Quite so. Though there was some other fluff that specifically stated that LS's medical benifits package under some circumstances gave them a legal free hand to do what ever the thell they wanted to do put your body back togeather. Which sort of also seems to point out that if they felt it was worth it, they'd very much make a 'robocop' out of a badly wounded but 'valuable' officer.

I'm trying to remmeber what book that was in though. It might have been New Seattle. Definately one of the SR3 books though.

well, having just read most of the LoneStar SB (thanks again OneTrick), it is in there for one. I think it's mentioned in a lot of other places though.

I'm acutally doing a game right now, 1 on 1 with the GM, with a LS detective - Homicide. It's a fun game. GM decided that the newest bit of ware they decided to implement across the board was eye cameras w/ recording units and 'little black boxes' so that they record everything you do while you're on duty ( just when you're on duty,yeah right,). Drives me nuts.

Yeah that sounds just like something a mega would do.

Free cybereyes/eye enhancements for everyone!. Just sign here on the bottom line.

1 week later

Boss: Ok Bob we've got to download all that data out of your eye today.
Bob: Wha?
Boss: It's in your contract, didnt you read it?
Bob: Oh shit!

It was great the way it was described. A lot of officers quit, or changed to KE (which picked up the program next), and a bunch started working on hacking the box. Even then, there was so many officers that it couldn't be properly monitored. It would all be handled by a system that would monitor for key words (linked to an earbud or cyber ear) and notify a monitoring person if key words (bribe for example ) came up. But it still came up so often that the attendants were busy as switchboards. I mean come on, the thing picks up every time a cop hears the word "bribe"... So you've got this great invasion of privacy that the corp can force on you because you signed on the dotted line, and it doesn't even do what it's supposed to most of the time. Classic.

Which is likely realistic unless you had some sort of AI sorting all the data for you. And I doubt any AI would keep that job up for long without going all Arcology Shutdown on your ass.

Because in fulfilling their law-enforcement duties, they are serving as public agent.

And even if they weren't, it would still be open to production in courts because it is potential evidence against the individual officer (especially if it's on all the time).

Trade secrets constitutes a very narrow category which wouldn't apply in this case because it is used for commercial purposes. I think you're looking for the FOIA exception for law-enforcement purposes. However, while that is in the federal law, it is not necessarily in state sunshine laws, and even then is still subject to review by a judge to determine if it is meets the criteria. And then there is, of course, the fact that it could be used by the defense in criminal cases.

The only way that it might be worked around is if every capture was transmitted directly to the legal department and not stored in the eye. Maybe.

Hmm not to mention, at least in todays courts, such video footage most likely would be inadmissable as evidence.

Alot of it allready is these days, same with photographs because they could easily be altered.

It sort of reminds me of that movie with Robin Williams. Final Cut or something like that. There's this implant that records everything you see from the mometn it's implanted to the day you die. The you have these 'cutters' that splice that footage into this sort of final memory of the person.

Part of the cutter code was that you couldnt yourself have one of these implants. The character played by Robin Williams winds up to actually have one, without his prior knowledge. I think his parents died or something when he was really young and no one told him about it or assumed folk allready knew or what ever.

In the movie these memory recordings of folk become ultra convtroversial becuase in many cases there's recorded proof of everything from muder to child abuse but it all just conviently gets 'edited out'.

James: That was kind of the point the GM was going for. Basically implementing something that sounded good on the surface, supposedly to be able to provide more evidence, and really ends up just being a mess.

Yeah, but James' point is that this particular innovation would never have been implemented by the Corp because of the (very) probable negative aspects, most of which would be readily apparent beforehand to any Corp involved in either PR or Law Enforcement.

Although, to be fair, it's not like there are corps and governments who have done similarly stupid things while the lawyers were jumping up and down with their hair on fire telling them that following through would be A Bad Thing.

So, just how would you establish a chain-of-custody procedure for handling video evidence to prove that at no time did anyone use an edit utlity on the file to alter its contents?