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

171–180 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#171

Post by dghlsakjg »

abeppu wrote: post #131
ryandrake wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A kamikaze drone can have a variable blast radius that can kill a vehicle's driver but not passengers. That sounds extremely local. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/kamikaze-drones-new-we...

As someone who owns the model of truck pictured in the video, there is no possible way that you could kill the driver without risking death to the passenger. Those trucks are TINY.

That video is pure propaganda, but I would support the CEO if he wanted to sit in the passenger seat and try and take out a dummy next to him.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#172

Post by JimtheCoder »

z3c0 wrote: post #157
JimtheCoder wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and we go straight to the FBI" Because they are so much better, right?

It's a matter of incentive. Sure, the Alphabet Agencies aren't intrinsically good, but they have little motive to protect the misconduct within local police precincts.

"but they have little motive to protect the misconduct within local police precincts"

Maybe. The way I see it, all of law enforcement has an "US vs Them (criminals, etc)" attitude, and are very hesitant to throw each other under the bus, or even openly criticize eachother unless it is 100% necessary...

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#173

Post by lurker616 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #152
some_random wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys are every esthetician’s dream. Yes, please continue believing you’re following some great skincare tradition by submitting to the whims of your local sephora and the five skincare instagram influencers in your local county, I play volleyball with them once a month. Oh, you want a tattoo and need help to navigate the lawyers nest of weird local tattoo parlors? Great, you can choose from one of three instagram…

You guys are every fast food worker's dream. Yes, please continue believing you're following some great culinary tradition by submitting to the whims of your local drive-thru and the five foodie Instagram influencers in your local county, I play dodgeball with them once a month. Oh, you want a custom T-shirt and need help to navigate the crafters' maze of local thrift stores? Great, you can choose from one of three I…

So I guess reddit is still closed.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#174

Post by ElevenLathe »

ryandrake wrote: post #94
mulmen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an argument of process over substance. Good laws should be applied as widely as possible. Bad laws should be as local as possible, preferably applied nowhere at all.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#175

Post by SpaghettiCthulu »

Zetice wrote: post #110
FredPret wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

It's a feeling you get when you suspect (or in this case know) that you're being watched or recorded.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#176

Post by nradov »

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…

We already have a federal bill that prohibits dangerous weapons on drones. It is the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. As far as I can tell the law doesn't have any exceptions for civilian law enforcement.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/drones-and-weapons-dangerous-mi...

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#177

Post by dghlsakjg »

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.

Federal laws absolutely apply to local government and their agencies.

The death penalty was banned in 1972 on a federal ruling of a local law (Georgia), as a consequence, all death sentences, federal and state, were commuted to life.

There are a TON of federal laws that apply to local law enforcement. At this moment there are several local police departments that are being actively monitored and controlled by the DOJ due to unconstitutional activity.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#179

Post by Sparkyte »

Weapons yeah, facial recognition is okay in my books.

But hear me out, that facial recognition would be publicly available data and be opensource.

I believe facial recognition on drones or weapons by any person not law enforcement should be illegal. Just like CCTV footage and stuff it needs to be public or private data for 30 days and then publicly available.

CCTVs deter crime it is a proven fact.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#180

Post by dghlsakjg »

hinkley wrote: post #85
paws wrote: post #58

Slightly OT: I noticed Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, and New York City either ended or limited qualified immunity in recent years. (In other states similar efforts faltered, apparently thanks to police unions and politicians in their pocket [0]) Via the article: > Fifteen months after the Colorado bill was signed into law, there is so far little evidence to support any widespread negative effects on police reten…

I’m not at “defund police” levels of dissatisfaction but I do believe they have fundamentally lost the moral authority to self govern. I think internal affairs should be disbanded and we go straight to the FBI without passing IA.

We just need to separate IA from the agency it is investigating.

Up here in BC, Canada, the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner is responsible for investigating policing complaints. They aren't associated with any agency, and have broad investigative authorities.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is far better than police investigating their own agency, or even police investigating other nearby agencies.

I also think that police unions need to go. They should be lumped in with other public employee unions, or just accept that a job that powerful does not need a traditional union.

Post reply on HN