Great question! If it's illegal to film a public servant then it is illegal to verify they are actually serving the public's best interest. In particular if you catch a public servant performing amoral or otherwise corrupt behaviour there is no way to publicaly verify that. Further without explicit legal protections for things then it is easier for that action to be banned or otherwise made illegal. No protection is no protection. A corrupt public servant has a vested interest in misinterpreting law in order to prevent you from exposing them. Which is why Oklahoma's ban on filming police is still bad even though it is framed under the guise of protecting police from harassment

[–] okiloki@feddit.de -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So do you think employees being recorded by their employers is ok as well? Because it isn't. Having to live in constant surveillance is a mark of authoritarianism.

[–] moonsnotreal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about every person in retail? There's like 15 cameras in the small store I work at so basically my every move is recorded.

[–] okiloki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are those cameras in the retail space? There are cameras at public spaces, whether it's Walmart, the DMV or the foyer of a police station. They aren't there to surveille employees, they are there to prevent or record crimes.

People here are advocating to have cameras in office spaces, to specifically surveil employees. What the fuck is going to happen for people in home office? That's illegal af, at least where I come from. And who is going to monitor these cameras? The local sheriff's office? And who is going to review all that footage?

[–] moonsnotreal@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Ok I didn't know about employers recording at home workers. That's messed up.

load more comments (21 replies)