Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

themarkup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #64
sys_64738 wrote: post #36

A ban is ineffectual without consequences. Criminal prosecution of police chiefs is what's needed, IMO.

There are more types of consequences than just penal ones. For example, I imagine if they are indeed banned, and a case against a defendant is built around the usage of the technology, then that case would get dropped. That is a consequence in of itself as it wasted valuable prosecutorial resources, department resources, etc.

Do individuals care about wasted taxpayer’s resources? They’re getting paid to do their job, regardless of dropped case or not. The defendant spends their time and money and has to live a stressful life.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#72

Post by zupreme »

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room.

Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law.

In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police.

Its frankly insulting to see, again and again, that people we (civilians) fund the salaries of, see us as beneath them - as evidenced by how we are held to the letter of ordinances and laws by them, while they break ordinances and laws with seemingly wanton abandon.

This is unlikely to change until police are held to the exact same legal and prosecutorial rigors as those they police.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#73

Post by rendall »

zupreme wrote: post #72

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room. Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law. In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. Its frankly insulting…

> we (civilians)

I just want to remind everyone that police are civilians too. I also sometimes forget

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#74

Post by hef19898 »

breakfastduck wrote: post #67
hef19898 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it definitely is. Going through public material or videos provided as evidence, even using facial recognition, after a crime is IMHO ok. Preemptively recording everything, and using facial recognition right from the bat, is very different. The latter shouldn't be acceptable in a free and democratic society.

Absolutely agree with your second point, but still not sure I'm comfortable using it 'post crime' so to speak.

Me neither. We now have surveillance capabilities like never before, stuff the Gestapo, Stasi or the NKVD couldn't even dream about.

Funny enough we are mostly using it to sell adds. Until you look at China and their surveillance activities. I do not want any of that. Especially if all that can be replaced by proper police work. Like unbiased investigation, arresting people (just imagine if authorities had arrested all the insurectionists right on the spot). I am afraid so, that we will have more surveillance and not less.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#75

Post by netizen-9748 »

sneak wrote: post #68
netizen-9748 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're allowed to lie to suspects, not the courts where parallel construction happens. A defense attorney can't get evidence stricken when it came from dubious sources when they lie in court about the source.

> They're allowed to lie to suspects, not the courts where parallel construction happens. That's only true in theory. In practice, police lies are one of the pillars of the US "justice" system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-polic... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/police-testilyin...

That is exactly the problem

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#76

Post by snarf21 »

sys_64738 wrote: post #36

A ban is ineffectual without consequences. Criminal prosecution of police chiefs is what's needed, IMO.

I think the more practical consequence is to fine and place injunctions on the software providers. They have the most to lose for violating compliance.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#77

Post by bluntfang »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #65
UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing in North America as we know it today arose in the south from Overseer's and slavery. [0][1] Their job has always been to protect the rich, keep minorities and the lower classes oppressed. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-... [1] https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-a...

Give me a break. Enough with this 1619 style revisionist history that views the history of the world through the lens of black people being slaves. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. It's way too lazy to assume that everything has such a simple answer.

I definitely agree that nothing has such a simple answer, but isn't it a little dishonest to ignore the fact that the US was built on the back of slave labor?

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#78

Post by offtop5 »

What a horrible thing. I guarantee this will constantly find incorrect matches.

Just like follicle investigators of the past, if it's completely inaccurate who cares because you can just scare some 19-year-old into a plea bargain. People with money won't be affected, they'll have high price lawyers who will get this ' evidence' thrown out.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#79

Post by qntty »

rendall wrote: post #73
zupreme wrote: post #72

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room. Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law. In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. Its frankly insulting…

> we (civilians) I just want to remind everyone that police are civilians too. I also sometimes forget

civilian noun

2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#80

Post by cannabis_sam »

rendall wrote: post #73
zupreme wrote: post #72

At some point governments will have to address the elephant in the room. Across much of the globe, modern police forces have been empowered and emboldened to such a degree that many departments, and their members, feel institutionally above the law. In no other occupation, that I can think of, can so many rules and directives be flouted without losing ones job, as is the case with modern police. Its frankly insulting…

> we (civilians) I just want to remind everyone that police are civilians too. I also sometimes forget

Some dictionaries seem to disagree with you:

– a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civil...

– one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

– a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian

I’m a little curious, why should they be considered civilians?

Post reply on HN