Chinese police don high-tech glasses to nab suspects

Post by carlmr » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 8:16 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Bucephalus355 wrote: post #46

All these reports have the feelings of small rumblings or rumors of purges and famines that leaked out of the Soviet Union in the 30’s. The dismissal of all of them due to China’s size and growth really strengthens the analogy too. Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I mean the definition for loitering is so broad that alone gets most people. The ad-t…

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

Post by smackay » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 8:40 AM UTC

carlmr wrote: post #81

drawkbox wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Privacy is important because basically we all are, at least once a day, committing some kind of crime. I think that is the big issue we will see and have seen recently. Surveillance tools are better than ever in history. Many times, laws were created as deterrents to some behavior, that maybe shouldn't be laws, because it wasn't easy to nab everyone doing it. Back then cops, judges and more weren't as locked into f…

>An example might be the criminalization of drugs or old laws on the books. If we had arrested everyone that used cannabis half the country at least would have a record. If everyone has a record, no one has a record.

Post by odiroot » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 8:58 AM UTC

CodeSheikh wrote: post #17

Do foreigners have to give biometric information such as finger prints, facial data to the Chinese airport authorities when they visit China? Anyone?

Post by allthenews » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 9:04 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #11

allthenews wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that the will of the Chinese Government is representative of the will of the Chinese citizenry?

Yes and no. By that I mean, I understand they don't have a political say. They don't get to "vote on the issues" like others might [the party makes those decisions]. At the same time, I would tend to think if you put the question to your Chinese on the street over there they will favor this technology (and its use) with a few conscientious objectors who will be few and far between.

Post by rfw » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 9:07 AM UTC

blackbagboys wrote: post #71

mc32 wrote: post #3

I get why human rights orgs would want to speak against this technology, from a Western philosophy and law perspective. China does not have the same philosophical or legal lineage. They will have to find out on their own whether the cons outweigh the pros. Theoretically, if the system is not corrupted by misinformation (false or incomplete information), it has the potential to keep the streets free of wanted criminal…

This kind of tech has already come to Western ports of entry. Why else would Snap, Inc. have millions of dollars worth of contracts with Customs and Border Protection (alongside dozens of other contracts with DHS, DoD, etc). https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?indexName=awardfull...