This assumes the police are always upstanding and never have ulterior motives. Which has proven not to be true. [0] and tons of others

[0] https://www.kcra.com/article/new-bedford-police-officer-on-l...

▲

bko 7 hours ago | parent [-]

This assumes that the benefit of allowing police to effectively do their job outweighs instances of abuse of that power.

I don't get this argument. Police aren't perfect therefore police shouldn't be granted the ability to do their job?

▲

pavel_lishin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nobody's taking away their ability to do their job. What we're trying to do is make sure that the police don't abuse their power, that their use of power is accountable, and that they can be held liable for it when they do abuse it.

Police have to get warrants for searches as well, and nobody seems to be saying that that stops them from being able to do their job.

▲

bko 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You're saying two separate things.

We should make sure police don't abuse their power. That's what auditing and strict access controls are for. If someone abuses it, they are held accountable.

But that doesn't mean you need a warrant for everything. It's much like police have guns and can use them at their discretion, but every time an officer draws a weapon of fires is brought under scrutiny. It works exactly the same way. Imagine if police had to go to a judge before they were able to draw their weapons!

	▲	pavel_lishin 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But Flock cameras aren't a gun, and they should be held to the same standard as any other information-gathering - it should require a warrant.

▲

lightedman 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Police already can't do their job because we select for sub-90 IQ cops.

Giving idiot cops abusable tools is PURE AND UTTER STUPIDITY. If you think otherwise, I can't wait for those same idiots to kick in your door despite you having done nothing wrong due to some false accusation by a clanker and show you the error of your mistaken train of thought.