritical to complain about the police capturing images from a public street, while simultaneously defending people's right to record the police in public.

Cops are only recordable on the job, because they are public servants doing a public job.

[mikeash]

I thought anyone in public could legally be recorded.

[saraid216]

It's a legal gray area because the physics of wave propagation are not good about obeying privacy laws.

IANAL, so that's the extent of the opinion I should be giving.

[krichman]

It's not gray at all. You may record someone in public. You may record someone on private property iff you have permission or you are on public property. You may not use their image in an advertisement without a signed release.

(IANAL also)

[knowaveragejoe]

I fail to understand how it's hypocritical to advocate recording of the people sanctioned by the state to use lethal force while decrying a system that is by all measures ripe for abuse.

[mikeash]

Because recording police is justified by "we're both in public, and I should be able to record public things", which justification applies equally well to police using cameras in public.

[betterunix]

That is kind of like saying, "Everyone has freedom of speech, therefore the government should be allowed to publish propaganda."

[pfortuny]

Nope: the government is not a 'person' in that sense because it has a special role in society, which has been given by society and needs to be controled by society.

The government is not 'one' in 'everyone'.

[throwaway2048]

how are the police different in this regard?

[wnight]

Sure, as people themselves. But as my employee, no. Only if it really serves me.

We pay the bills so we can make some requirements.