There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Would you wear a body cam at work?

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

E.g.: coloradosun.com/…/youth-corrections-audio-surveil…

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

hperrin ,

If I have a gun or am in charge of security, sure. If I’m just flipping burgers, absolutely not. The security camera in the corner is plenty.

Cysioland ,
@Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml avatar

The reasons for wearing a bodycam as a remote software developer are solely dystopian.

nobleshift ,
@nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

Absolutely no restaurant staff is going to wear these. I mean how are they going to do rips by the dumpster and whippets in the walk-in with a camera on?

MadBob ,

I used to wear one on the railway. We had these ones that you switch on with a big, loud sliding clasp on it, so if someone starts acting a bit shirty, you could often deter them just by starting the recording (which held the previous 30 seconds or something in its memory).

perishthethought OP ,

Makes sense, especially if you trusted the organization to use the video to defend you, not just cover their own butts.

BlueSquid0741 ,

Where I work; the public facing staff, security and customer service roles, are now offered to wear one at the start of their shift. They all want to use one.

These workers face abuse - physical assault, threats, harassment - from members of the public.

What has been found is that when they turn the body worn camera on, the other person tends to stop the abuse or at least de-escalates somewhat. (Prior to having body worn cameras available, some of these staff had tried to use their phone to film when in an incident, but it almost always triggered an immediate violent response - one staff had their phone taken and smashed, another was hit in the face)

There has been a decrease in mental health injury claims since using these. My own talks with these staff are that they feel safer, and had asked their employer to procure more body worn cameras as there wasn’t enough for all the staff.

The staff are not required to have them constantly on, they press a button to switch it on when an aggressive situation is forming or they believe they are in danger.

mercano ,
@mercano@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t think it’s going to happen that way. Body cams are needed if you want to record people working in the field, such as police officers, but for people working at a fixed location, an office or factory or what have you, CCTV cameras are cheaper, less intrusive, and harder for a bad actor to screw with by “accidentally” covering their lens or forgetting to turn their unit on.

rand_alpha19 ,

If I got paid double to wear one, sure. Other than that, no.

communism ,
@communism@lemmy.ml avatar

In the jobs I work at, no, I wouldn’t. Body cams would only be used to snitch on people. It makes sense for surveillance to be used over people in positions of power like cops, doctors, prison guards, etc, who are known for abusing their power. Not against ordinary people or members of the public though. If retail workers wear bodycams, it’s to snitch on shoplifters. If teachers wear bodycams it’d compromise kids who approach them to tell them something in confidence. Etc.

shinigamiookamiryuu ,

I literally work for what amounts to a media business, giving me a body cam would be like giving ice to an eskimo.

cm0002 ,

Body cams can already be had for cheap Electronics wise, they’re not complicated or special. Yet, they’re still not in widespread use beyond police.

The reason police body cams are pricey is because 1) “military/police grade” rip-off premium pricing and 2) The housing has to be designed to be waterproof, shockproof, dust proof etc because of what they do on a day to day.

A retail worker is not going to need this level of “proofing” because they’re not running through an alley or something in their day to day

juliebean ,

body cams only make any sense when you’re not in a fixed location and already always on camera, or when there’s commonly abuses of power off camera. both are true of cops. neither are true of the cashiers at Hot Topic or whatever.

perishthethought OP ,

True. Today. But should have said I’m imagining a black Mirror future where things are so bad and the tech so cheap, that corps decide they want all employees to wear one, for their use.

In the linked article, public health workers are going to wear a cam so the govt can tell when they break rules, out in the field. I could see that kind of thinking expanded to other fields over time, no?

It occurs to me now that the cashier at hot topic is already being recorded. So good point.

Melatonin ,

I might be wearing my own small, undetectable body cam, to protect myself against workplace harassment, racism, and unfair labor practices.

I’m a walking, talking landmine for those bastards. /S

bizarroland ,

Just make sure that you're not in a two-party consent state, otherwise even if you catch something egregious being done to you, it may not be admissible as any sort of evidence.

Note that this may not apply if you are in a public area or an area accessible to the public, however, even with that a competent lawyer may be able to get that evidence excluded based on the consent rules in your state or country.

wildbus8979 ,

You want this for DOCTORS? You want your private health information record like this? Are you freaking nuts?

communism ,
@communism@lemmy.ml avatar

It’d be on record by the same organisation that has access to your medical records anyway. Doctors are frequently known for abuse of power over disabled patients, trans patients, racialised patients, etc, so it makes it easier to take action against negligent/abusive doctors.

wildbus8979 ,

My doctor writes shit on papaerz in a filing cabinet. That’s a whole lot better than digitally where it can easily be mass exfiltrated.

communism ,
@communism@lemmy.ml avatar

I guess it depends on where you are. Here medical records are on a centralised computer system already.

At least on a centralised computer system one would hope that the state would hire someone competent to set it up and harden it. Whereas there’s only so much you can do to physically protect a piece of paper from being accessed—although I suppose also less likely that malicious actors would try to do a physical heist to steal paper medical records too.

perishthethought OP ,

No, I don’t. I’m putting on my tin foil hat here and trying to guess what the future might hold.

Mrs_deWinter ,

Why doctors? Filming patients would be a nightmare in terms of privacy and data policy.

In my line of work (psychotherapy) it would be equally impossible. People are having a hard enough time as it is opening up to medical professionals, I don’t think that the additional barrier of being actively filmed would help anyone.

perishthethought OP ,

Check out the linked article. I agree with you but that agency is only adding cameras for the agency’s benefit, not the worker’s.

Mrs_deWinter ,

Youth corrections staff is still a whole other story than doctors though. A physical examination is probably one of the most vulnerable positions one could be in. These cameras would record people getting naked, multiple orifices being examined, and patients talking about symptoms or things they are unsure and often ashamed about.

The cost would be enormous. I imagine many people would be even more reluctant to go to the doctor than they are now.

And the benefit, in my opinion, would be very slim. Medical malpractice is far more subtle than the examples from the article. As patients we’re rarely worried that our doctor will physically assault us, we’re worried about errors in judgement, delays in care, and prejudices based on gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and so on. And those aren’t directly observable most of the time. Even if you get the moment on camera where your doctor decides to trivialize your symptoms you mostly wouldn’t be able to prove it happened for discriminatory reasons.

mayo_cider ,
@mayo_cider@hexbear.net avatar

I refuse to use camera in meetings

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •