Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess, they live in a major city led mostly by people who love NPR?
I'd love to see you try and use valid rhetoric to make a point.
I'll let one of you go first.
An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
61–70 of 73 posts
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweet summer child. To truly "get it" you have to unlearn the years of systemic and structural conditioning from the capital class before I'd even dream of going into the nuances of vanguardism. Your struggle with False Consciousness is totally relatable but can only be overcome with the warm guidance of Lenin. Come brother, it's totally not a cult.
This but unironically.
I mean, leninism isn't the best idea, since he was pretty into the whole "killing people is great if it collectivizes faster" which I don't think is acceptable.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
From someone who's curious, why would the concept of "checks and balances" appear juvenile? Do you find it represents an ideal without possible application in the real world? Genuinely interested in hearing the why behind your statement.
In theory there is something called 'chain of custody' with criminal evidence. That is the check. But in reality, if the chain of custody is messed up, the judge will use 'good faith' to still allow the evidence. So 'chain of custody' exists to placate those that have never been through the system as a make believe check to make them complacent. Go search a case database for 'chain of custody' and 'good faith' and realize chain of custody has been made optional by the judges bench because 'good faith'.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see you try and use valid rhetoric to make a point.
I'll let one of you go first.
You have used logical fallacies such as an 'all or nothing' (if adding more money doesn't make it better, then removing all the money can't make it worse -- as if there is there is nothing in the middle) which sound persuasive but crumble when pointed out.
What you used just previous to my above post, about cities with people run by people who like NPR, is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which basically means 'because something exists with something else they must cause each other'. In other words 'because a city is run by a political party, that is the reason that cities have the problem X'. There may be a causation, but you haven't produced any persuasive elements to have anyone make that conclusion. Insinuation is not an argument.
When using fallacies as your rhetorical devices people will call you on it, and the response is not 'no you first', because you are being tasked with actually making the point you were trying to make but without using invalid strategies.
Unless of course you are not able to, in which case 'no you first' is simply a concession.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. I've never heard of the place, but my point stands.
No, your point does not stand. Karl Marx asserted a bunch of things without proof. Everywhere that his ideas were tried turned into a disaster. Usually resulting in totalitarian rule. And often accompanied by mass casualties. Meanwhile countries that went to capitalism have become far more democratic than they were in Karl Marx's day. They are still not as democratic as you'd like. But read your history books. For ex…
[dead]
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#66Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two questions: 1. Can you point me to where NPR said “snitches get stitches” 2. Which police departments precisely were defunded?
I watched this narrative unfold in the wake of George Floyd in my beloved Minneapolis. While I can't answer the question directly, I can relay the message that some law enforcement relatives told me: While defunding never materialized, mass quitting and a huge change in enforcement away from areas that, well, might result in another George Floyd incident have produced effectively the same thing as a big old defund. T…
Makes sense. The thing to remember about members of law enforcement is that they never lie about things to improve their public standing, so it's logical to take that message from these relatives you mention at face value.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not my comment, but I would say its because the checks and balances on people in power are also performed by people in power so many times its just a bit of theatre. This is at best naive. People in power, when not already aligned into some faction or cartel tend to be adversarial with each other. People in power like keeping theirs, but also taking others'. Thus, they are also on guard about others taking their po…
> We could get rid of the abusive police (that's all of them), and nothing would get worse for you. How do you suppose that rule of law will continue to exist without some mechanism against the rule- and law-breakers? Do any historical examples exist of this working sustainably over the long run?
> How do you suppose that rule of law will continue to exist without some mechanism against the rule- and law-breakers?
Because there's no mechanism that does that now. I'm not saying I like the current outcome exactly... but if that's the floor you're willing to accept for these, we could get exactly the same thing without the current police departments and nothing to replace them.
Imagine any hypothetical scenario you like where you might (unfortunately) have to interact with them. Some sensational crime occurs, and you're unlucky enough to be front and center. How does that play out? How does it play out if you stop using television shows to guide the narrative... how does it play out if you start using the anecdotes journalism you read?
I've yet to come up with a single one of those where things are improved for me, or any of the other non-criminals by the police showing up.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not enough for the police to discover (to their own satisfaction) who committed a crime. The point is to prosecute the offender or otherwise resolve it in a way that protects the public. "Old-fashioned detective work" doesn't help with that at all. What does it turn up? Eyewitnesses? About the worst evidence possible, on par with dreams and reading tea leaves. Sometimes it bullies someone into perjury. That's no…
Absolutely, a significant portion of "old timey police work" was to blame it on the least liked guy you could find. A large percentage of people ON DEATH ROW are later proved innocent by actual evidence, including people who were convicted by those "old timey" methods. >Forensics are about the only thing that counts as real evidence outside of capturing crimes on video One huge problem is what courts accept as "foren…
> One huge problem is what courts accept as "forensics" is closer to CSI bullshit than actual science. Most forensic methods have no basis in science, come from a single ex cop who goes around the country speaking to other cops for a hundred grand a pop,
While there's some of that, let me tell you about my brush with this. I was called for grand jury duty. A day a week for a full month. Most was bullshit drug charges, child abuse/molestation, a few weird ones. Only one actual murder. Until that point, they never even bothered to have witnesses testify for any of it... it was like Junior Assistant DA show-and-tell time, but without the "show" part. That's another story though.
The murder was decades past, and they'd always had a suspect. He did seem like a real piece of work. But one of the evidence exhibits was the car he drove back during the murder. At the time, they found tire tracks where the victim's body was dumped. Identified some named model of tire, Firestone I think. I asked a question, which the detective misunderstood at first... he thought I was asking "did anyone sell that tire in this city back in the late 1980s" to which he answered "it was so common, many shops would've sold it". So I had to ask again. I asked:
"Was this particular tire model ever manufactured in a size where it would even have fit on that car?"
He uhhed-and-ahhed for a moment, before saying "that's a really good question".
Like, what the fuck am I supposed to do with that? Do I generalize, and think that if they fucked up on this one, all the rest of their evidence is complete horseshit too? If I penalize their bumbling by no-billing, am I letting a murderer go? It's not like they'll find the smoking gun next year, you know... this was like 30 years ago already. And, if I do vote to indict, the man's got no shot at a real trial. 99% of them plead down. Even for murder charges, maybe especially with those since they can dangle the death penalty as a means of compelling cooperation.
That was my one brush with the competence and skills of detectives. Despite this, all I can think is that no matter how bad their forensic evidence is, anything else is just so much fucking worse.
Off-topic trivia: While we were waiting on something one morning, one of the asst DAs was bragging about how in our city there are about 4000 cases each year, of which only maybe 30 would go to trial pre-covid. Assuming things have normalized so that they're giving trials to almost 1% of defendants again.
Re: An Indiana police department has been using Clearview AI for a year
#70So i'm in favor of police going back to the basics, good old-fashioned detective work. The forensics are not what they're cracked up to be, there's very little verifiability n verification, too easy for the forensics lab to lie through their teeth or contaminate the scene of the crime. Like when the Duke Lacross players had to hire a very expensive lawyer to do the messy work of proving evidence actually traced back…
I have come to believe that the "Sherlock Holmes" tales were a massive copaganda campaign designed to prime the general public for advanced forensic investigation techniques. I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evi…
> I mean, Sherlock could "deduce" anything with his magnifying glass just by looking at a clump of mud on a shoe, or a thread of fabric on a lady's dress. But meanwhile, the actual police were developing actual scientifically-based theories of evidentiary examination that would revolutionize the jobs of detectives everywhere.
This is a pop culture bastardization/modern reimagining of the original stories. Sherlock Holmes spent an absurd amount of his time memorizing things he could apply to his work, for example where certain trees grew and what their seeds look like, which he'd recognize in the clump of mud. Basic forensic techniques combined with things he memorized that the rest of us would have to look up.