What you say lands to me as changing my words to similar ones a little.
   On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 2:05 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <[1]punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

     On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 05:43:33 -0400
     Karl <[2]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
     > Some of us want to sousveil the authorities,
             well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in
     every cop's bathroom...

   I mean recording their public presence for accountability as public
   figures, not violating their pricacy.  Sorry for the obscure "sousveil"
   word.  Got it from wikipedia long ago.

             But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that
     records everything around you. That is not surveilling the
     authorities but spying on everybody within the reach of your
     cameras.

   It sounds like this is dangerous and should be discussed before
   actually producing.  Are you able to relate around making something
   that could do that respectful of others?  Maybe we could even influence
   present-day cell phones and digital cameras somehow.
   It is primarily for when your life is imminently threatened, which is
   neither all the time nor everywhere and could theoretically be paired
   with a call to 911.

             As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion
     actually)  that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is
     exactly govcorp's 'argument' eh?

   The difference is that I like consensus, so it is only okay if
   _absolutely_everybody_visible_ by it says that it is okay.  I was
   trying to mention providing it when it is specifically requested by a
   community.
   It sounds like there's value around the device that prevents the
   operation of nearby cameras too.

References

   1. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com