> I agree that police should answer to the public, but are video recordings necessary for this?

So if something bad goes down, and it ends up as the officer's word against mine, who do you think people will believe? In most cases, police officers are believed over normal citizens when it comes down to a 'he said/she said' situation. Having a video recording of the encounter/incident goes a long way to proving that I'm telling the truth and the police officer is lying.

> Corruption and excessive force seem like great arguments for police surveillance, but let's say you're a cop and you're stuffing down donuts in the coffee shop (excuse the stereotype, I mean it in jest only), and someone tapes it and throws it up on youtube. I don't think this is unlikely at all, and I think it's a total abuse of the officer's privacy.

Please explain how a coffee shop is a private space where there is an expectation privacy? When you respond please give me some examples of legal precedent too. So far as I know, any court in the US would consider a coffee shop to be a public space (even if it is privately owned). Note that because it's a privately-owned space, the workers/management could tell me to leave if I don't stop recording though, but if I refused I guilty of trespass, not illegal wiretapping.

> Now you have a case of libel right?

How is a video of a cop eating a donut libel? Are you implying that he wasn't eating that donut?

> How does that work? Does it compensate for the damages that could be done to your reputation, the damages to the occupation itself? Does it sit in the courts for 2 years? My assumption is that suing after the fact would be an ineffective way, if it was the only way, to protect your privacy. I'll admit to not knowing much about these laws in the states though, and am open to being educated and corrected on the subject.

I'm still baffled as to what damage is done to a cop's reputation by the release of a video of him eating donuts? If he was eating them like a slob and it's an embarrassing video, that is not libel. In any case, it that situation he should have thought about not eating like a slob in the first place. It's not like the video camera was the only witness to the event. There are other people in the coffee shop to witness that the cop was eating like a slob. What happens when someone posts a rendition of what happened online? Maybe with the officer's name/badge number. Then what?

A libel suit? But he was there eating donuts like a slob. It's not a lie. It's the truth. In such a case, it would be he-said-she-said in court, but with a video there is no question.

> What also concerns me, is how would this affect police recruitment? Sure there's some bad eggs, but I have to believe that most people who become a police officer actually believe that what they're doing is a public and necessary service.

The way that I understand it, a lot of new recruits come in like this but get corrupted/disenfranchised after years of service. That's ignoring the people that are attracted to the job of police officer just for the gun and the badge (i.e. "Yah! I can legally shoot people!")

> Don't you think we'd lose a lot of great and ethical talent that would simply choose a less invasive career if they were made subject to constant surveillance?

As someone else already pointed out. We are already under constant surveillance. The issue here is whether or not citizens are allowed to put the police under surveillance. There are video cameras everywhere and the police use them at whim to get convictions, but if there is a case of police wrong-doing normal citizens don't have the access to their resources to try and prove their case.

> There are other public offices too, which could just as easily support a case for surveillance. Like teaching. I can totally see someone arguing for teacher surveillance because it's the kids who are important after all... we'd lose a lot of quality teachers.

Teachers don't have a legal right to shoot/beat the crap out of you. The police do have that right, as long as they justify it. But what happens when they do something wrongfully (maybe even by accident)? They can lie to cover up their crime. It can and does happen. We need some sort of bullet-proof evidence to pierce the conception that police officers are to be trusted always and without question.

> Anyways, I'm not sure I'm making my argument that solid. The fact is, I really don't like the idea of public surveillance though, regardless of who being recorded and who's doing the recording, and I don't think I'm alone. I don't like government employees recording us without consent, and I don't like us recording public employees without consent. It just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth either way.

That may be, but the police are a special case. On-duty police officers are given rights and responsibilities far above those of a normal citizen (even other public employees). Public surveillance of police officers (i.e. by private citizens in public spaces) helps all of us by keeping them honest. If a police officer knows that he can do something wrong, and then get away with it by lying in court because judges and juries are more likely to believe him than a random person off the street (or even more evil... more likely to believe him than an 'undesirable' like a drug dealer or a homeless person), then the rest of the public loses.