> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…
America is turning against facial-recognition software
121–130 of 149 posts
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with your sentiment but I don't agree with a ban. Prohibition doesn't work. You should be able to use it but the legal risks and liability you open yourself up to by using it should be strong enough to deter its use except when there truly is no substitute. Asbestos comes to mind as an example. People (often on HN) often run in circles and scream about the sky falling because "OMG it's not banned" but t…
Counterpoint: How many cloned humans have we seen? Prohibition works when the barrier to entry is higher. Any mook with some yeast and sugar can make alcohol. Pot grows just about anywhere (which is why they call it weed). But not a lot of people are privately developing nuclear bombs or cloning humans.
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 from another trans woman
Pardon the ignorant question, but is there an accepted "standard" for pronouns when someone identifies themself as you did? Which is to say, if you say you're a "trans woman", am I able to infer that your desired gender pronoun is female?
Yes, this is indeed a generally safe assumption. View "trans" like any other self-descriptive adjective. "I'm a tall woman", vs "I'm a trans woman". It's not an absolute given, because nothing is black and white (some might prefer gender neutral pronouns), but generally safe.
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
would you want a body camera at your work? You wouldn't I'm sure. Don't blame them for looking for their interest. It's someone else's job to (politicians) to legislate the use of it.
What a poor analogy. My job doesn't have anything to do with being the sole arbiter of violence and defusing dangerous situations at the trust and expense of taxpayers and local citizens. If they don't want accountability as police officers, they can go find another job. > Don't blame them for looking for their interest. I can, I will and I will argue that it is my moral obligation to ensure that the public servants…
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#125> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…
would you want a body camera at your work? You wouldn't I'm sure. Don't blame them for looking for their interest. It's someone else's job to (politicians) to legislate the use of it.
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#126> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…
The optimist in me says that the cost of proper police reform, training, body cameras, video storage, and actually punishing bad cops would be much less then that.
[1]: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160320/NEWS07/1603...
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#127> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…
It doesn't really matter if they have a body camera because the courts never convict them anyway
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with your sentiment but I don't agree with a ban. Prohibition doesn't work. You should be able to use it but the legal risks and liability you open yourself up to by using it should be strong enough to deter its use except when there truly is no substitute. Asbestos comes to mind as an example. People (often on HN) often run in circles and scream about the sky falling because "OMG it's not banned" but t…
For instance, I am transgender. This kind of technology would allow them to identify "masculine" features of my face that I didn't ask for. This could cause me to be profiled as male, regardless of what my court order or personal preferences say. This kind of technology is fundamentally dangerous to people who do not fit cleanly into the rigid caste-like boxes that are used to categorize people.
I.e, someone robs a bank, their face is captured, get an alert when they are seen else where.
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We 100% benefit by moving the power up the chain from uneducated people to educated people. Most cops are college educated? >They will have biases, but not the same ones police have and far less racist or sexist ones. I honestly am going to need citations for that statement. >Your average engineer is far more intelligent and introspective than your average police though. Again, this is nothing more than a magical be…
Most cops are college educated, however, let's not kid ourselves, a BS in criminal justice is a little different than a BS in engineering.
Re: America is turning against facial-recognition software
#130> Earlier this year the Washington Post reported that many small police departments were abandoning body-worn-camera programmes because of the cost. > Although the cameras are cheap, officers can generate 15 gigabytes of video per shift; storage costs mount. Police unions often oppose body-worn cameras, fearing they imperil their members by giving superior officers licence to search them for punishable behaviour. >Ot…
Uh... what they could do to help officers improve most might be shipping a device that doesn't seem to mysteriously malfunction or be turned off during the most controversial use of force incidents.
The way bodycams are supposed to help is by forcing officers to be accountable for their actions. When police have plausible deniability due to poorly designed tech, all these expensive devices become basically worthless.
In my cynical moments I have wondered if making such bad tech is actually a selling point for Axon and its competitors. They're selling to police departments; the less likelihood bodycams have of embarrassing police, the more likely they are to make a sale. Check the box, move along. I try to have more faith in our institutions, but the abject failure of bodycams from a technology perspective makes me wonder.
I supposed it could also just be due to a few companies having a lock on an enterprise hardware market.