Unless you mount it on a hat or helmet the camera should be looking at the wall anyway.

Officers are generally expected and in some cases even instructed to let some people off with a warning for minor violations.

In cases A and B the recording would support the officer's story. Case C is a reasonable explanation for why it stopped working, but not for why it started working again. In all cases the recording that would have happened should be assumed to be detrimental to the officer.

If you are required to have recordings of your activities and those recordings aren't available, they may be assumed to be in favor of the person not responsible for the recordings. In this case, that would be whoever the officer is interacting with.

That's already how the police in the area here handle audio recordings. That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the system, a request for a recording may end up being stalled long enough for the automated deletion to remove the recording before it gets flagged.

Let them turn it off whenever they want, but if the camera is off and something happens, the officer may be assumed to be lying about events.

They just have to work shifts, taking turns being the guards.

It's only unbreakable through a computer science approach, it's still vulnerable to social engineering.

Given Oracle's reputation, I doubt they noticed the hit.

So you are of the opinion that these chemicals were used in the US with full knowledge of what they would do to the ozone layer?

Because the Democrats are backed by corporations that profit from "environmentally friendly" legislation.

While I agree with the general sentiment, it would be more accurate to say that you've never noticed a virus or malware on the machines, rather than you've never gotten them.

Excessive reproduction isn't really a problem in countries with relatively high standards of living, lack of reproduction is closer to being a problem.

Illegal immigration wouldn't be a problem if the basic income were only provided to citizens. Especially if it meant that jobs paid considerably less.

The bigger problem is paying for it. Since workers wouldn't need to be paid as much, employers would be the likely targets. However, taxing by headcount would result in under-the-table employment. Taxing by income would be bad for companies with few employees as they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the savings.

The experiments in large scale communism have been the opposite of what the GP requested. They typically have reinforced selfishness and greed even more than capitalism as they are needed to survive rather than just to thrive.

How about, what's the percentage of qualified job applicants?