On: A Test of Police Body Cameras Defies Expectations

[sigstoat]

> I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere...

if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (something which happens regularly), and they capture some video of you walking around eating cereal naked, do you think that should immediately and irrevocably go up on youtube?

[jMyles → sigstoat]

Obviously in a decent society this is a horrific, abhorrent affront.

And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim.

How about we stop allowing police to search homes in the first place in 99.9% of cases?

[s73ver_ → jMyles]

"And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim."

Ok. I'm not.

[yojex → s73ver_]

If an agent of the state commits a "horrific, abhorrent affront" against you, you want it to be kept secret? That's what I'm reading here.

[s73ver_ → yojex]

That would be a fair interpretation if that's all they did. However, we all know that law enforcement agents do lots of other things that the people involved would rather not be made public. A cop being a first responder to someone having a seizure, or consoling a rape victim, are things that I'm pretty sure those people would not want to be public.

[mulmen → s73ver_]

Ok but in that case the state did not commit an abhorrent act.

[SOLAR_FIELDS → s73ver_]

There is definitely a middle ground somewhere around this. Perhaps the victim must consent (assuming the victim can?)