I'm wearing my criminal law hat this morning. The maker of Taser guns has developed a new digital video-capture system that allows a patrol officer to record real-time events using a camera device that fits over his or her ear.
Let's dispense with the obvious theoretical issues that can't easily be addressed in a blog post; misconduct, engaging/disengaging the system at inappropriate times, moral questions, etc. I'd like to focus on the technology itself.
The data is uploaded to a cloud, specifically the data warehouse evidence.com, so there are the usual security aspects to deal with, but considering I recently covered a criminal case where spoliation sanctions occurred because videotape of an arrest wasn't retained, systems of this type are likely to become more prevalent.
Of course, these devices don't come cheaply, but I learned something I didn't know; an officer-involved shooting may generate $250,000 to $300,000 in evidence collection costs. Maybe it makes a lot of sense for high-crime departments.
I don't think I need to state the obvious pros and cons (and I suppose in this case, 'cons' is a double-entendre), but if it were me, I'd prefer that a video recording was being created. It tends to keep people 'honest' – no matter which side of the gun you're on.