[infecto]

So these are only being used on active calls. As I have said else where there is a line to draw on active calls and data mining. Having an eye on the sky for an active calls is a pretty nice use of resources and serves all parties. I am a big proponent that body cams should be required to be on for all calls.

Not going to dig in either of those links because I suspect they go down the data mining route more like a flock less about active calls. If you would like to point out why these are bad for active calls I am all ears.

[adolph]

> So these are only being used on active calls.

I see your distinction better now. The Reynolds essay speaks a little more to the issue at hand. Essentially the technology allows for scope creep. Previously the limiting factor for physical police surveillance was officer FTEs, which creates a lower bound for the conditions that predicate an "active call." When this constraint is lifted, then Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books . . . to pin some offense on him.”

[infecto]

Agree, which is why these discussions need to happen. I am a big proponent of this kind of tech but also welcome the discussion to figure out appropriate boundaries.