this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
51 points (91.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
634 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Certain jobs I would. fire, police
Most jobs I would not
Sure. But where to draw that line? I can imagine companies will want them for liability reasons.
I imagine if my occupation includes carrying a gun, interacting with citizens, and a historically high rate of extrajudicial deaths amongst people I am supposed to be protecting. A publicly accessible camera would be beneficial to easing the minds of those I interact with and providing evidence for any actual instances where I felt my life was threatened.
Draw the line at jobs where someone wields authority over the public, disputes can't be easily resolved after the fact, and the person doing the job moves around too much for fixed cameras to be adequate. I can't off the top of my head think of an example that isn't in law enforcement.
If you take away the authority part, you could say that, for example, cleaning personnel should wear body cameras because it's so easy for them to commit theft, but they're already treated pretty poorly and I wouldn't want them humiliated further.
I heartily agree: they should be a tool to serve the public interest. That police can withhold that footage after an incident or have any justification having a camera off in public, I find it reprehensible.
Using it on private citizens feels more like having a cheap overseer...just a tool to punish.
The line I draw currently is this. Jobs that we currently look at and say those persons should have body cams. Police fire rescue.
I’d also add landlords and their staff/assistants should have them. Other than that . No I wouldn’t wear them.
I don't give a shit what companies want; the only employees that can be legitimately forced to wear such things are those who have obligations to the public.
I'm so glad I quit the library.
I bought a dashcam for my vehicle, and choose to use it to protect myself from false accusations.
Body cams should be like dash cams, something used by employees to exonerate the person wearing them.
I’m not a LEO, and I can respect that maybe it’s not this simple.. but I would expect “honest” cops to voluntarily wear one to protect themselves from false accusations of abuse of power.
But when it crosses over from protecting the employee to big brother watching over you that’s the line.
Body cams used to protect the wearer - Good Body cams used to punish the wearer - Bad