Of course. That said, though, I wish they'd keep this sort of thing private so that there is more chance folks are actually innocent until proven guilty instead of having public opinion labeling you as such before the trial.
It's also going to be pretty unenforceable in the era of social media.
We can do things like keep mugshots of unconvicted people out of public view, especially on police websites and media outlets. We can quit putting folks' names on the front page when covering a story. Sure, publish arrests the cops have made with a general location, withholding people's names and addresses. We can have all cops wear body cams that may or may not be recording and release them to the public once we've blurred the person's identity.
Some of this would take changing a system. Stiff penalties to cops that break the law and are convicted. Better training. A chip sewn into uniforms (which can be laundered at the station with no need to take them home to protect the police during their personal life) to track movements. A bail system that actually looks to see if someone is a flight risk and limits on how long we can keep folks in jail. A robust public defender system (it is a right to have a lawyer, after all, even though some states make destitute folks pay for it nonetheless).
We could start public service announcements asking folks not to judge folks before they are found guilty with evidence. We could use official, licensed services to do background checks and disallow arrest records to be part of the check (probably a few exceptions for security reasons). Train police officers a bit better so they minimally can be aware of their natural biases and work against them.
I'm not saying this list is perfect nor all inclusive, but it is a start.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square...
and I'd guess more places in Europe also.