clwncr
Someone told me they'd done that in the 70s. In their case, they were planning to travel and bring along stuff that belonged to a friend at their destination. At the last minute, they couldn't make the trip and they decided the easiest solution was to check the bags and scurry out of the airport. They were worried the airline would deny a refund, but they got their money back just fine.
Baggage claim was no problem. Anybody could (and mostly still can) access it. I remember a time where they kind of corralled it all in and checked your bag tag and stub to make sure you weren't wandering off with someone else's luggage. That was a chaotic, ineffective, and short-lived effort.
Oh, really? Do they have data that shows a significant reduction in violence since surveillance started, or is this just reframing false positives (that can result in arrest, eight weeks of house arrest, a psychological evaluation and 20 days at an alternative school) as a net benefit. My money is on the latter.
Without context, manager communication is noise. It's a waste of everyone's time and is functionally sabotage because it disempowers people. Worse, the problem can compound itself when a team gets demotivated and the manager tries to solve "lack of ownership" by spending even more time trying to direct behavior.
Good managers give their team appropriate context and tools, and then trust the process. Good organizations train and support managers in doing that.