Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones • Hacker News Board

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#121

Post by abeppu » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #99

abeppu wrote: post #51

Can we get a federal bill with the same prohibitions? It would be absurd if the right to be free from fear of automated death from the skies is left to a patchwork of state and local restrictions. Irresponsible arguments that I would totally not be surprised to hear to push in the opposite direction: - If law enforcement doesn't have armed drones, we live in a world where only the criminals have armed drones. - Somet…

A federal law can only apply to FBI, National Guard, Coast Guard and other federally managed law enforcement bodies. It cannot apply to the various state and county police authorities. Governance of those is a right explicitly granted to each state and county, and the states/counties will fight tooth and nail to retain it.

65% of the US population is within the 100-mile border zone in which CBP operates -- I think they shouldn't have drones with facial recognition abilities.

In 2015 there was a bunch of press around the FBI running surveillance flights recording cities in the US. Recent reporting suggests that the program has continued (using the same shell companies and names). This would be even harder for citizens to find out about if they were using smaller drones).

If federal agencies were prohibited from using drones to surveil citizens en masse, and prohibited from arming drones, I think we'd all benefit. If we also had a federal prohibiting 1033 transfers of military drones with arms or facial recognition, I would also consider that to be a win.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-w...

https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justic...

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#122

Post by hermitdev » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #33

selectodude wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPD has one of the lowest admin:beat cop ratios in the country. It's like 12:1. They're already about as lean as it gets.

12 admin to one cop doesn’t seem lean to me.

I think the GP meant lean on beat cops, heavy on admin.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#123

Post by akomtu » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

screye wrote: post #112

It's sad that the advent of new technology is never viewed as an opportunity to reduce violence. If the police can put themselves out of harms way using a drone, doesn't that help with peaceful de-escalation? A drone opens up options like tasers and pepper spray, that would have otherwise been impossible for police to deploy at a distance. If facial recognition can be done with near 100% accuracy, then what's wrong w…

By far, the biggest danger to people are tyrannies and wars they wage on their neighbors and their own people. Communusm, nazism, maoism have killed so many that only diseases can rival them. Unjust deaths caused by civilian firearms don't even register in the long list of real dangers. The media turns it upside down, of course.

The many eyed monstrosity that sees everyone and can be seen by no one - the AI powered tyranny - will ride the wave of fear and anxiety to kill the few freedoms we have.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#124

Post by lettergram » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

First, I hate Illinois. That said, Illinois is one of the few states that have solid protections against 3rd party recordings (both parties have to consent) and tries to provide some protections around biometrics.

Though... part of me thinks it's about corrupt politicians not wanting to be caught themselves haha. I frankly left the state because it's so corrupt. The pension fund is missing so much money (combined with state debt) that each family would have to pay >$100k to offset the current deficit. PLUS the population is dropping. That doesn't include other corruption, like the co-sponsor of the marijuana legalization bill selling licenses to grow. She was caught and all they did was remove her as a sponsor, that's it. Nothing else.

The one time I saw a glimmer of hope was when everyone voted down an amendment to change the income tax. Left & right politically all agree it's so corrupt and want none of it haha. It's what unifies in the population of the state.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#125

Post by michaelmior » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

Sounded great until I got to this exception. It seems like there's a lot that could easily fall under this especially when the default is often to side with law enforcement.

> the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm to life or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#126

Post by mistrial9 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #36

mulmen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am flagged by facial recognition software my rights have already been violated. This is a bad idea even before we consider that LEO is composed of fallible human beings with an established history of abusing the information systems they already possess.

What right of yours was violated if you were flagged by facial recognition?

in the United States, there is a history of limitation of occupying armies, and to some extent police. It comes from a time when you, citizen, had to stop what you are doing and become under questioning or controlled without any checks and balances. A group of men in uniform could stop and hold any number of people for "suspicion" .. that is illegal here. So in reverse, if you are going to be stopped, questioned, and your actions controlled, there must be sufficient reason, and that authority has limitations. Cars have changed that calculus a lot, laws are being updated. Murky legal waters for "searching" crowds.. one factor is that information systems hold data for days and years, millions of records can be searched instantly on a regular basis. so the practical reach of technology has changed. IANAL

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#127

Post by jonathanstrange » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

screye wrote: post #112

It's sad that the advent of new technology is never viewed as an opportunity to reduce violence. If the police can put themselves out of harms way using a drone, doesn't that help with peaceful de-escalation? A drone opens up options like tasers and pepper spray, that would have otherwise been impossible for police to deploy at a distance. If facial recognition can be done with near 100% accuracy, then what's wrong w…

To me, it is completely obvious that constant drone surveillance of the whole population is a dystopian nightmare, just like implanting brain chips or constant untargeted cell phone surveillance would be. All of these measures need to be commensurate. Reducing violence may be a noble goal but it needs to be weighed against other values such as individual freedom, privacy, and protection from constant government interference.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#128

Post by jimt1234 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

jimt1234 wrote: post #92

testplzignore wrote: post #55

> This Act does not prohibit the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency [...] to forestall [...] the destruction of evidence So, essentially nothing is prohibited. "Destruction of evidence" can be flushing drugs down the toilet or throwing them out a car window. The war on drugs greatly increases how many "crimes" are being committed at any given time and what is considered evidence of those crimes.

Is anything ever really prohibited (for US law enforcement)? Better yet, what are the real consequences for violation? All I ever hear is, "Okay, fine. We won't do this illegal thing anymore - you know, the thing we've been doing for years, knowing it's totally illegal. Sorry, not sorry." Without consequences for violation, there is no prohibition.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4053686-minneapo...

Expect heads to roll at the Minneapolis PD. Just kidding. Nothing will happen. Not even a slap on the wrist.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#129

Post by michaelmior » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:25 PM UTC

etothepii wrote: post #116

Is this an audio transcription? What does: This Act may be referred to as the Drones as First Responders Act. mean? This level of non-English doesn't strike me as a great idea in an actual law.

Instead of referring to the bill as House Bill 3902, the common name that can be used is the "Drones as First Responders Act." This is fairly standard boilerplate.

Re: Illinois prohibits weapons, facial recognition on police drones

#130

Post by plagiarist » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

km3r wrote: post #91

Am I the only one that is OK with CCTV + facial recognition? Seems like a great way to tackle crime without having to involve potentially deadly encounters with police. Ya there are ways it could be abused, but I assume I have no privacy (as does the law) when I am in a public space. A lot cheaper than cops too. Put laws and systems in place to keep the data secure and require warrants to access the data. (No lethal…

Yeah! Why would we be frightened of constant surveillance if we have nothing to hide?

It's not as if states are writing any laws that criminalize women's healthcare, gender identity, or sexuality. And it's not as if law enforcement would ever misuse access to carry out personal vendetta. And it's not as if laws are only being enforced and prosecuted depending on who you are or what you believe.

So let's get going and put all criminals in jail and a bunch of protesters as well.