grzegorz wrote:Yes, the laws around filming the police are different states by state this has been going on for a long time now with more laws favoring or essentially protecting the police. Funny logic that governor has, laws are better than no laws, and I thought Republicans were for less government.
This works both ways,,,the point I would think that once something becomes a police matter.
Who has the right to film and use the film, to either support or deny an event...
I would say its for protecting the presumption of innocence to include the person being filmed or the police until its decided in a court of law,,,not the public court of Utube.
What if the police released videos of people they stopped , would anyone here want them to do this?
With facial recognition soft ware something that's already being challenged to protect ones civil rights.. An officer walking around with a camera attached to him is essentially another source for surveillance whether actively used or not....An Office walks in to make an arrest scans the area just by looking around, this makes it possible to ID everyone there whether they want to be ID'd or not..
One threat is the fact that facial recognition, in combination with wider use of video surveillance, would be likely to grow increasingly invasive over time. Once installed, this kind of a surveillance system rarely remains confined to its original purpose. New ways of using it suggest themselves, the authorities or operators find them to be an irresistible expansion of their power, and citizens' privacy suffers another blow.
think about it
btw: it will come, the tech is here already and will only get better.
Then there will be laws or people trying to prevent it