They should hire some juniors to patch together analysis with local LLMs and do that on an as needed basis to avoid the creepiness. Networks of cameras remain a highly powerful way of holding evildoers accountable.
LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
101–110 of 439 posts
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#102I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!
Maybe the police are part of the problem.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why we aren't addressing the real problem which seems to be cops behaving completely unethically. Their job is about enforcing the system that codifies our societies agreed up and codified rules of ethics. They should be obsessed with this the same way people here obsess over system performance, correctness, etc! If we cannot trust them with the very basics of ethical behavior they are absolutely in the wron…
If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution.
So you're saying that the solution is RICO, because they're operating as a protection racket?
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#104I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!
These high crime areas are predominantly in blue counties/states, and liberal judges are typically soft on crime.
Easily disproved. So much inaccurate malarky on this thread. I would assume it's bots AstroTurfing, if American zeitgeist wasn't already so demonstrably poisoned.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#105I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!
Because this kind of stuff is used for way beyond this
It’s used for surveillance in the truest sense
Heaven forbid you are on someone’s watchlist, they will just track your movement across the city
This isn’t some fake CSI pop dream - this kind of tech isn’t used to catch the people breaking into your house
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why we aren't addressing the real problem which seems to be cops behaving completely unethically. Their job is about enforcing the system that codifies our societies agreed up and codified rules of ethics. They should be obsessed with this the same way people here obsess over system performance, correctness, etc! If we cannot trust them with the very basics of ethical behavior they are absolutely in the wron…
If you hold police accountable, they respond by refusing to work. That's a problem that, at this time, has no solution.
In other countries, cops may carry guns, but if those guns are ever fired, there is an investigation to ensure it was fired for a very good reason. Those places still have cops.
They also have months or years of cop training, not weeks.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
These high crime areas are predominantly in blue counties/states, and liberal judges are typically soft on crime.
Easily disproved. So much inaccurate malarky on this thread. I would assume it's bots AstroTurfing, if American zeitgeist wasn't already so demonstrably poisoned.
Someone is spending $500M per month on AI to generate grassroots support...
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#108I don't understand flock cameras in high crime areas. Every time somebody commits a heinous crime it's always like "they were arrested 72 times and were well known by the police" What's the point in helping the police catch criminals when they don't do anything after the fact!
These high crime areas are predominantly in blue counties/states, and liberal judges are typically soft on crime.
The US has the highest per-capita rate of imprisonment I think we’re plenty “hard on crime”. What we lack is a principled stance that Americans deserve basic dignity and access to things that make people live less violent lives. It’s no secret that poverty is the key contributor to one’s likelihood of being in prison.
People who are “soft on crime”, practically speaking, are the people and politicians so committed to dehumanizing others that they’d rather watch their neighbors wallow in poverty or rot in jail than to actually do something to address the root causes (the foremost of which being the aforementioned societal dehumanization of the poor).
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government has had no qualms in the past using the army or national guard to break strikes.
They don't strike, they just respond really slowly, pretend they didn't see something or just take reports and barely solve anything. Since they are all unionized and replacing them is crazy slow and expensive, nothing happens.
Yup, we saw it happen after the George Floyd/BLM protests. An undeclared work to rule action.
Re: LAPD lets contract with surveillance giant Flock expire
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we genuinely, really need a mass surveillance network? I think that's a fair question for each local jurisdiction to make on its own.
Hmm. Personally, I disagree; I'd prefer to outlaw it explicitly. That's just my opinion, but I think that regulation has failed to keep up with the pace of technology and we've essentially lost the effect of some constitutional protections.
Sadly this was the entire lesson of Marbury v Madison, and the courts are supposed to be the mechanism that brings the hammer down on things that clearly violate the constitution where legislation has not yet arrived, but the courts are completely failing to protect us from what are obviously 4th amendment violations writ large on the entire nation, absurd.