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

101–110 of 166 posts

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#101

Post by tiahura »

ashtonkem wrote: post #83
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…

American police don’t feel institutionally above the law, for all intents and purposes they are. Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct. And the lengths the courts will go to protect cops are ridiculous, to the point where the courts have upheld the idea that a cop didn’t know that attacking a su…

Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct.

Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal liability, it is a civil affirmative defense and a sound one. Essentially, it provides personal protection for ordinary negligence. When an employee at Pottery Barn drops a plate, we don't deduct it from their paycheck. If we did, no one would work there.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#102

Post by qntty »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #90
qntty wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would firefighters not be civilians?

I don't know exactly, but it sounds like the word is context-dependent. During war, it means people who aren't in the military, but during peacetime it means people who aren't expected to risk their lives in more ordinary ways.

[If the jobs of firefighters seems irreproachable or lacking authority compared to military or police, then maybe it would help to remember that firefighters turned their hoses on civil rights protesters in the 60s. No doubt there are many similar examples of firefighter's behavior being clearly outside of the what is thought to be typical of civilians.]

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#103

Post by cannabis_sam »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #94
cannabis_sam wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

> why should they be considered civilians? Because they are. Robert Peel was insistent on exactly that point when he set up the police force in the UK. See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles Edit: corrected URL

No, they are not. They are literally instruments of the government’s monopoly on violence.

I have no idea why you reference a dead politician’s antiquated analysis of the role of the police.. shit has happened since 1850, and I personally believe catholics should not be barred from parliament. Also, not everyone lives in the UK.

Edit: as an example: what’s “sir” Robert Peel’s view on facial recognition...?

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#104

Post by _jal »

tiahura wrote: post #101
ashtonkem wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American police don’t feel institutionally above the law, for all intents and purposes they are. Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct. And the lengths the courts will go to protect cops are ridiculous, to the point where the courts have upheld the idea that a cop didn’t know that attacking a su…

Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct. Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal liability, it is a civil affirmative defense and a sound one. Essentially, it provides personal protection for ordinary negligence. When an employee at Pottery Barn drops a plate, we don't deduct it from th…

That's a lovely theory which somehow manages to ignore the industrial-scale, inhuman abuses excused every day.

There are far more examples of egregious abuse excused by the courts by QI than you can stomach looking at; just start searching.

Feel free to quibble about all the 'good calls we don't hear about', and then dive in to 'second guessing split-second life or death situations'. We've all been through this discussion before.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#105

Post by dimitrios1 »

bluntfang wrote: post #77
dimitrios1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There was a period of US history where a particular region of the country was primarily (although certainly not singularly, and certainly not to the extent 1619 chaplains would have you believe) resourced through slave labor, specifically plantation style slavery which indeed was formed in this region, yes, but that is much more nuanced discussion and tosses out this whole grandiose vision of America being a big power struggle between white men cracking whips at black people.

Btw not sure who is flagging you for asking an honest question. This is how people learn and refine their thinking.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#106

Post by macspoofing »

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…

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

Crime?

If a community is suffering from a very high crime rate (and some American cities are amongst the most violent cities in the world) - why are we prioritizing one set of rights (right to privacy) over another (right to personal security, right to raise children in a safe environment)? In many cases, you can't have one with the other. Privacy or Personal security - pick one.

And there is a class component to this. If you live in a nice safe (and affluent) neighborhood, I'm sure privacy is much more important to you because you don't have to worry about your children being hurt by or recruited into gangs on the way to school. You don't have to worry about getting mugged or assaulted walking to the store. If you live in a community with a high crime rate, are you sure you want to focus on privacy and rights of criminals?

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#108

Post by feralimal »

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…

Lol - really??!?

Governments will have to address the elephant in the room? Why on earth would they ever do that?! This system is working perfectly. They write the laws! The police (and army) are their force! That is what governments do!

Perhaps, they could write a law and apply it retrospectively do square things off tidily, but why bother?

But really, once you have total control over what is considered right or wrong, why would they change anything?

You should take a listen to the Quash - a legal insider to gain a better understanding of how things work: https://the-quash.captivate.fm/episode/politicians-lie-its-t...

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#109

Post by tiahura »

_jal wrote: post #104
tiahura wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualified immunity, a doctrine made up out of whole cloth by the courts, means that cops often can’t be prosecuted or even sued for the most egregious of conduct. Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal liability, it is a civil affirmative defense and a sound one. Essentially, it provides personal protection for ordinary negligence. When an employee at Pottery Barn drops a plate, we don't deduct it from th…

That's a lovely theory which somehow manages to ignore the industrial-scale, inhuman abuses excused every day. There are far more examples of egregious abuse excused by the courts by QI than you can stomach looking at; just start searching. Feel free to quibble about all the 'good calls we don't hear about', and then dive in to 'second guessing split-second life or death situations'. We've all been through this discu…

That's a lovely theory which somehow manages to ignore the industrial-scale, inhuman abuses excused every day.

On what planet? I'll admit, I don't do a ton of criminal work, but, I've spent more than my fair share of time sitting through criminal dockets observing cops and criminals and I just don't see it. My good friend won the last significant police brutality case in my metro of 2M people and that was 5 years ago.

Here's another tell. Watch daytime TV for an hour and you'll see attorneys advertising re: Insurance companies, J&J Talc, Monsanto, Me Too, the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Monsanto, Mesh manufacturers, Asbestos claims, Elmiron claims, ad infinitum. But, you won't see any police brutality commercials, and it's not because us ambulance chasers are afraid of the police. It's because the cases are so few and far between that it doesn't make sense to waste resources seeking them out.

Re: Police Say They Use Facial Recognition Despite Bans

#110

Post by m463 »

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…

I still think about "no country for old men".

And the busses of people in mexico.

Post reply on HN