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

101–110 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#101

Post by reaperducer »

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?

What are good counters to these arguments?

Mostly it comes down to the companies that make these things have to "maximize shareholder value." Who cares if people get killed?

It's good to see Illinois get ahead of this, considering that politicians in Illinois keep getting caught taking bribes from these policing equipment companies that peddle gadgets like red light cameras.

Just yesterday it was revealed that the newly elected mayor of Chicago authorized the extension of the ShotSpotter contract another ten years: One of the very things he promised to kill when he was campaigning.

It's all been "Oops! Is that my signature!? I didn't know that other people have the ability to click a button and sign my name to multi-million dollar contracts. Oh, well, maybe next decade!"

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#102

Post by reaperducer »

samwillis wrote: post #5

As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force is kinda scary. Hearing about successful push back and positive legislation is good. A quick bit of Googling, I can't find any evidence of weapons a being placed on police drones in Illinois, so this seems preemptive, which is good to see! (Our own police force has many of its own problems)

As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force is kinda scary.

You should watch it from this side.

Even people who aren't minorities and have never done anything wrong in their lives are starting to distrust and shy away from the police.

It's one reason that so many (most?) police departments are understaffed.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#103

Post by dang »

wyager wrote: post #73
samwillis wrote: post #5

As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force is kinda scary. Hearing about successful push back and positive legislation is good. A quick bit of Googling, I can't find any evidence of weapons a being placed on police drones in Illinois, so this seems preemptive, which is good to see! (Our own police force has many of its own problems)

[flagged]

Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. Last thing we need here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#104

Post by abeppu »

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.

In general, I understand and am sympathetic to the idea of the states as being laboratories for democracy, etc.

However, in this case:

- The US federal government already has and has used drones as weapons overseas, including to kill US citizens. This now includes smaller/cheaper drones.

- The US federal government has materially supported the militarization of police forces, including by giving them military equipment.

- Federal law enforcement agencies operate everywhere in the country, and IIUC their behavior isn't limited by those state laws (e.g. the state of CA can't pass a law that removes the CBP "100-mile border zone" and restricts them to only operating at borders and ports), and IIUC the FBI already flies surveillance flights (though the facial recognition prohibition likely doesn't apply here).

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#105

Post by karaterobot »

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…

The argument against it being federal is that such a bill would likely be the result of a lot more compromises, chipped away at by a lot more parties. Which makes sense, as it would have a lot more stakeholders, and a lot more at stake.

The feds also have a stronger tendency to make bigger, dumber, more invasive enforcement mechanisms that end up creating new and unforeseen problems.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#106

Post by bigbillheck »

glitchc wrote: post #99
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.

Usually what happens is the feds don't legislate it directly but tie it to acceptance of federal funding.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#107

Post by reaperducer »

RajT88 wrote: post #72
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew it was an issue when a rural town of at best 2000 people adjacent to where my wife grew up successfully purchased multiple Humvees for "riot control" through 1033 (a program instituted by a president from the equivalent of a blairite-ish labour party in our country, no less). More about that here: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-10...

Sort of like how Naperville has APC's, but also somehow is "The Safest Place in America". (That title is a fraud, btw, and the result of systemic non-prosecution, non-reporting, and reduction of felonies to lesser crimes. But they indeed don't have much of a gang violence problem - just major drug problems which go unaddressed.)

systemic non-prosecution, non-reporting, and reduction of felonies to lesser crimes.

This has been going on ever since the F.B.I. started requiring police departments to report their crime statistics in a uniform way.

I remember one PD took advantage of a flaw in the forms that only allowed one category per crime. So if someone got robbed and killed, they'd mark it down as a robbery, not a homicide.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#108

Post by karaterobot »

glitchc wrote: post #99
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.

They'd just use federal funding as leverage. "If you want these federal dollars, you'll abide by the following..." If the 10th amendment went to war with the Spending Power clause, I know who I'd put money on!

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#109

Post by Zetice »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #100
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 law…

I agree with the idea that American police abuse their resources, and would abuse this resource if given the chance, and I think you mentioning it here is a great lesson for me and everyone else to remind us of the current situation for police.

Where I fall short however is the resignation that this is how things must be, or that we'll forever be unable to change these things. If we can get this police abuse under control, then the idea of using technology to help discover bad actors seems like a sound one to me.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#110

Post by Zetice »

FredPret wrote: post #66
samwillis wrote: post #5

As a Brit, watching the militarisation of the US police force is kinda scary. Hearing about successful push back and positive legislation is good. A quick bit of Googling, I can't find any evidence of weapons a being placed on police drones in Illinois, so this seems preemptive, which is good to see! (Our own police force has many of its own problems)

What's scary is the number of CCTV cameras throughout Britain (not just London). I've never felt more surveilled than on a recent visit there.

How does one "feel surveilled"?
Post reply on HN