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

Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

ilga.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#91

Post by km3r »

Am I the only one that is OK with CCTV + facial recognition? Seems like a great way to tackle crime without having to involve potentially deadly encounters with police. Ya there are ways it could be abused, but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in a public space. A lot cheaper than cops too. Put laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and require warrants to access the data.

(No lethal weapons on drones please though, although I could see a case for riot control drones, not sure where you would draw the line on what is a weapon.)

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#92

Post by jimt1234 »

testplzignore wrote: post #55

> This Act does not prohibit the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency [...] to forestall [...] the destruction of evidence So, essentially nothing is prohibited. "Destruction of evidence" can be flushing drugs down the toilet or throwing them out a car window. The war on drugs greatly increases how many "crimes" are being committed at any given time and what is considered evidence of those crimes.

Is anything ever really prohibited (for US law enforcement)? Better yet, what are the real consequences for violation? All I ever hear is, "Okay, fine. We won't do this illegal thing anymore - you know, the thing we've been doing for years, knowing it's totally illegal. Sorry, not sorry." Without consequences for violation, there is no prohibition.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#93

Post by nemo44x »

RobotToaster wrote: post #53

The fact they need a law to stop the police using UCAVs against civilians is terrifying.

You have to think about the incentives at play. Imagine you're a police chief or some kind of similar decision maker in a government organization. You have certain metrics you need to hit as dictated by elected politicians and non-elected supervisors, etc. You have a "job to do" and you're being measured by the outcomes you produce. Your career and wellbeing depends on this.

So what do you expect them to do? They absolutely need a law that says they can't use a certain technique/technology/etc because they'd be deemed incompetent for not using them if they were missing their metrics. So you use them unless you have a law that says you can't. Then you have an out.

It's not like these are evil people. They want the same things you do in the end. But they have a specific job to do with goals to pursue and what do you expect them to do?

Incentives drive behavior.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#94

Post by ryandrake »

mulmen wrote: post #70
abeppu wrote: post #51

Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…

I get the argument for federal laws but honestly I think it is misguided to want state laws promoted to a national level immediately. This is how law in the US evolves. The patchwork is a feature. A federal government with the agility to implement this law at a national level would have far too much power. The system is working.

I agree. It's helpful to remember: for every law you like and want promoted to the federal level, there's another law you probably don't like that someone else thinks would be great to promote to the federal level. Although moving states to flee terrible laws is a burden, it's not as much of a burden as fleeing your entire country. Laws should be as local as practically possible.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#96

Post by tinyhouse »

Instead of fixing issues like bias with facial recognition, they prefer to ban it instead. And Illinois of all places, where the crime is out of control. Who will suffer the most? you guess it right, those who they are trying to protect... Go figure.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#97

Post by [deleted] »

xtreme wrote: post #83
abeppu wrote: post #51

Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…

What are good counters to these arguments?

[deleted]

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#98

Post by RajT88 »

chasd00 wrote: post #61
RajT88 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most cops just sit in traffic until they get bored and chase down random beater cars that were going 5 over the speed limit, or pulled slightly too far forward at a stop sign that had shrubs blocking the left and right view. That's also problematic!

not really, break the law get a ticket, that's how things are suppose to work. The problematic thing is the laws are rarely enforced.

> The problematic thing is the laws are rarely enforced.

You're almost right. In the post I was replying to is a description on who typically gets those laws enforced against them.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#99

Post by glitchc »

abeppu wrote: post #51

Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…

A federal law can only apply to FBI, National Guard, Coast Guard and other federally managed law enforcement bodies. It cannot apply to the various state and county police authorities. Governance of those is a right explicitly granted to each state and county, and the states/counties will fight tooth and nail to retain it.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#100

Post by giraffe_lady »

km3r wrote: post #91

Am I the only one that is OK with CCTV + facial recognition? Seems like a great way to tackle crime without having to involve potentially deadly encounters with police. Ya there are ways it could be abused, but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in a public space. A lot cheaper than cops too. Put laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and require warrants to access the data. (No lethal…

It's not something you get instead of cops, when technology is developed for policing it's always always in addition. So it's not cops vs facial rec it's cops with facial rec.

American police have never been given a power that they have not chosen to abuse for personal or political reasons, and used against dissidents and the dispossessed. The abuses aren't theoretical they are inevitable and at huge scale.

> Put laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and require warrants to access the data.

When? Who writes warrants? Who enforces these rules and punishes transgressions of them? None of these would be actual practical restrictions, and they don't exist anyway. If you give them access to it they have access to it your only chance to influence that was before you gave it to them.

Post reply on HN