[krisbolton]

Not to get into an internet argument, but the entire premise of what you say is false -- and I'm not just saying that to argue.

1. The intent was and is categorically not for the review of CCTV or any evidence to be specifically carried out by humans.

2. Law can't - and isn't suppose to - account for specific future technology, that's future prediction which is impossible.

What you mean is you disagree. What you mean is you believe a human should be involved in video evidence review. I'm not sure why, because it's clearly an area of waste. Maybe you have reservations about accuracy. Then what you mean is you want the technology to be at a certain level of accuracy before it is used in practice.

I suspect you do believe the accuracy isn't good enough, but you've forgotten the layered controls in English law. People are tried by other people. An AI tool that speeds up triage isn't the judge or jury.

[iLoveOncall]

I actually have no problem with an AI system reviewing video evidence for the police.

The point I am making is general: it is not because something seems harmless than it is. It is not because something is legal that it should be.