Why aren't the police equipped with recording devices that are active whenever they are interacting with the public? It seems that anyone with that sort of power should have an audit trail for their actions.
Camera always on. Everyone gets an immediate copy.
As far as I'm concerned, these records should only be unsealed, and made available for court proceedings. Accountability is important, but so is privacy.
First is purely psychological. Would you want to have someone looking over your shoulder all the time? Would you want your employer to record everything you do on your computer through some spyware? Have a camera mounted above your head?
Second is procedural. There are so many rules and regulations that it's almost impossible not to break some of them (just like with laws in western countries) so police officers (just like citizens) rely on low detection rate for minor violations and difficulty of proving anything.
There is also something to be said about how trustworthy police officers would be everyone they come in contact while on duty. People (and that includes criminals) find it much easier to trust a person they see standing in front ot them than some unknown tape reviewer.
And finally, basic privacy. If you work for many hours with little to do (patrolling the streets isn't exactly a consuming task), you probably have a lot of personal conversations with your partners.
Those problems will also be made worse by the officers themselves struggling with yet another piece of equipment (have you ever seen a cop running?).
All or almost all of the above could probably be resolved with selective recording, clear indicators of when the camera is running, light and easy to use devices and other technical solutions. Though we all know that, as with any other technological project, first users will get a lot of leakage and other bugs. And with the feedback loops what they are in the government, many may not be fixed for a really long time.
People who work in retail seem to be doing just fine, not to mention officers of the court who's every word and deed is recorded and transcribed.
Well, I think it's clear enough that people can manage to do their jobs while being constantly watched. I won't say it's necessarily a good idea, but if it's a good idea for anybody, then people who are legally empowered to use force to enforce the law ought to be at the top of the list.
Nor is a highly dynamic and dangerous street environment, and a highly controlled and procedural court environment.
Many officers use our software to record themselves on duty. They use this evidence in court for exactly this reason.
See, for example, discussion about CCTV in England. There are many valid concerns about the amount of stuff that's recorded.
It's taken a lot of brutality cases and lawsuits to get them to this point though.
That part seems to render much of the experiment useless, sadly.
A similar thing happened in my home town. A state law said that all police cars must have cameras for DUI stops. One of the counties in the state that wrote the most DUIs kept saying they couldn't afford to put cameras in all of the cruisers. Finally, a judge started throwing out all DUIs where the camera wasn't installed. Cameras were all installed and working in short order.
Technology has made it so easy to record all interactions that if the police are not doing it then the default reason is they are trying to hide something.
Every cop I've talked to about it is very positive. It often make their life much easier in court...