141–150 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That they're not willfully blind to the reality we live in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the problem. Police saw something they thought was suspicious, took a closer look, and then decided there was nothing illegal happening. I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to know when you’re being tailed. Or to be notified every time a police officer does a double-take.
What made the police think they were “suspicious”? Anybody can be suspicious if you want to tail them for another reason. When you leave the judgement entirely to the person who gets to initiate the surveillance, then you are saying anyone can be surveilled.
> The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. https://archive…
suspicious; odds of it just being a minority? 1:100.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the problem. Police saw something they thought was suspicious, took a closer look, and then decided there was nothing illegal happening. I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to know when you’re being tailed. Or to be notified every time a police officer does a double-take.
The problem is that police misuse every single power they have been given and public trust is very low for years now. I do not want to live in a world where random drones/cameras control my every move, and if your response to that is "I don't understand the problem" then we cannot live in the same society. It has been proven for thousands of years now that more laws do not fix society, and especially the problems we…
It’s also true that they have those powers because we’ve decided the alternative is worse. The example used in the article was a case where police did not obviously abuse their authority. If you want to get me worked up about police overreach, you’ll need a different example.
> I do not want to live in a world where random drones/cameras control my every move
How did the drone control anybody’s move in the example? It seems that the drone wasn’t even noticed.
> The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. https://archive…
I don’t understand the problem. Police saw something they thought was suspicious, took a closer look, and then decided there was nothing illegal happening. I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to know when you’re being tailed. Or to be notified every time a police officer does a double-take.
Generating false positives is not something society should actively cultivate, nor does it make anyone safer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the problem. Police saw something they thought was suspicious, took a closer look, and then decided there was nothing illegal happening. I don’t think there’s a constitutional right to know when you’re being tailed. Or to be notified every time a police officer does a double-take.
Part of the problem is it leads to stuff like this: https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-... > The cop, Lamar Roman, wasn’t trying to pull over a suspected criminal. He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey, which he had worked a security detail shift on a few weeks prior to pulling her over. After meeting the woman, catcalling her…
Of course, the example chosen for the article didn’t involve anybody abusing their authority. It involved police doing what I’d expect them to do. But I’ll acknowledge that if all of the relevant details were different, then I’d also be concerned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The travel advisory is because people overthrew the government recently, which is a different problem than the ordinary crime we're talking about. And the Chittagong Hill Tracts are the Bangladeshi equivalent of Indian reservations. Neither supports the contention that poverty causes crime. The homicide rate across Bangladesh is just over 2.0 per 100k. That's only a bit higher than Canada, a vastly richer country.
> The travel advisory is because people overthrew the government recently, which is a different problem than the ordinary crime we're talking about. It feels like that's a tiny challenge to your thesis. > The homicide rate across Bangladesh is just over 2.0 per 100k. That's only a bit higher than Canada, a vastly richer country. One wonders if their homicide investigatory capabilities are comparable enough to compare…
Your thesis is that poverty causes crime. I'm pointing out that many poor countries have low crime rates. The existence of political dysfunction isn't a rebuttal, it's an attempt to change the subject to something else.
> One wonders if their homicide investigatory capabilities are comparable enough to compare such stats.
Homicides are thoroughly investigated in almost every country that has a government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That they're not willfully blind to the reality we live in?
You mean the reality of using patterns and data points such as statistics to determine likelihood of danger? Like you and me do every day even if you don't notice? Would the same have happened if they where two women which are statistically less likely to be a danger than men?
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/05/veil-darkness-redu...
That's a pattern/data point/statistic, for sure, but I'd happily assert it supports my point effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem is it leads to stuff like this: https://www.404media.co/footage-shows-cop-stalking-woman-he-... > The cop, Lamar Roman, wasn’t trying to pull over a suspected criminal. He was tracking and chasing a woman that he met and harassed on the set of the AppleTV+ show Bad Monkey, which he had worked a security detail shift on a few weeks prior to pulling her over. After meeting the woman, catcalling her…
That’s a valid concern. Of course, the example chosen for the article didn’t involve anybody abusing their authority. It involved police doing what I’d expect them to do. But I’ll acknowledge that if all of the relevant details were different, then I’d also be concerned.
Relevant detail: Cops have done this with every new tech they're given.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The travel advisory is because people overthrew the government recently, which is a different problem than the ordinary crime we're talking about. It feels like that's a tiny challenge to your thesis. > The homicide rate across Bangladesh is just over 2.0 per 100k. That's only a bit higher than Canada, a vastly richer country. One wonders if their homicide investigatory capabilities are comparable enough to compare…
> It feels like that's a tiny challenge to your thesis. Your thesis is that poverty causes crime. I'm pointing out that many poor countries have low crime rates. The existence of political dysfunction isn't a rebuttal, it's an attempt to change the subject to something else. > One wonders if their homicide investigatory capabilities are comparable enough to compare such stats. Homicides are thoroughly investigated in…
"We're very safe, we just violently overthrow the shitty government a lot."
(And I'd note you're conflating low crime rates and low reported crime rates.)
> Homicides are thoroughly investigated in almost every country that has a government.
People get away with homicides more when governments have less capacity to effectively investigate the questionable deaths. Not every homicide is a public shooting; some are "she fell down the stairs".