Well this isnt going to help Chicago gun deaths.
Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
211–220 of 265 posts
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#212Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#213Earlier 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...
Nitpick about purchased “It’s a transfer, so that means that the agencies don’t have to pay for this equipment. So because the government has already possessed it, paid for it, it’s the Department of Defense’s property.” It seems technically it is still DoD property? But alltogether it is indeed worrysome. Here in germany we have the same trend, even though quite light in comparison. It is rare nowdays, that I see po…
Thank you, you're correct! Which makes it even worse.
That story is horrifying.. it creates a scenario where the slightest misunderstand could escalate things to a point of no return.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. Last thing we need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That was not a pro-American comment. I thought that would be self-evident, but perhaps not
The problem is that it was flamebait, not whether it was pro-American or not.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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. >> - Sometimes law enforcement must be able to use deadly force. Isn't it better if in those situations, officers aren't also putting their lives at risk? What about drones that can be used to deploy non-lethal weapons?…
Nope, "violent mobs" are something that if it exists and rich enough modern democratic societies (and others) that is effect of some cause that needs immediate fixing, even beating them just down is maybe too much - I know I'm a bit too idealistic and romantic (: But no, please let us not starts with robots/machines fighting our own society but fix it, drones in warfare are already enough of an ethical problem..
>> Nope, "violent mobs" are something that if it exists and rich enough modern democratic societies (and others) that is effect of some cause that needs immediate fixing, even beating them just down is maybe too much - I know I'm a bit too idealistic and romantic (:
So a devil's advocate question then:
If a riot control gas-equipped drone was available at Washington DC on Jan. 6, 2021, should it have been used?
By what criteria do you define "some cause that needs immediate fixing"?
Where does one draw the line between "valid civil unrest" / "protest" and "a violent mob"?
>> let us not starts with robots/machines fighting our own society
Should human police officers be used then?
Or should the "protesters" / mob be allowed to roam freely?
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#216Armed police drones have a deadly downstream problems too, how will people and/or criminals oppose them, which they certainly will. Some of the most common or best counter options have really bad side effects, the first being people shooting rounds into the air at them which will come down who knows where, and if it becomes a real big problem I foresee small EMP bomb/mortar/grenade devices or powerful jammers being u…
Considering people make a hobby of shooting tiny clay disks out of the air with shotguns, and anyone can buy a pump action 12-gauge for less than $500, I don't see how a DJI style drone can be a threat to someone who's prepared themself. (Unless it's already photographed you.)
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand such a feeling is purely made up and not worth acknowledging, so I don't legitimize that thought.
Given the fact is legitimate, people legitimize the thought of it and self-censorship ensues.
It's not legitimate? As I said, being watched != being recorded.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Laws should be as local as practically possible. You guys are every lawyer's dream. Yes, please, continue believing you're following some great American tradition of strong local government by submitting to the whims of your local Boss Tweed and the five judges in your county, I play golf with them once a month. Oh, you have a legal problem and need to navigate the rats nest of weird local laws? Great, you can choo…
This is being downvoted I guess for its tone, but I think the point is a good one: Laws that apply over a large jurisdiction are easier and cheaper to comply with. Maybe a good example of this is laws surrounding alcohol; I think it's kind of crazy that a winery in CA trying to ship an order back to a tourist's home has to understand and comply with local and municipal laws on the other side of the country and knowin…
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions.
Besides the fact that the reduced cost of compliance you mention comes at the expense of the localities freedom to govern themselves, federal laws make it more convenient for these companies to manipulate the system to their advantage. A large company can bribe a couple hundred federal politicians to get their way instead of having to bribe many thousands across so many state legislatures or even more at a municipal level.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this kind of depend on the law? Do you really think "guns and and facial recognition on drones" is the kind of thing we have to do experiments on? I kind of get where you're coming from in the sense that it is scary for so much power over so many people to be concentrated in such a small place, but, on the other hand, when the case is simple or the moral calculus is clear enough, I think we ought not feel a s…
No, it doesn't depend on the law. I think all laws need experimentation regardless of the subject matter because no law is perfect. I also think a federal government that can quickly enact laws is far too powerful an entity to exist in a country of 330,000,000 people. While some "good" laws might get enacted sooner "bad" laws will as well. Remember we are a country guilty of genocide. As an exercise try writing down…
Agile federal government? I don't know. I'd settle for one that wasn't 100% calcified, though.
Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones
#220Weapons on drones is a big no-no for me, however, I'm not sold on a total ban of facial recognition on drones. Such technology can be used to catch some really bad actors, especially among the gangs in Chicago.