Live data from Hacker News

Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

ilga.gov

181–190 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#181
post #112

It's sad that the advent of new technology is never viewed as an opportunity to reduce violence. If the police can put themselves out of harms way using a drone, doesn't that help with peaceful de-escalation? A drone opens up options like tasers and pepper spray, that would have otherwise been impossible for police to deploy at a distance. If facial recognition can be done with near 100% accuracy, then what's wrong w…

Your examples are all rare edge cases, when the day to day is police using unconstitutional excessive force, including deadly force, with little to no accountability.

The idea that being a police officer is an incredibly dangerous job is just false, and in many cases, the violence is caused by police escalation. Police already have guns, tasers, pepper space, body armor, other police, etc. You are just as likely to be murdered on the job as a convenience store clerk as a cop. Over 600 convenience store workers are murdered on the job per year [1] compared to about 60 per year for police [2], about 5-7 of which are during serving warrants. Convenience store workers are murdered at about 7 per 100k, while police are about 7-8 per 100k [3].

As for giving police access to sweeping facial ID. Whenever the new thing that whittles down the 4th amendment is talked about, it is almost always with a slam dunk case that is also an incredibly serious case. But the average investigation rarely ends in a slam dunk. Allowing police to bypass protections of privacy and checks and balances to their scope of investigation also destroys lives. Semen found inside a person is pretty obvious, but what about just DNA found at a crime scene. If someone is stabbed in a back alley and police just sweep up DNA and run a massive database and tie it to a homeless person without an alibi. It might not matter that the homeless person slept there a week before, in the absence of a better lead, they might push for a conviction. Or just sweeping up all phone pings in the area during the crime. Maybe someone was in the neighborhood but was completely unrelated. In the absence of a better lead, an innocent person could be targeted. Police being able to fish for facial recognition hits is no different.

School shooters? Adding police to patrol schools already has led to police attacking and arresting more students for smaller offenses and ruining more children’s lives, all while failing to stop any school shootings, and it should surprise no one that black and brown kids are the overwhelming victims. “Black students were subjected to more than 80% of the incidents of police violence accounted for in the survey, which analyzed more than 285 incidents over a decade. At least 60% of police assaults on students resulted in serious injury to the students, including broken bones, concussions and hospitalizations. The report also cited 24 cases of sexual assault on students and five student deaths as a result of police force in schools.” Pepper spray drones patrolling schools will be used to target black kids, and when they fail to stop the next 7 school shootings, people will say they really need to be armed with guns to really be able to stop the next school shooting.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/assaults-and-violent-acts-i...

[2] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release...

[3] https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/police-2018.htm

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/report-police-schools-ou...

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#182

Is this an audio transcription? What does: This Act may be referred to as the Drones as First Responders Act. mean? This level of non-English doesn't strike me as a great idea in an actual law.

Instead of referring to the bill as House Bill 3902, the common name that can be used is the "Drones as First Responders Act." This is fairly standard boilerplate.

Ah! The carriage returns broke my internal parser.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There shouldn't be an exemption on the equipment, but prohibition of using anything as a killbot. Dallas police used a bomb-disposal robot to remotely deliver a bomb to kill a suspect some years back. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dalla...

"Hourslong negotiations with the man broke down into an exchange of gunfire, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said at a news conference Friday morning. At that point, the officers deployed a robot armed with an explosive." That's hardly the stuff of Robocop dystopia. That seems a reasonable and proportionate response to a long siege and multiple instances of gunfire exchange in which 5 policemen had lost their lives e…

> That's hardly the stuff of Robocop dystopia.

Does it have to be dystopian before one disagrees on principle? I don't want killerbots normalized - the same justifications on this precedent will be applicable to a "Robocop dystopia", such as police departments buying and operating (or contracting) used MQ-9 Reapers or whatever drone Axon is cooking up

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#185

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.

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.

>Good laws should be applied as widely as possible.

Literally nobody except criminals would disagree with this. That's what makes is of limited value in a discussion like this. It's like saying "Good speech should be disseminated everywhere." Yes. We already agree, to the point where the argument is that protections for good speech aren't really needed.

The difficulty is getting a handle on what is a "good law". This is difficult, in part, because we can't always understand the effects down the causal chain. We also can't always get people to agree on the definition. Is a "good law" one that prioritizes safety over personal freedom or is it the other way around? I dunno, but this is even harder in a democracy, where everyone (theoretically, at least) has a voice.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#186

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.

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.

>Good laws should be applied as widely as possible.

Good for whom? Supermajority, sure. Anything less should be at the state and local level.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#187
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12 admin to one cop doesn’t seem lean to me.

I think the GP meant lean on beat cops, heavy on admin.

No, I just flipped the numbers. 12 sworn officers for ever admin.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. And sadly even before the blackout it’s lost a lot of charm from the early days. I see people hating on pun threads and threads like above on Reddit and it makes me nostalgic and sad. Being a geek isn’t cool there anymore.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't quite make sense to me. A federal policy or a federal executive order only applying to federally-managed bodies, I could understand. But federal laws outweigh state and local laws.

This power stems from the Tenth Amendment, which states that any power not delegated to the Federal government becomes the purview of the State. Given that the state has a number of laws, it must operate its own police force to enforce those laws. Therefore, since a state is required to operate said police force, governance of that force falls under the purview of the state and cannot be delegated to an external auth…

You have the causality wrong. The state and local police forces are necessary to enforce local laws because there are many things are are not illegal at the federal level. They simply aren't addressed at all.

There also may be consistency in the legality but not the punishment. As an example, when I was in college the max penalty for getting caught with a single marijuana joint ranged anywhere from a $5 fine to a year in prison depending on whether you were caught by a city cop, campus police, county sheriff, or state police officer. I suppose it would have been possible to end up in federal prison if you somehow pissed off the wrong FBI agent.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#190
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being watched != being recorded, and there is no sense a human has that can detect the gaze of another human.
Post reply on HN