Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:30 PM UTC

prussian wrote: post #25

mnd999 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We saw the same in London after the 2012 riots. Instead of stopping the rioting and looting the police let it go on and then took all the cctv and arrested the perpetrators after the event. It’s lazy policing, hundreds of shops got damaged and looted simply because for whatever reason the police wouldn’t do what people want them to do. Stop people committing crime at the time.

So instead we should increase the risk of death and injury instead of safely picking people up once things deescalate? I don't think that's lazy by any measure.

Post by Jkvngt » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:32 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #30

Bostonian wrote: post #23

When people unlawfully break into a building, why the heck shouldn't facial recognition be used to identify them? We are not talking about using cameras on the street to give people jaywalking tickets. If you owned a business that was looted, and you had video of the looters, wouldn't you want them caught?

Facial recognition has a disturbing habit of "catching" the wrong people. "We have video of a crime, arrest these people", is how facial recognition is advertised (and you bought the story). But it keeps being used as "there is a 87% chance that this person walking down the street in Atlanta is the person who robbed a liquor store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 2006, go arrest that guy"

Post by krspykrm » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #24

apples_oranges wrote: post #2

For the sake of our kids.. I have no idea how we will avoid a complete surveillance state in the future. Tracking devices in every pocket. And algorithms that can turn every camera into a tracking device.

We can’t avoid that any more than the government can avoid criminals having unbreakable encryption. All we can do is try to make a society where that doesn’t matter. IMO such a society is as anarchic as possible, though “as possible” is still well short of the level in, say, The Culture; the exact level is dynamic and tech-dependent.

Post by keiferski » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:43 PM UTC

Jkvngt wrote: post #33

Ensorceled wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facial recognition has a disturbing habit of "catching" the wrong people. "We have video of a crime, arrest these people", is how facial recognition is advertised (and you bought the story). But it keeps being used as "there is a 87% chance that this person walking down the street in Atlanta is the person who robbed a liquor store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 2006, go arrest that guy"

Is this actually true though? It sounds great, but where’s the data? * we need more than just the occasional anecdote to determine if this is a real issue

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jan 29, 2021, 12:47 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #29

prussian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead we should increase the risk of death and injury instead of safely picking people up once things deescalate? I don't think that's lazy by any measure.

is it literally not the job of the police to stop events like this? of course their safety needs to be considered to a degree, but any perceived threat isn't a reason for them to just act as a glorified clean up crew