Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

theverge.com

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city knows who the criminals are. The district attorney drops the cases, you can have your open air drug bazaar or stolen bike shanty town in broad daylight.

When I worked in the Mission we watched a small homeless encampment run a bicycle chop shop wide open in broad daylight for over a month. Police regularly came by, nothing more than an old tarp was used to try hide the bicycle operation. Increased surveillance would have made zero difference. For whatever reason the activity was simply tolerated.

Because it is a waste of time and money for the police to do anything, if the DA is going to drop the case. It is a waste of time for the DA to do anything, if the judge will drop the case. It is a waste of time for the judge to do anything, if the prisons are full, expensive and downsizing such that these kind of offenders are not exceptional enough and therefore right back on the street.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those folks who are committing petty crimes aren’t downtrodden struggling to survive though. Many are junkies and a class of permanently homeless that refuse help/services and refuse to rejoin society. Why should law abiding citizens have to bear their costs?

Dealing with drug addiction isn't a struggle?

It might be a struggle at some stage of addiction, where personal choice is less accessible. But at some earlier stage, it is a personal choice to experiment with hard drugs in the first place, and there is individual agency and responsibility associated with that choice.

Coddling addicts (by possibly excusing/overlooking any associated criminal actions) because it is a struggle in a later stage of addiction seems like a removal of the disincentives that keep people from going down that path in the first place. Also, I really am not for social support or a different (relaxed) enforcement of the law for addicts _above_ the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those folks who are committing petty crimes aren’t downtrodden struggling to survive though. Many are junkies and a class of permanently homeless that refuse help/services and refuse to rejoin society. Why should law abiding citizens have to bear their costs?

>Why should law-abiding citizens have to bear their costs? You seem to negate the fact that the costs are burdened by law-abiding citizens to have them in jail/prison, anyway. Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration; which, as it is currently structured, only benefits from a minimum volume of people being maintained in the incarceration system,…

> You seem to negate the fact that the costs are burdened by law-abiding citizens to have them in jail/prison, anyway.

There is a cost yes, but the possibility of jail and all of its restrictions is also a big disincentive for would-be criminals. Right now, the ability of this subset of folks to live in SF on their own terms, appropriating public property, committing crimes, and not facing consequences, is a big incentive for them to become more brazen, and for others like them to come to SF to live that lifestyle (since they would face no consequences).

My point is that it isn't necessarily true that the same number would be jailed, and so the cost tradeoffs are unclear.

> Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration

I'd need to see data on that. But I also think we could reduce the standards at jails to reduce costs further, if needed. And the additional benefit of containment has many benefits that confer utility on other citizens (not having to constantly be alert or think about the heightened risk of crime).

> Finally, since they are petty crimes, in and of themselves, wouldn't facial recognition be rough the equivalent of dropping a bomb on an ant hill? The scope of the effect far-outweighs the supposed benefits.

I feel like this is implicitly adopting a fallacious slippery slope argument. I'm talking about using facial recognition to more regularly identify/track/detain criminals. This would be accomplished by utilizing feeds from public spaces, where it is already legal to record, and simply being more efficient in the processing and analysis of those feeds, which humans already are able to access and view manually.

In the same way that our _existing_ police forces have not turned into some dystopian social negative, the addition of facial recognition to their tools is unlikely to turn into the same. I agree that there is a line that can be crossed, and we should be cognizant of that, but am just saying that I don't think we are there. In adopting facial recognition for local law enforcement, we wouldn't be changing the laws or expanding the legal rights that govern how police operate or removing the processes/avenues against police abuse. We're simply using an existing technology to make them more effective.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#74
post #38
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try tinting your windows.

I think that’s illegal in California. But also, that would mean you could assume in a row of cars, the ones with tinted windows were most worth breaking into (which would also defeat the traditional “keep expensive things out of sight” mechanism).

I imagine it's only legal up until a certain visibility is crossed. Usually tint is measured as VLT (visible light transfer), and the lower the percentage the more dark the tint. Most states allow tint down to 30/35% VLT, which is alright but nothing special.

My current car had really dark tint (maybe 5-15% VLT) when I bought it, and didn't really notice because I was interested in the vehicle. After I bought it, I realized that the tint isn't even legal. However, I've had the car for several years now and haven't been pulled over for it, and also haven't been broken into. Truthfully, I think tint is a detractor, because the purp can't see much, so they don't chance a B&E for nothing. I've become a fan of dark tint and I'm planning on putting it on all my vehicles.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A time traveling radio does seem pretty novel, to be fair.

Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!

> Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!

This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.

Post reply on HN