| >Why should the police be accountable, indeed? That's honestly my whole point, my whole issue with police having drones. They're not accountable, and when they get caught, they lie or ignore. They have power over you and I, they're in a special position, and for that reason we should both be fighting them and holding them accountable wherever and whenever they step over the line (which, I'm sure you're aware, is constantly). Given the option and an inch, the police would establish a surveillance panopticon, all in the name of "safety." The police are accountable, this is one of the big reasons they wear bodycams—so that there is a video record of if they were abusing their power. If they don't have the bodycam on, this would look very bad in front of a jury. If they're actually stalking you that's an abuse of power and you can sue the city/state. The key difference is that they aren't accountable to you on the street because they need the special privilege to do their job. Given the option (shown time and time again) police will sit on their ass and rack up overtime for their ridiculous pension. They aren't paid by crimes avoided so I don't think they would care to proactively fix it. > The police do, literally, have special drone privileges. They get access to special, high-powered surveillance drones that the public does not get. This is a real problem in America, where tools that could potentially be used for nefarious purposes become illegal for the general population "for their own good". If you're arguing we should have access to specialized surveillance drones and other police equipment on the market you have my complete support. Also training for a drone, using a drone, recording video in public spaces, surveilling you in a public space are not privileges. Surveilling you in your apartment needs a warrant, unless you have your window open, at which case it doesn't. >Go fly a drone outside of a police officer's house and you'll end up dead or in jail. Anyone can walk up to you and kill you, it doesn't mean there aren't legal consequences for it. >people like some of the commenters in this thread will lay down their lives to defend them from public criticism. This is because we've heard these arguments a million times and know it's a trojan for some harebrained ideology, which is unfortunate, because police oversight is an important topic—especially considering police unions wield a lot of political power. Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line between what police can and can't do? |