The Washington Post editorializes,
It’s not hard to think of instances in which video evidence would do much to settle or shed light on bitter disputes about the use of force by police — think of the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Mo., this summer. And while some civil liberties groups have expressed concern about intrusive filming of citizens, that worry seems a little archaic. The truth is that anyone can be filmed in public at virtually any time, without their knowledge, given the proliferation of security and phone cameras. Their use by police is overdue.
This struck me as very David-Brin like. Could we extend it to include public officials other than police? Suppose that when they meet with bankers, for example, Fed officials had to wear cameras and audio recorders, which could be obtained by FOIA requests. Or suppose that IRS officials had to wear cameras, for example, when they wrote emails or engaged in discussions about dealing with tax-exempt groups.
The intended consequences of the camera rule would be, as with having police wear cameras, to make sure that public officials remember that they are being watched and to reduce instances where they are wrongly suspected of acting against the public interest.
What might be the averse unintended consequences of forcing high-level public officials to wear cameras and recording devices when engaged in their ordinary duties?
UPDATE: This op-ed by Jason Grumet argues that transparency has adverse unintended consequences. However, I doubt that Grumet has any grasp at all on public choice theory (not that public choice theory would make one optimistic about getting good results from using cameras).
“What might be the averse unintended consequences of forcing high-level public officials to wear cameras and recording devices when engaged in their ordinary duties?”
It would become a prerequisite for aides and advisors to be able to speak in a code that the public official could understand but that the public could not. Otherwise you would never have a “free and frank” exchange of views.
Really, the individual citizens needs to wear the camera, as Brin suggests. Cops can just forget to turn the camera on, or can do their sketchy stuff with their back to the camera so they can’t be seen.
The ultimate result of this is pretty depressing, though. “Free and frank” gets at the problem. If everything is recorded, then everyone gets super careful about what they say. Or more precisely, they say everything with allusion rather than saying things directly, so that the video evidence won’t have any smoking guns in it.
The IRS email videos would be incredibly boring. The main reason to put cameras on cops is that they occasionally kill people and the public would like to know why. The Fed cameras might be useful for stopping corruption though as well. The Fed likes to pretend like their job requires secrecy and discretion. As a rule based policy advocate, I think such demands are unwarranted.
Re: the IRS, I think the main lesson here is that if they can “lose” years worth of emails, they can “lose” video just as easily.
That’s nothing. Eventually, some college campus is going to make wearing cameras mandatory prior to the commencement of intimate relations.
Maybe you could have the recording encrypted with double locks, such that it takes the cooperation of both parties to open it.
Now that is going to have some unintended consequences.
I think citizens have a right to know what is being done, cameras are likely not the best solution with officials. I think we would see less cronyism if we outlawed closed door sessions and allowed unlimited access to information with the exception of true security issues. Even congress can not get access to information.
This would reduce all human interaction to the idiot level of what mass media can’t take out of context. Which is almost to no interaction. Smaller (or no) government ensues, brilliant!
I need to wear a camera that can be seen online
I need someone to watch online when i wear the camera
It is very important for mine and others security
It is very important
I need this service for so many reasons, mostly to prevent against terrorism
To not have this service in place is terrorism
I need this service it is very important
I cannot stress how seriously it is needed,
These groups move to quickly for me to inform of their actions
they are intelligent these are not children,
i need to wear a camera
i need you to find me someone to watch online
I do not want to keep waiting and have more problem that are
explained after the event ,
I need to wear a camera that can be seen online
You need to find someone to watch online
I want to pay for this service
Anything less is terrorism
James Matheson
this is what the camera looks like ( it is on all cellphones I need you to find someone to watch online to give protection or at least know the perpetrators to prevent against future attacks)
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/08/even-when-police-do-wear-cameras-you-cant-count-on-ever-seeing-the-footage/378690/And
[sorry to delete this comment, but on this blog comments should make substantive statements]
Two thoughts on this:
1. IRS agent reviewing your application to be considered a charity? Yes he can deny you but he can’t take out a gun, shoot you, and claim it was all self defense with a good chance of getting away with it on just his word alone.
2. Where video would be the most useful is where viewing the incident itself would provide a clear consensus on who was right and wrong. You say the cop hit you over the head for no reason. The cop says you came out of the bar drunk and tried to sucker punch him. That’s pretty clear and if we could see the video 99.9% of us would agree who was right and who was wrong in most cases.
Having everything video taped, though, would create unintended consequences IMO. For example, two sides are trying to negotiate something. It may be useful that a lot of their conversation is not being recorded, that they forget some of their original sticking points. Video might disrupt that dynamic in some cases…while in other cases it might help it (wait, you said two weeks ago that you would take X if you could have Y remember? here’s the video!). Whether the good would outweigh the bad, though, is an open question and ultimately not really about preventing abuse or getting at ‘The Truth’.
An acquaintance of mine ran for mayor of Los Angeles on the platform that he would wear a camera in the course of his mayoral duties a few years back. He came 3rd in the ballots if I remember correctly, behind the three big name canidates. (I don’t think he expected to win, I think he was just trying to get the idea out there.)
He came in 4th I mean. It was the first year Villaragosa was elected if I remember correctly.
Thank for the piece Arnold, and thanks for alerting me about it, Brentt. I ran a fully webcast campaign back in 2001, a little before its time. We webcast the entire campaign, including citizen forums on issues, where we asked the average person most affected by each issue to weigh in on the topic. We road the bus and asked riders and drivers how to improve their specific routes. We asked teachers what needed improving in their individuals schools. And we we webcast all campaigning and debates.
The big idea wasn’t so much that once elected, people would tune in to watch the minutiae of governance, but that they could. With the knowledge that the public had total access, all involved in doing the city’s business would behave accordingly. This was also at the heart of a more holistic approach to governing, which included no campaign kickbacks, no cronies filling all important positions, etc. The shell of the website remains up at http://www.watchthemayor.com.