Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones • Hacker News Board

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#261

Post by mikem170 » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

DangitBobby wrote: post #258

mikem170 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But couldn't it also go the other way, where small local companies who don't need a legion of lawyers would have a competitive advantage over larger companies trying to operate across many jurisdictions? I assume this depends on the regulations being imposed.

We already have large companies with legions of lawyers who have the resources to manipulate federal and state politicians in their favor, using regulatory capture and other means to avoid competition. There's a cost associated with that, too.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#262

Post by iodfuse » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 10:50 PM UTC

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.

Human eyes can absolutely detect the gaze of another human, as well as the existence of cameras.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#263

Post by tekknik » Sun, Jun 18, 2023, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

> Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction:

I don’t disagree with some of your statements, but why are you trying to preemptively shut the conversation down?

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#264

Post by CatWChainsaw » Sun, Jun 18, 2023, 7:21 PM UTC

nathan_compton wrote: post #141

screye wrote: 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…

"Peaceful de-escalation" is a funny way to describe shooting a dude with a drone.

"It's not an assassination, it's an 'extrajudicial killing'."

"And that makes it so much better?"

"Yeah, that's why they made up a whole new word for it."

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#265

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 5:44 AM UTC

kristianp wrote: post #118

screye wrote: 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…

> the state has total monopoly over violence. Gun death stats disagree with you on that one.

The monopoly is on the legitimate claim to force, and is based on Max Weber.

David Runciman has an excellent explanation of this in the "Talking Politics" podcast which I recommend unreservedly: https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>

(Specific segment occurs ~15 minutes in.)