If body cams get cheaper and cheaper, companies might start asking more people to wear them while working.

E.g.: https://coloradosun.com/2024/07/31/youth-corrections-audio-surveillance/

I could see this for doctors, at restaurants, stores,, etc… eventually.

Are you ready to wear one?

EDIT TO ADD: A few people said this wouldn’t ever make sense for doctors (privacy laws) or for fixed locations (stores). I should have thought of that.

But what about Uber / bus drivers, or repair people who go into homes? I can imagine a large corporation thinking a cam is a good idea, for their own CYA (not for the customers’ or the employees’).

Also I don’t like this idea either, to be clear. I was mostly playing devil’s advocate here to see what you all think. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Pretty much what I expected, tbh

  • perishthethought@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Sure. But where to draw that line? I can imagine companies will want them for liability reasons.

    • Little_mouse
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • anon6789@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • dgmib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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