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

251–260 of 265 posts

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#251

Post by janalsncm »

km3r wrote: post #91

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…

Additionally, traffic cameras should replace most traffic cops. Cameras don’t shoot people, cops do at routine traffic stops. It is also safer for police as well, since they will be in fewer dangerous roadside situations.

Most high speed chases can be replaced by cameras too. You don’t need to pursue the suspect. There is nowhere for them to hide. Arrest them once they’re stopped.

If you think it’s dystopian to have traffic cameras sending speeding tickets then 1) maybe the actual speed limit should be higher, but enforced and 2) getting a fine is better than getting shot.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#252

Post by giardini »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #238
retrac wrote: post #113

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.

seanmcdirmid says " ...local rules (where I live) don’t allow us to apply facial recognition to those pictures to stop the madness."

Most cases of "stealing packages" won't be investigated at all by the police. But insurance companies prefer that you report them to the police.

And facial recognition isn't good enough for use in our legal system:

https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/facial-recognition-n...

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#253

Post by bombolo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #237
km3r wrote: post #91

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…

Not really. A lot of us are ok with it, especially if we live in high property crime areas. Something had to be done, and it doesn’t seem like policing is working very well, so why not try technology instead?

Because it still relies on police doing their jobs, which by your admission they already aren't.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#254

Post by bombolo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #239
plagiarist wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if you decide to take packages off my porch, don’t you obviously have something to hide. Ya, my doorbell camera has a clear picture of you taking the package, but no, the police can’t do anything about it because it isn’t a priority for them and technology can’t be used to make matching a picture to a name due to law. So you get to pirate as many packages as you want.

They just don't care. They could probably find the person.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#255

Post by wombatpm »

DangitBobby wrote: post #247
mikem170 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.

Pretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.

I love how costs are immediately passed on to consumers and employees, but profits remain and should never be allowed to decrease ever for shareholders

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#256

Post by Dalewyn »

fragmede wrote: post #236
duskwuff wrote: post #234

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. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?

and in fact, it's only large companies that can afford to have a person or team to work through the details, keeping smaller companies out of the market and unable to compete.

Smaller businesses, and even many large corporations, consider the fines and penalties of violating local laws as a cost of doing business.

That is to say: Conduct business, if you get fined or penalized for it then note it down for future reference. It's cheaper than hiring an entire legal department to trove through cryptic manuscripts only relevant to regions measured in tens of square miles. Usually.

Obligatory IANAL.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#257

Post by plagiarist »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #239
plagiarist wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if you decide to take packages off my porch, don’t you obviously have something to hide. Ya, my doorbell camera has a clear picture of you taking the package, but no, the police can’t do anything about it because it isn’t a priority for them and technology can’t be used to make matching a picture to a name due to law. So you get to pirate as many packages as you want.

Facial identification is not what's preventing them from catching your package thief. If that were the obstacle it would be about two court cases before all thieves are wearing a bandanna in front of your ring camera.

You've chosen to constantly surveil yourself and, without their consent, your visitors, sending all of that to Amazon. Now you want to force a similar apparatus to constantly watch all of us everywhere, so you can buy things more conveniently. No thanks.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#258

Post by DangitBobby »

mikem170 wrote: post #248
DangitBobby wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.

We can imagine situations where voters place more importance on things other than money, right? Like maybe the voters would prefer human police officers as opposed to armed drones, even if the drones were cheaper. Or maybe the voters don't want to be tracked by cameras everywhere they go, given how this data can be abused, even if it costs them $x more per year to shop.

I'm just saying legal costs impact everyone and giving money to legions of lawyers isn't free for John Q Voter.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#260

Post by nsvd »

Zetice wrote: post #190
SpaghettiCthulu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely a human can detect the gaze of another human when they see that human looking at them.
Post reply on HN