Zarathud wrote:Not only is this a bad tradeoff for civil liberties, but there are also significant costs.
It can't be as bad a trade-off as having police manufacture evidence or attack people without just cause. These are civil servants, and everything they see, hear, and do should be admissible in a court of law. The camera eliminates inaccuracies and could easily prevent innocent people from going to jail by providing first-hand proof of what happened.
As for costs - police equipment is already expensive. A body camera doesn't weigh much against the total cost to outfit and train one officer and is an invaluable tool for both the police and the innocents involved in an incident. One article I found said it might cost $19,000 to outfit 54 police with body cameras, and noted that this same department's armored response vehicle set them back $180,000.
Zarathud wrote:Things will get much worse when everyone refuses to cooperate due to cameras.
I really don't see how. Your name and address go on record when you're interviewed. They record what you say in a log or report. The only thing missing is the visual of your face saying it. That's not a staggering difference. If it does cause problems in this manner, it's not hard to implement a protocol where the officer indicates that he is disabling the visual of the body camera for an interview and turns it back on when it's concluded. You just don't want them to be able to simply switch them off completely at any time with no notice.