It's going on all over. And good thing, too. Our police agencies are not doing a good job teaching their members that public servants have an obligation to respond to public supervision; that the law is different for public officials. Public officials have to obey (positive action). Citizens merely have to abstain from wrong (avoid the negative). It is logical to think that if one has to obey, so does everyone else. But, that's what training is for. Justice Anthony Kennedy's point that the citizens have to enforce the law is well taken. Aside from the fact that the judiciary has no enforcement powers, if the executive is falling down on the job, the citizens are the ultimate authority.
It seems noteworthy that the video is obviously the result of team work. It takes two to capture images of crooked cops. The First Amendment is specifically designed to address the official reaction to being spoken to out of turn. The "protection" of content tends to disguise that the real issue is the act of speaking to (and correcting) public officials.
Indeed, public officials at work should have no expectation of privacy, much less secrecy. But, that's exactly why they resist respecting the privacy of the ordinary person and claim secrecy for themselves. Secrecy is the key to power. And concentrated power destructs. That's why it needs to be dispersed over all the people.
OWS is targeting the 1% and running into the police. That's because police agencies have been converted into the henchmen of the 1%. They "protect" the property of the propertied and, when they presume to "protect" the public, they buy into the notion that the public is the property of the 1%. Brings a whole new meaning to "the ownership society."
Haven't heard much about wage slavery lately, but Noam Chomsky discusses it in this video interview from 2002, just about the time Dubya was announcing his "ownership society" which was going to sucker even more people into buying homes so they would be easier to control.
As usual, I find myself disagreeing with Chomsky. In this case, because he doesn't seem to realize that it's not wages which impose the constraint, but the allocation of property to private ownership without any social obligation to share the fruits thereof. Also, he's mistaken about pay being determinative in the slave status. The essence of slavery wasn't that people were or weren't paid for labor, but that they were not at liberty to stand up and walk away from unhealthy, injurious and constricting situations. The chains didn't keep them working; they kept them from going anywhere else. Which is, of course, the essence of the Wall Street Occupation. The people are demonstrating what it feels like to have their mobility restricted by making the denizens of Wall Street sit there and listen to their complaints, including the physical restraints routinely being visited on ordinary people. Cows, being herd animals, don't mind being confined behind cattle guards. People do.
It really isn't a question of giving up security for liberty. The designation of resources as private without any obligation to share means that the choice is between liberty and sustenance. It means that to live free is to die of starvation.