The one counter argument that gives pause and should be brought out:
http://gizmodo.com/comment/23878432
- that recording an officer's face could be used to track him later. It's probably hard to draw a finer line though - forbidding recording his face, say, makes recording as useless for self-protective purposes as for revenge.
Probably a silly objection, just like with analogous gun control, to wit: a criminal who carries a gun illegally obviously isn't being stopped by gun control laws.
Any criminal who wants revenge on a cop is not going to be deterred by a law that forbids recording his face. For that matter, he wouldn't have been deterred in any of the cited cases, where if the cop committing a crime had known he was being captured on a camera he'd have confiscated it.
Comments
The one counter argument that gives pause and should be brought out:
- that recording an officer's face could be used to track him later. It's probably hard to draw a finer line though - forbidding recording his face, say, makes recording as useless for self-protective purposes as for revenge.Probably a silly objection, just like with analogous gun control, to wit: a criminal who carries a gun illegally obviously isn't being stopped by gun control laws.
Any criminal who wants revenge on a cop is not going to be deterred by a law that forbids recording his face. For that matter, he wouldn't have been deterred in any of the cited cases, where if the cop committing a crime had known he was being captured on a camera he'd have confiscated it.