231–240 of 265 posts
My only concern here is that police in North America already have a mobile units that can pursue and attack people on command with ostensibly less-than-lethal power which have occasionally killed people by accident. They're called dogs . I'm having trouble seeing a drone with a taser as worse.
They also can't easily determine the names of everyone in a stadium, or match those names against a database of thousands of suspects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are good counters to these arguments?
I'll bite: The response to "then only criminals will have armed drones" is: Ok, let's give all the cops a lot of drugs and child porn, because it would be bad if only criminals had that stuff, and maybe we can give them anthrax and components for a dirty bomb, because it would be bad if only terrorists had those. Or maybe, that's a broken line of reasoning and law enforcement isn't a war in which enemies must be met…
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…
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…
What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
A lot of crime can be tracked more easily if we know who is doing it, like shoplifting. It might not be practical to arrest every shoplifter, but facial recognition lets us keep track of how often someone is shoplifting, and maybe it makes sense to arrest someone who has stolen more than N dollars of stuff. Likewise for petty crime on the streets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
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…
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…
> but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in a public space. I think we may need to slightly retweak our concept of public and private. There are very few truly private spaces, from the perspective of an entity that can see every public space simultaneously.
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…
Yeah! Why would we be frightened of constant surveillance if we have nothing to hide? It's not as if states are writing any laws that criminalize women's healthcare, gender identity, or sexuality. And it's not as if law enforcement would ever misuse access to carry out personal vendetta. And it's not as if laws are only being enforced and prosecuted depending on who you are or what you believe. So let's get going and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in a public space. I think we may need to slightly retweak our concept of public and private. There are very few truly private spaces, from the perspective of an entity that can see every public space simultaneously.
We have nest cams and doorbell cams. We get very clear pictures of the person stealing packages off of our porch, but local rules (where I live) don’t allow us to apply facial recognition to those pictures to stop the madness.
There’s one guy in particular that does a tremendous job making them. I can ask her for details if you’re interested.