I still think that by focusing on drones as a unique form of surveillance the focus is being diverted.<p>In concept there's no difference between a police department flying a helicopter with an electro-optical surveillance turret and it flying a UAV equipped with the same. Why is one ok but the other not? It can't be about UAVs flying higher up so they can't be seen or heard, as helicopters are becoming quieter and sensors better so that they can view scenes from much further away without being heard either.<p>Similarly there are vehicle-mounted optronics masts available to police departments that can capture video footage of areas kilometres away. I know of an arrest and successful prosecution that happened recently in South Africa that relied on video of a crime that was captured by one of these vehicles 3.5 km from the scene.<p>The real issue here is persistent video (mostly aerial) surveillance, something which has theoretically been possible with police helicopters until now but has not been done because the logistics make it impossible. That will not necessarily remain true forever.<p>Fact is UAVs will be used by police departments under the same authorisation and rules that make it legal to use helicopters, purely because the cost and flexibility will be irresistible, so trying to ban the domestic use of UAVs is doomed to fail.<p>Instead, there should be public pressure to strongly regulate how, when and where police departments can collect video and what they're allowed to do with it. That will have the benefit of not only restricting what police UAVs can do but also police helicopters and vehicle-mounted optronics masts.