How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.
The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being “convinced” in secret trials.
You may disagree with this trade off, but it’s baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.
I’d much rather have some real accountability measures than the accidental accountability occasionally provided by broadcasting their communications.
How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.
I don’t think things like names of suspects or victims should be made public.
The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being “convinced” in secret trials.
You may disagree with this trade off, but it’s baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.
Obviously nobody should disappear into secret jails, but victims and witnesses are not on trial, and should have their privacy protected.
Having random people listening to police comms is no substitute for a competent regulator.
Fine, roll that out before you take away what we have