121–130 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Anyone can protest whatever they want. This is such blatant lie that it exposes you outright. > You don't have the right to throw rocks at people. Who says you have the right to throw rocks at people? Other than god in the torah, I know of no one who supports throwing rocks at anyone. > If you think Israel is controlling the US I don't have to think. The leader of israel literally went on american news and ordered…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This is right and proper" They literally banned the use of the technology!
Here I am referring to their desire to find a person who committed what appeared to be a criminal act. I am not excusing their use of the technology, only that the state and specifically the police have a compelling interest to find people who commit crimes. There are lots of limitations on their powers to accomplish this end, but we do want police to investigate crimes.
The definition of "excusing": "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. Part of the investigation is determining whether the event is actually a crime. I'd much rather have subject matter experts make the determination of arson vs. act-of-god rather than "every nail needs a hammer" police force.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
At what point do you listen to humanitarian organizations and the UN? Amazing that you think 24 people is a genocide but not 60,000+.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.
So adding more responsibilities to police to now also get expert level training in determining causes of fires and finding clues in a fire incident. That's kind of how we got here. Where the police are a panacea making them less effective and more corrupt since they are an even bigger keystone. Separating out duties to experts is more effective. Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the informati…
In Germany, we have the same separation. We have solved the issue by having dedicated units for stuff like political crimes, online crimes, fire/arson investigators, organized crime, property crimes, violent crimes, drug units, you name it.
They're all policemen and -women, but at the very least they stay on the unit for many years and learn on the job, or they get additional education, or they get actual professionals (aka, the police officers do the police/bureaucracy side of things, the expert does the forensics).
> Let the fire department investigate fires and then pass on the information for the police to secure the suspect/s and follow the justice system.
Bad idea, there are lots of things to take care about when collecting and securing evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.
Then you should read the article.
My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.
>A city fire marshal used FDNY’s access to a facial recognition software to help NYPD detectives identify a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University, circumventing policies that tightly restrict the Police Department’s use of the technology. Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?
> Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition? Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?
Wow, NYPD is full of people who support Israel?
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?