I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought of it that way.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...
I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought of it that way.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...
I don't deny the benefit we seek, but there are risks, as well.
This is also something I would reply to your sibling comment as well, I think many would prefer a footage of their state instead of a description of it from a police officer who might be confused/distracted/filling-up-the-gaps. It is both more objective and more just. Jury should be allowed to see as it was and not just as it is displayed during the trial.
I think the difference is that the drone is more of a mass-surveillance device where the individual cameras aren't (quite as much).
A good analogue might be a police dash camera versus car-mounted license plate readers. They are similar but meant for very different uses.
When implemented in an ideal fashion, body cameras would go straight to archival storage that could not be opened without a warrant. The idea is not to be watching it all the time, but to preserve a record that can be used to investigate complaints.
I don't know if that's likely. But even absent that, simple numbers dictate that most of the footage will go unwatched. You'd need a number of officers similar to those out in the field to see it all.
With drones, every moment is being watched and analyzed. There is little chance that drone footage will serve to help someone in a complaint against the police.