London Police To Wear Video Cameras In Pilot Project 152
An anonymous reader writes "The London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is reportedly engaging in a year-long pilot program to determine the benefits of its police force wearing video cameras during interactions with the public. 'The pilot will include a total of 500 cameras distributed across ten city boroughs.' London joins some major U.S. cities in this endeavor to improve the quality of policing through the use of wearable cameras. Privacy advocates argue, however, that police officers having these devices on their persons is not enough: 'the efficacy of police body-mounted cameras as a crime reduction and accountability tool hinges on enforcement of good policies and procedures—including something as basic as preventing officers from being able to deactivate the cameras at their own discretion.'"
Can't turn them off? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can (effectively) turn any camera off. Just "accidentally" point it the wrong way, or "accidentally" cover it up with something.
Re:Can't turn them off? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to turn them on first...
From BBC article: "The force said officers taking part in the pilot must comply with guidelines about when cameras are to be used, but that they will not be permanently switched on."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Can't turn them off? (Score:5, Informative)
The real trick will be making sure the camera is switched on for spur of the moment stuff, like where an incident happens when the officer is actually present, so perhaps some kind of automatic activation based on feedback from accelerometers and similar activity detectors is also required. If the sensors detect that the officer has started to run, there is a jolt to the camera, or some other abnormal activity, then start recording until the camera is manually disabled again.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how easy it is to turn them on.
It doesn't have to be a fiddly little switch, it can be a great big button. Officers who use it every day will soon get used to hitting it whenever they go into action.
You could even automate it - turn them on if there's a loud sound, use an accelerometer to detect when and officer starts running/fighting, etc.
Obviously the "off" switch is a fiddly little button...
Re: (Score:2)
You could even automate it - turn them on if there's a loud sound
A recording of the events leading up to the "loud sound" are likely far more important that what happens after.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the cameras could record the 30 seconds prior to being activated.
Recording to RAM doesn't need much power.
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to turn it off is fine;
No, it is not. Part of the role of these camera should be to force the Police to be constantly held account for all their actions while on duty. We had a recent incident here in the news where a UK bunch of UK soldiers shot dead an injured Afghan insurgent, the only reason it was found out though was because they made a mess of turning off one of the squaddies body cams and recorded themselves committing murder. This clearly shows the people wearing these cannot be trusted with and on off switch, that way e
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it can't be turned off they will just cover it up or otherwise sabotage it. It's fairly common to see police at events like protests with their ID numbers covered so they can beat people with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
So....maybe we can also implement some sort of system to combat that?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it can't be turned off they will just cover it up or otherwise sabotage it.
I'm not sure this is as big of concern as people seem to think. In most cases if they are instructed to have it on at all times
and "something bad happens" while their camera is off, etc.. then I think the jury, etc... is going to be very suspicious and
will more than likely side with the victim.
Re: (Score:3)
How much battery do you really need though? Give an iPhone 20x the batteries and I bet you could record an officer's entire shift while also live-streaming the video to headquarters over the cellular network for backup, all in a package lighter than their pistol. Let the officer tag time blocks that might be evidence for a case for long-term retention (preemptively or retroactively), and keep everything else for a few weeks just in case anyone lodges a complaint, in which case the time in question likewis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so, I forgot the context. It sounds like the UK is actually doing a halfway decent job keeping their police force from devolving into a bunch of thugs - hopefully this will work out wonderfully and we can see it adopted in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
How much battery do you really need though? Give an iPhone 20x the batteries and I bet you could record an officer's entire shift while also live-streaming the video to headquarters over the cellular network for backup, all in a package lighter than their pistol.
Yeah, that'll work. I can imagine the boys in a data center having a chuckle every time the hot policewomen goes to the toilet.
I think they should have every right to turn off their cameras, nobody should be constantly recorded.
OTOH they should expect a full investigation if they do it when they're in action or interacting with the public.
Re: (Score:2)
A helmet cam would only show footage of the cubicle door, Not particularly interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, anyone who works in a call center, or any retail store with security cameras, is already almost perpetually recorded. Why should police officers, who are granted numerous extraordinary privileges ripe for abuse, expect any less oversight?
But okay, let's let them turn them off (accompanied by an annoying reminder of the fact, beeping or something) - but make it a felony for them to interact with the public while in uniform unless they are recording. Or at least have it carry a p
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, if only there was a way to address that issue.
Like making them pay for repairs out of their wages, fining them for forgetting to wear their camera, etc.
But... I guess there isn't - because Mr. AC says so.
Re:a way to address "issues" (Score:2)
This is a topic highly prone to what AC was meant for in the best sense.
It's rather narrowly presented - all on the officer side. Pretty soon the members of the public will have their own running cameras if for no other reason than just in "today's social media / blogging culture". So then suddenly the defendant has a video but the cop doing something "forgot" to turn his on?!
That's gotta be good for a defense lawyer!
So the next level is both sides have theirs on, and everyone is tracking everyone else, and
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the issue is "if only such obvious solutions were actually *implemented*", which is something we'll have to force down their throats, because they certainly aren't going to volunteer to give up their ability to be huge bullies.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the issue is "if only such obvious solutions were actually *implemented*", which is something we'll have to force down their throats, because they certainly aren't going to volunteer to give up their ability to be huge bullies.
I'm pretty sure the "huge bullies" in the police force are in the minority (certainly less than half).
This could help weed them out if implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right, but it only takes a few rotten apples, etc. Especially if the rest will cover their ass for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Or beating the daylights out of a dark skinned person with their police baton.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, as the police supporting the government during the Miner's Strike in the 1980's, you can simply leave it at home (in that case it was the unique ID they were supposed to wear in case - and of course this never happened - there was any accusation that they were involved in acts of illegality).
Re: Can't turn them off? (Score:2)
To have IDs to wear, they would have to have been actual police instead of the military dressed in ill fitting police uniforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1980s miners strike was an illegal strike - Arthur Scargill did not hold the required ballot but instead just declared a strike, which was illegal under legislation then active - so the police had every right to "support the government".
Being non-identifiable was a safety issue with regard to the police, because it was shown on many occasions that the striking miners were not adverse to taking action against identified individuals and their families.
Re: (Score:2)
Being non-identifiable was a safety issue with regard to the police, because it was shown on many occasions that the striking miners were not adverse to taking action against identified individuals and their families.
Not really. Most of the police on riot duty during the miners strike were Met officers bussed in from London or, allegedly also members of the UK armed forces so their families has sod all to fear as they were miles away. The local bobbies generally hated them and were kept well out of the way to stop them having to aggressively police their neighbours.
Is there any single incident you can reference where the miners victimised local cops or their families in the manner you describe? If so please do.
There wer
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't excuse the police's behaviour. If it did they would just claim that they felt personally threatened every time. Sorry, but if you become a cop you have to accept those risks, and the only acceptable action is to try and arrest those responsible.
Look at it another way, the police were known to hide their identity and then beat people up. Distrust on both side, each as bad as the other, resulting in violence.
Re: (Score:2)
The can disappear CCTV recordings when it shows they're lying or exposes their fuck-ups, so you can expect the same things with these recordings, should they feel its in their interests.
Remember the CCTV footage of Jean Charles DeMenezes showing him notvaulting the styles at the underground station that contradicted the police testimony that he did?
Unless there is rigorous policy, including real sanction for breaching those proceedures, these cameras will only show what the police find helpful to them, rega
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, make the law that without the camera on, the cop loses all privileges normally enjoyed by law enforcement officers. If he injures or kills anyone, he goes to jail for murder or assault like anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Authorities can also penalize officers who just happen to turn away from a police infraction being commited.
Re: (Score:2)
COPS: Creepy Police Bathroom Videos (Score:2)
If all police are going to wear cameras, I demand public outcry equivilant to Google Glass for any police officer entering a bar, going to the bathroom, or hanging out around playgrounds.
You think I'm joking... but if I take a video on Google Glass, it's for private use. If I take a video as a camera enabled police officer, that embarassing moment is caught on police video, which can be seen by anyone with authorization... and just look at all those "authorized" videos showing up on Cops, Amazing Chases, e
Re: (Score:2)
no, they can turn them off. They are off most of the time until the officer 'interacts with the public' and then it gets turned on to record what he's doing.
As we see from Glass users, people don't like the idea of recording everything.
However, some don't trust the police and think they should be recording everything - more so we can check the police rather than check the people they record.
Re:Can't turn them off? (Score:5, Interesting)
One possible solution to the 'recording everything' issue is to encrypt things as they are recorded, and to require a representative from the police and a representative from a civil liberties organisation to provide keys in order to decrypt the video. That way, even constantly-recording video couldn't be used for wholesale surveillance (theoretically).
I imagine the intention is that video would only be viewed if a complaint was made or there was some contention about the events between a member of the public and the police so having a bit of an overhead for viewing the videos wouldn't be unreasonable (I don't think).
Re: (Score:3)
The video will be used as evidence in any case the police bring, hence the concept of switching it on just before going to deal with an incident.
Its not for general recording in case they spot something, or to protect the police in case of complaint - though obviously a compliant is a case in itself, and the video would be used as evidence then too.
So really- the camera will be off when the officer is just walking the beat, or sat in his car, and turned on only when he gets to the scene of an incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideal for entrapping the stupid public who have no idea which sentence they utter will prove beyond all doubt that they have broken the law when later selectively played back.
This is going to make a lot of innocent people guilty, so its not as wonderful as it sounds.
People just have no idea how their words will be used against them. Never, ever, speak to the police if you can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
both defence and prosecution lawyers will have access to the videos, so don't expect "selectively played back" nonsense.
Re:Can't turn them off? (Score:4, Informative)
No? How about that Occupy woman who was just sentenced to 7 years for elbowing a cop, but was prevented from rewinding or zooming out the video evidence to provide context to the jury?
Re: (Score:2)
blame the defence lawyer - his job is to do his best to provide mitigating evidence, and obviously was useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the defense lawyer blocking video evidence or evidence of past excessive force from the same cop - that was the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cops have the footage, they'll show it.
If there's a mysterious gap in the video? The jury will most likely believe the arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
require a representative from the police and a representative from a civil liberties organisation to provide keys in order to decrypt the video
You want to have the police depend on a (presumably non-government) civil liberties organisation?
I don't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
it should count as evidence against them in abuse cases when they forget to put them on when interacting with the public though. ..oh and the footage should be streamed off device as it records, of course. they could bill that as protecting the officer(which it does, too, in case he gets taken out).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I just read is that officers are happy to use them - sure you Americans are all concerned about the cops beating on you, but in more civilised countries the police are considering using them to replace their notebooks and reduce the amount of paperwork they have to fill out.
Everything they used to have to write down, back at the station, is now recorded on video so they just have to hand that over to the lawyers who will do the hard work of sorting it out for the jury.
That is a huge win and someth
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent selling point, and something any honest cop could be expected to embrace. Now the real test is to see how many continue to object...
Re: (Score:2)
Arrests are actually a very small percentage of a cops face-time though. I would want *any* interaction with the public to be recorded. If a woman gets stopped for driving while black and gets "enthusiastically frisked" then that should be on camera, and you can be damned sure the officer in question won't do so voluntarily.
In a civilized nation that shouldn't be an issue, but at present we have a problem that needs to be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US at least the courts have upheld the officer's right to a non-consensual, "Terry Pat" (aka frisking) without a warrant to ascertain whether you are carrying a weapon - and it's not unknown for an officer to get excessively thorough about the process.
As for a more in depth search without an arrest, that requires either a warrant or your consent - and there's a long tradition of creativity about that second one. Asking convoluted questions such that virtually any response can be taken as consent, or
Re: (Score:2)
No, the police can do a "stop and search", and arrest if they find something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As noted, battery life would be a problem.
Writing to flash memory needs a surprising amount of electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
As noted, battery life would be a problem.
Writing to flash memory needs a surprising amount of electricity.
Not really. Things like GoPro are designed to be worn during sports and not interfere with the athletes mobility too much and they can still stretch to 3 or 4 hours recording. The average UK cop wears a ton of gear, including stab vests and god knows what else. Including a battery that meant they could easily give up to 6 or 7 hours recording for the addition of a few pounds should not be too bigger problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's safer for everyone to have them always on - more to record what the officer's doing than anything else.
But these things won't just be recording what the officers are doing. If they're always on, they'll be recording everything else as well, and contributing to the same surveillance state that things like CCTV and ANPR do. The evidence seems to suggest that using cameras at times where some sort of confrontation or disagreement is likely is beneficial for all concerned, but that doesn't necessarily make running them full time (or keeping the footage they record if you do) a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A fair point. Though as we move towards a surveillance state on other fronts it steadily loses impact. If the LAPD can permanently store the video from their little eyes-in-the-sky, then they should damn well be able to store continuous videos surveillance of the officers for a week or two, long enough for a complaint to be lodged and the relevant footage to be moved to a more permanent archive (and/or give the complainant a copy).
Better still, give custody the footage to an independent organization, or a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm shocked they can't turn them off. They must be able to turn them off to protect the public's privacy.
Clue: Not all video is uploaded to Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Clue: Not all video is uploaded to Youtube.
The mere existence of footage that invades someone's privacy is reason enough for concern. Whether it has been leaked (yet) or not is at best a secondary issue.
It's not as if large government departments have a great track record on security and protecting privacy. And it's certainly not as if data originally gathered for one stated purpose has never subsequently been reused for other, very different purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
The mere existence of footage that invades someone's privacy is reason enough for concern.
Not here in the UK. You are recorded a million times from every angle in public places thanks to all the CCTV, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place what so ever.
In terms of if the police enter a private place like your home the police can probably just declare they are constantly recording at all times before they enter and most of the public would not have a problem with it. The only exception would probably be people like family liaison officers who get to go and tell people they kids just
People *do* expect privacy in public (Score:2)
there is no expectation of privacy in a public place what so ever.
People keep saying that, but it's obviously nonsense.
If you walked around obviously looking up women's skirts in a park, I imagine they would quickly demonstrate that they expect a level of privacy even in a public place.
If you followed someone around with a video camera (or Google Glass or whatever) recording their every move, I imagine they too would quickly demonstrate that they expect a level of privacy even in a public place.
If you walked down the street peering into everyone's front window through a 2
Re: (Score:2)
Clue: Not all the stuff the NSA monitors is looked at. Theoretically, the content (as opposed to meta-information) is examined by court-ordered warrant only. Feel better?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked they can't turn them off. They must be able to turn them off to protect the public's privacy. As we learned in the US, if you don't then you infringe on someone's privacy when you enter their home. A simple welfare check becomes a horrible invasion of privacy.
I'm not to be honest. We've had a pilot program of the same thing going on here in Canada off and on, usually it dies and someone else tries because they're not happy with the results. Interestingly enough, in Canada you don't have a "right to privacy" in a public place. And in the case of a welfare check, your right to privacy is superseded by the need to ensure you're safe and unharmed. The simple solution would be to delete video in cases like that after a privacy officer has viewed it to ensure tha
preventing officers from being able to deactivate (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is unlikely that police would deactivate it without good reason. Where cameras have been used they have resulted in a large reduction in complaints [bbc.co.uk] against police . If they were widely used then switching them off would be seen as suspicious if a complaint was received.
There are some times when an officer might want to switch it off - for example when taking a toilet break or dealing with a vulnerable victim. Ideally switching on should be easy; a "one touch" operation, but switching off harder (hold two buttons for 10 seconds) so it cannot be done (or claimed to have been done) accidentally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
not really - "deems worth recording" isn't really the case.
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
So the officers will be sent to deal with an incident, and will be expected to have switched their cameras on when they arrive - and its pretty easy to see if they didn't as they'll have no recording to match to the case incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power requirements go down a LOT if you're writing to RAM instead of flash memory and not displaying anything on a video screen.
eg. I've seen CMOS sensors that use less than 0.1W.
Re: (Score:2)
Power requirements go down a LOT if you're writing to RAM instead of flash memory and not displaying anything on a video screen.
eg. I've seen CMOS sensors that use less than 0.1W.
It would also seem reasonable for the 30 second prebuffer to run at a reduced frame rate to save battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree - that 30s may well contain critical evidence justifying the officer's response, it would be pretty sad to have it lost due to a low-quality recording. If we're going to keep them under surveillance we should do what we can to ensure it covers their ass as well. Assuming they're acting in accordance with the law of course.
Besides - if the camera takes 0.1W to record then it takes 0.1W - all reducing the footage quality does is reduce the amount of RAM needed as a buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides - if the camera takes 0.1W to record then it takes 0.1W - all reducing the footage quality does is reduce the amount of RAM needed as a buffer.
Not at all. The amount of power used by CMOS hardware is basically proportional to the number of transistors that are being switched, and how frequently they are switching. So each time you capture a frame you have to:
- reset the sensor's pixels
- read the sensor's pixels
- amplify the signal
- debayer the data
- possibly compress the data
- store the data somewhere
Each of these steps will take a certain amount of energy. Obviously the more frequently you captur
Re: (Score:2)
From the manufacturer. Just say you want to evaluate one of them :)
This is the device [revealmedia.com] most police are using in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that police don't just walk around in the hope of finding bad things happening. They get sent places from the control centre, which in turn gets reports from the public via 999 calls or similar.
Aside from the fact that I regularly see plenty of uniformed police officers or PCSOs patrolling on foot around the city in which I live (Norwich, UK), try going to a population centres club district and see how heavy the police presence is then - here in Norwich, its not unusual to see 50 or more police on one stretch of road (Prince of Wales Road - the main nightclub district for the city) at the same time on a friday or saturday night. This is a road I can typically walk from one end to the other in les
Re: (Score:2)
they're still sent to that location as part of a organised system though, not just at random which is what I meant.
and most people would hope they're there more as a deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying they are sent to Norwich as part of an organised system, rather than randomly patrolling the countryside.
They go where they are expected to be required - in general that's the population centres, and in specific that's where the population congregates at that particular time. Go to a cities shopping centre at 2pm on a Saturday afternoon and you will see a lot more police than you would at 7am on a Monday morning in exactly the same place.
Your original comment comes across much more as if
Re: (Score:2)
I used to write software for the control centres. One thing I know is that there are many more calls than there are officers to deal with them.
so no, they're not sitting in the coffee house eating doughnuts, they're permanently going from one incident to the next. The only time they're not doing this is when they come back to base to fill out the mass of paperwork between incidents.
That;s not to say that some are sent to areas to "patrol" but these are also organised areas, the police don't stray out of the
A step in the right direction (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps an unpopular opinion but I think this is overall a good thing. It will require more discipline from police and help reduce the number of unjustified police action.
As the same time this will serve to catch criminals and is a precursor to automatic face recognition (like they have with car number plates)
Just remember the next time you see police, you're on camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A step in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: A step in the right direction (Score:2, Informative)
If you live in a big city then that may be true, but most towns only have a few cameras covering the high street and it's unlikely you'll find them in villages. So for most of the UK it's not true and only hype/lies. You can keep your guns and we will "settle" for lower crime rates.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a big city then that may be true, but most towns only have a few cameras covering the high street and it's unlikely you'll find them in villages.
That's why I mentioned 'especially in London'. Do you stop reading comment after 10 words?
You can keep your guns and we will "settle" for lower crime rates.
Dude, you are preaching to converted.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see police, you are on camera as well, especially in London. But yes, automatic face recognition is coming so you will be almost fully tracked from the moment you leave your house.
Not that that isn't something to worry about at some point, but for the moment that's fantasy. Almost all these cameras are privately set up and recorded, and requires manually requesting and retrieving video from who owns them. They are also nearly always poor quality monochrome (see any CCTV featured on news reports). All the computing tech in the world won't help the fact that CCTV is neither centrally controlled or accessible, or of decent quality.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't go both ways.
I suppose the camera will "inadvertently" be turned off anytime the cop feels like doing something unjustified.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for this and have little problem with the so called "privacy issues", provided that the laws (and the devices) are designed properly to minimize any risk of tampered and/or missing evidence. I see much more privacy issues without this than with this, and I would also like to extend these laws to require private security firms to use this and tougher laws to deal with so called "missing tapes"/"broken camera" issues to protect the rights of civilians.
Only fear that I have is that the "missing footage
Turning camera off (Score:5, Interesting)
Turning a camera off - this should work the same as things like medical hotlines. For most hotlines, every call is recorded. You, as a patient, can request that the recording be turned off. Your request will be recorded, and then nothing more (at least, that's how it is supposed to work).
It should be the same for police officers: Sure, there are times they may need to turn the camera's off, but the reason should be clear and should itself be recorded. In the absence of a justification, the camera should always run.
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is that cops are not only trained to manipulate people into agreeing to searches without warrants or interviews without lawyers, but they are free to lie to you in the process. So Detective Mackey [imdb.com] stops by your house to ask you about xyz and assures you that
Re: (Score:2)
The police officer should not have any acceptable reason to even suggest such thing, and if a complaint was made it should count very strongly against him if he did - after all, up to the point the "talking into it" would have been recorded and any defence lawyer worth his shit should be able to use that to tear the officer a new one.
Of course I understand the laws are rarely written perfectly (and thus they need to be ad
Re: (Score:2)
...also, your link made me (again) wonder why the officers are so heavily armed and so trigger happy in the US the first place. Here in Finland the police has to do paperwork and explain each and any shot they take, and shooting an unarmed man just for escaping would unlikely come to consideration of even the most aggressive cops in the country. The police here are known to avoid using possibly leathal force and, in fact, even them shooting a "warning shot" in the air is so rare it makes to newspaper headli
So London cops are as dirty as LA cops? (Score:2)
They had to put cameras on LA cops because they were acting like street gang thugs, Has the London police lost the professionalism that was world renown and are now acting like thugs as well?
Re: (Score:2)
People should never ever trust the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't I heard this kind of accusations, made by police or politicians, before on other subjects about new changes to limit police rights to invade and breach other (civilian) peoples rights as they see just based on their own discrimination, Mr. Officer?
P.S. You shouldn't really feel quilty about racism of other people - only your own. No large
Lets be realistic (Score:2)
Yes, lets be realistic (Score:2)
Does your work grant you great power over the average citizen? In your industry, are employees known for excessive force, falsifying evidence, committing perjury in court, and murdering the occasional innocent person? Are you likely to be merely fired if you commit a crime that would send anyone else to jail for years or even decades?
Watched cops are less abusive cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you willingly accept?" - Well, one obvious advantages is that we'd know that the type of police officers who still sign up for duty, knowing they'll be held to account, will be exactly the type of person we want as a police officer - someone who intends to behave ethically and not abuse their power. So not every officer would "willingly accept", but exactly the type who had planned to commit abuses would choose instead not to accept.
Obviously, there should be limits, like not having to wear it while
Re: (Score:2)
And people hate it. Making the job more unpleasant - meaning that you either need to compensate somehow or risk getting worse applicants to join - is a valid concern.
Outbreak (Score:3)
Forget drones . (Score:2)
Now they have thousands of mobile cameras aimed at the civilians recording everything in sight .. nice job .. Yaaaay .. we're way past his worst nightmare.
Orwell was an optimist