51–60 of 166 posts
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.
If i report someome trying to kill me, i'd very much prefer the police to act immediately
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...
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
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...
When it comes to distributed/local technologies, does a ban really accomplish anything? I'm dubious that facial recognition technology will disappear because some random governments passed laws against it. Especially because it's nearly impossible to punish when police can just use parallel construction. "We received an anonymous tip and followed it up." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction The solutio…
Parallel construction sounds an awful lot like lying
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> We can’t avoid that any more than the government can avoid criminals having unbreakable encryption. I mean, we can; we just don't. It's not like there's something baked into the laws of math that says your society is required to be a surveillance state (unlike encryption, where the laws of math do say this is always possible). It is absolutely within the realm of technological possibility to build a society with la…
Indeed we could, as you say, construct societies without that capacity — Amish, etc. already do so — but such a society is outcompeted by every society which embraces tech, and any society with tech at the level of the Stasi (i.e. both old and the wrong side of the Iron Curtain) can surveil whoever it wants whenever it wants.
Now? Now it doesn’t matter if you decentralised all the infrastructure, the tech is too cheap to avoid total surveillance.
Now, laser mics are school projects, and the hardware cost for pointing one at each and every window in London 24/7 is significantly lower than the annual cost of the Metropolitan Police Service in the same city.
Now, your WiFi can be converted into a wall-penetrating radar, do pose detection, heart rate and breathing detection.
Now, my wristwatch knows when I walk past the charging station to turn on its screen and remind me of its existence. I don’t even know how it knows when I’m walking past.
Now, I have an IR camera that can see through some opaque-to-visible-light materials for no good reason and at pocket-money prices.
“Centralised” has its problems, but getting rid of centralisation isn’t enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny enough, the capitol insurgents brought their own surveillance. Courtesy of FB and Twitter. Pretty sure all the video material streamed and posted by themselves would be more than enough in that case.
Yes but there's a difference between reviewing evidence and using mass facial recognition software to scour literally everything.
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.
What do you think defines a "complete" surveillance state? I.e. what would be different from now.
Ratcheting up automation is what would make it different to me. While there are exceptions, for the most part, police look at all this data after they know about a crime.
They have most of what they need to use the info to discover crime and automatically cite people. As a simple example, ANPR in two places could issue a speeding ticket if the time elasped between two scans is low enough. I'm sure it's happening somewhere, maybe a toll road. The difference would be when it's widespread.
When it comes to distributed/local technologies, does a ban really accomplish anything? I'm dubious that facial recognition technology will disappear because some random governments passed laws against it. Especially because it's nearly impossible to punish when police can just use parallel construction. "We received an anonymous tip and followed it up." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction The solutio…
The basic steps to stop these issues are
1. (The local authority) mandates that all contracts with vendors indicate that they do not perform facial recognition services for the police 2. (The local authority's) lawyers sign off on vendor contracts ( already happens ) 3. The auditors verify that no one is paying/expensing a facial recognition vendor.
Generally, working around your employers legal/audit mechanisms is grounds for termination. If the problem is data sharing with partner agencies... then the local authority needs a privacy law on criminal evidence that could be used for facial recognition.
The perfect event (the capitol) to normalise the practice even further. And those who should be opposing it most passionately will be applauding it’s use, because they started with ‘the bad guys’.
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.
In the 2012 riots did the police really have no street presence at all? That's not what I remember.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parallel construction sounds an awful lot like lying
They’re allowed to do that too