I think their jobs are to serve AND protect, not just serve. If police officers optimize on not making anyone unhappy, it seems like the protection part won't be done as effectively (e.g. someone who drives dangerously but never gets a ticket won't have much incentive to drive more carefully so other drivers on the road are then put at risk).

Like almost everything, there needs to be some balance. I'm not sure bad ratings due to "I was breaking the law and he gave me a ticket instead of a warning" would be best for society. But if the officer was cordial and courteous in that same interaction and they received good feedback, that would probably be a good reinforcement loop. A complete totalitarian police state wouldn't be good for society but going to the other end of the spectrum and having lax policing would also be bad for society, I think we need to try to strive for the least bad balance, which seems like it is incredibly hard to do and then of course no one will be completely happy and lots of people will complain. They have a very tough usually thankless job.

He's talking about the perverse incentive LEOs will have to get good ratings, which will be hard when you spend much of your day bringing in guys for beating their spouse, who by the time you arrive has decided she just wanted you to make him stop hitting her, not take him away to spend the night in jail.

Small town cops generally know all the regulars by name, I could see a QR code program working better in a larger city where there's more anonymity to the reports.

> citizens - ummm the folks who actually pay for police salaries

I was always curious about how true this statement actually is. I understand that the state runs primarily on money from taxes, but what part of that is actually coming from local citizens pockets? I imagine there are places where most money comes from tourism or goods exports.