This law and media surrounding it is the CA state pandering to misinformed and reactive public pressure. First off, police body cameras are dumb recording devic

This law and media surrounding it is the CA state pandering to misinformed and reactive public pressure. First off, police body cameras are dumb recording devices. They cannot run FR software without being completely different devices, probably requiring a completely different set of hardware and software producers than now. Police body cameras are little more than GoPro like compact cameras with holsters for wearing while recording. They are not designed with any feedback capability, no networking, and no load and run some software capability at all. If they could run FR software, which they can't, their expense would prevent their adoption. And if they could, they would need to have wireless FR synchronization between officers and command to make any tactical sense. They probably should have AR to actually be of use in the field. Sounds too expensive to be affordable by police. At that level, keeping the technology an officer wears down starts to make sense; the body cam sends video to command and command is where FR is run on more economical and faster servers for all the officer video feeds. Any meaningful FR or related information is digested with command and verbally related to the active officers in the field. My point being, this practical use of FR is unaddressed by this new law. The law is nothing.