[joezydeco]

...that agents would have had if assigned to watch the guy 24/7

Is there still the idea that you can face your accuser in court? Are we at the point where the camera+recorder is considered a legal proxy for a sworn public official?

(Asking as an honest curious question, not a sarcastic remark)

[tonyarkles]

There's still going to be a person who is reviewing the footage and deciding whether or not to prosecute. It's not as if the camera is just emailing the DA and saying "you need to prosecute this guy"

[bmelton]

Maybe not yet, but as surveillance gets more advanced, we get closer and closer to that.

I know for a positive fact that at least some law agencies have the capability to put concealed cameras up that broadcast real-time video back to a data center. From there, the data is algorithmically processed by license plate readers and facial recognition tools that cross-reference their found data against databases containing persons of note (like persons of interest, but less specific to a given case) and, when results are found, notify agents or officers via messaging.

We're really just a hop, skip and a jump away from the "self-driving car of surveillance".

[joezydeco]

Yet, that's what redlight and speed cameras do, don't they?

[tonyarkles]

Great point!

That's really interesting actually. Redlight and speeding cameras are pretty straightforward engineering problems to enforce though, compared to determining whether someone's violating their parole.

I suppose a similar (yet different again) concern would be ankle-monitoring bracelets for parolees.

It's interesting to think about where to draw the line on those things.

[dragonwriter]

> Is there still the idea that you can face your accuser in court?

Yes, you have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you, including, e.g., those testifying as to the when and how the camera was set up and how it (and the video obtained from it) were protected against tampering and other facts relevant to establishing that it was recording where, when, and what the prosecution are claiming it was recording.

> Are we at the point where the camera+recorder is considered a legal proxy for a sworn public official?

No; physical evidence of various kinds has existed for a long time (what kinds are available change over time), but actual witness testimony as to its provenance, etc., remains important.