To me, where there is good cause to videotape someone at work it is reasonable to do so, openly and with their knowledge. It seems common sense to videotape any actual official dealings with a criminal matter for the use of the court, prosecution and defense. I think videotaping someone throughout their entire work day is pushing it a bit, and I think keeping those 'tapes' beyond a reasonable time frame in the absence of specific reasonable cause is also treading dangerous water.

In any event, open filming implies consent. It is legitimate to film someone without consent in certain cases but that doesn't automatically mean distribution or storage is legit. No one has, IMHO, the right to complain about a cop filming them during an arrest or citation, and reciprocally the police do not have a right to complain about being filmed by that person or their companion or a bystander during that process so long as it isn't interfering with the arrest or the person isn't making a secret of it outside of a reasonable room for fear of repercussion for doing so. e.g. there isn't anything wrong with hitting the record button on your cell or whatever if the officer is, in your eyes and within reason, acting unprofessionally or threateningly. But going from that to Youtube is crossing a line, every bit as much as the police posting the vid to youtube would be. It should be presented as evidence through defense counsel. If one does feel it needs to be on TV, so to speak, then they should be going through a responsible media outlet that knows to blur identifying features and numbers of the people in the video. Same as my employer has a right to videotape me, with my consent [implied is acceptable if the camera is clearly visible] be that employer public or private. They do not have the right to show that on TV, or to a wide audience, without my specific consent, unless they have taken clear steps to guard my privacy, by blurring my face and any other identifiers that would allow for reasonably easy identification.

Let me stress that's just my opinion by the way, and what follows is even more just my opinion. But cameras, and memory, and upload/download speeds are all only going to get easier and cheaper. People need to start considering, even if we must undo precedents, how we will act on things like privacy when within a relatively short window of time we will have reached a point where cameras and memory are so cheap and small that a person might simply record a 360° view of there every waking moment and store a lifetimes worth of data because cameras, batteries, and memory are so affordable and small that you can have them woven into every article of clothes and jewelry or even painted onto your fingernails for a few bucks, if for no better reason then that it makes it really easy to find your damn car keys or settle arguments about how many times you've taken out the trash this year with your wife. It's my opinion that when that happens, or hopefully prior, people will realize and legislate that while it might be acceptable to download anything with expectation of privacy, it will not be acceptable to upload information with expectation of privacy. In the same sense that you can't be held responsible for viewing a billboard of a naked person but can be for putting it up. The technical possibility of all of us living in one gigantic fishbowl is absolute, the handful of improvements necessary to go the next step for absurdly tiny and cheap cams with massive memory and stupid/easy functioning should be considered a given. I don't think this is a subject where we should be trying to piecemeal together laws as we go and end up with all sorts of conflicting or contradictory laws with lots of loopholes and to me it ties in with copyright infringement and piracy too. Not what do you have a right to view/hear/receive/download but what do you have a right to say/show/transmit/upload.