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

221–230 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#221

Post by PM_me_your_math »

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.

The FBI groomed a mentally disabled kid into what they define as a terrorist. If you think the FBI isn't filled with bad actors, then you haven't been paying attention.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#222

Post by midnitewarrior »

kylevedder wrote: post #56
midnitewarrior wrote: post #42

This is terrifying that we need this kind of regulation.

Using the existence of regulation as proof that the regulation is needed is circular reasoning.

It's terrifying that we live in a world where a legislator saw the need to regulate this while I am not disagreeing with the need for this once brought to my attention.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#223

Post by krapp »

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...

The only solution to a bad man with a kamikaze drone is a good man with a kamikaze drone.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#224

Post by 1123581321 »

dogsgobork wrote: post #136
tinyhouse wrote: post #96

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.

>Illinois of all places, where the crime is out of control Is it? From what I've found Illinois is fairly middle of the pack vs other states.

Much of the state is peaceful, balanced out by high crime rates in parts of Chicago and in mid-sized cities (Rockford, Aurora, Peoria, Springfield.)

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#225

Post by EMCymatics »

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…

Put that in the assault weapon ban.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#226

Post by ycombobreaker »

nathan_compton wrote: post #135
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.

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…

> Doesn't this kind of depend on the law?

Applying a consistent process is what gives the population continuing faith in the system. Laws that are universally supported will sail through the process with ease, so what's the rush? Laws that prove to be more contentious, regardless of reason, will be negotiated and refined across small regions--either indefinitely or until common ground can be found.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#227

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#229

Post by ajhurliman »

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.

China is pretty bad too, I’m sure that comes as no surprise to most.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#230

Post by systems_glitch »

mikem170 wrote: post #218
abeppu wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hun…

Indeed, diversity is resilience in many of life's categories.
Post reply on HN