211–220 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the houses probably have little yard signs advertising some security service, and stickers on the doors advertising an alarm company too.
Ok? They paid for those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?
Because today it will be used as a first responder. Tomorrow a police officer will suggest that these drones (that we are already using successfully) could be very useful for checking up on that "dangerous" neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.
[flagged]
These companies build this tech in SF and Seattle, cities with some of the gnarliest public safety problems in the country, then turn around and sell it to smaller towns where it does more harm than good. Most places in America don't have problems that surveillance solves. They have problems they already know about and won't act on. Cameras don't fix homelessness or addiction or underfunded services. They just make l…
In what way do cameras make life harder for regular people? If anything rampant crime (and progressive legal systems' unwillingness to lock up repeat offenders for a long time or at all) makes life much harder for regular people than a camera just sitting there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is much less concerning to me than mass surveillance. If someone calls 911 and you need to send a first responder, why not send a drone to get there faster while a person is on their way?
Because today it will be used as a first responder. Tomorrow a police officer will suggest that these drones (that we are already using successfully) could be very useful for checking up on that "dangerous" neighborhood.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V5m4J0tjYg1shWXWrOG8k?si=k...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that’s when they actually defended free speech. They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. That’s crazy.
> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.
The ACLU should defend people who suck ass and another group should defend the heroes who beat their ass for saying awful shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He won’t for long. The backlash is just getting started. Left or right, no one wants their whereabouts subject to constant surveillance. His only advantage is that the cops are on his side and won’t let go of these cameras without a fight.
i think politicians have seriously underestimated how much people don't like crime, and most people would take constant surveillance if it could actually improve feelings of safety in urban environments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They now take sides on what speech should be allowed. Alternative framing: Given limited resources and lots of things to care about, they pick the specific cases that best improve the freedoms they're interested in protecting. In the case of the Second Amendment, they decided to let the NRA handle it, as that seems to be working just fine.
I mean defending horrible shitty people who are exercising their 1st amendment rights. The ACLU should defend people who suck ass and another group should defend the heroes who beat their ass for saying awful shit.
So maybe you pick the anti-ICE protester instead of the Nazi to help out. Both got shot with pepper balls, both had their rights infringed upon. Why not pick the one who isn't a complete ass to establish the same precedent with?