Think about what a difference body cams made for police conduct. It's more difficult to abuse any power you hold when you can be held accountable for it

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not sure violating privacy rights is the way to go about restoring civil rights.

Body cams are because police have authority and are interacting with the public. Office workers working on information that is often likely PII, thus violating the privacy right of citizens too, and violating the privacy rights of office workers in the name of civil rights still doesn't really sit right with me.

[–] stonedemoman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I’m not sure violating privacy rights is the way to go about restoring civil rights.

violating the privacy rights of office workers

This is where our disagreement won't be reconciled. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Until the Supreme Court overturns their decision this is not the public's problem.

Body cams are because police have authority and are interacting with the public.

State employees at any level have authority to abuse, it's just a very large range.

For example, there have been known cases of county clerk employees refusing to file FOIA requests on completely fabricated precedent. If I'm being charged with something, there should not be any barrier between me and the public records that exonerate me.

This example is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edit: Also just because I failed to bring this up, I wanna add something about this:

Office workers working on information that is often likely PII, thus violating the privacy right of citizens too,

When you FOIA request records, they're always going to have a chance to censor private information. This comes up all the time with license plates and address on IDs in bodycam footage. It's the same thing.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are right, we won't be able to agree on this.

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

I guess I disagree that an office, or someone's home office is considered a public space.

State employees at any level have authority to abuse, it’s just a very large range.

State employees aren't actively gunning people down in the streets, unless they are cops. I think it's a very big difference. I think you need the accountability that a body cam provides on someone who can literally end lives in seconds.

[–] stonedemoman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I guess I disagree that an office, or someone’s home office is considered a public space.

(15) Public official

The term "public official" means any elected official, appointed official, or employee of- (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the United States other than- (i) a college or university; (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in section 622(8) of this title);

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:2%20section:1602%20edition:prelim

I'm not intending this as a 'gotchya', I'm arguing that these are public servants that handle matters of public interest. The location is not important to me, and other than this fringe 'remote' case we're talking about public, tax-funded buildings.

State employees aren’t actively gunning people down in the streets, unless they are cops. I think it’s a very big difference. I think you need the accountability that a body cam provides on someone who can literally end lives in seconds.

And I believe that you need accountability for people that can withhold records that could potentially save you from a life of false imprisonment. To me this is not a significant enough of a difference for me to feel the need to justify it.