321–330 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not concerned about "privacy" on public roads. If law enforcement illegally detaining and murdering people is a concern, I'd rather increase accountability for the law enforcement officers engaging in illegal activity, instead of removing their ability to police actual crime.
Just stop. You are trying way too hard to act smart while spouting a bunch of bs that doesn't line up with reality
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Baltimore has metric shittons of police cameras but it's still a dangerous shithole. Cameras don't stop idiot criminals from criming. Baltimore's police suck and the area sucks because there's massive unemployment, cameras aren't a panacea.
Yeah I don't get the camera supporters. Cameras do nothing. Desperate people aren't concerned about cameras or stopped by them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police departments aren’t understaffed. It’s a priority problem not a lack of resources problem. I live in a tech heavy, wealthy city. It’s small. No violent crime. Barely any crime at all. There’s occasional break ins and car break ins. When this happens it’s a big deal. We had one last year. Everyone around has cameras. The cops refused to do anything about it. They refused to get recordings. The neighbor went door…
I agree that police department staffing is less of a real issue than people claim it is, and that many departments have target staffing levels that are artificially elevated. But I'm struck by your comment about cops "hiding behind bushes to ticket people going 5 over", because in the ultra-ultra-progressive inner-ring Chicago suburb in which I live, one of the chief complaints about policing over the last couple yea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes is one cop acting badly to ruin things for quite a lot of people though, and the fact that police uniformly circle ranks around any of their members who is accused of something regardless of the validity makes "well, not all of them are bad!" a pretty useless sentiment. I'll consider them individually when they start holding individuals accountable, but not before then.
I think you're making some hasty generalizations here. They don't "uniformly" cover for their colleagues. Do you expect the police service to be perfect and never make mistakes? Can you point me towards a single human-run service where that's the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that police department staffing is less of a real issue than people claim it is, and that many departments have target staffing levels that are artificially elevated. But I'm struck by your comment about cops "hiding behind bushes to ticket people going 5 over", because in the ultra-ultra-progressive inner-ring Chicago suburb in which I live, one of the chief complaints about policing over the last couple yea…
Are you taking the perspective of a car-driver risking getting a ticket for technically violating a traffic law, or a resident concerned about drivers technically violating traffic laws on the roads near where they live?
As much as I fear the Orwellian future this could turn into, I think its important to recognize that the burden of preventing that is on lawmakers, not companies.
He explains in the interview that he would love for laws to be passed to create tighter controls over how these systems are used. The problem is that police departments don't want it! Perhaps they can elect to do it themselves, but then they expose themselves to competitors who have "more powerful features".
Something like 70% of homocides go unresolved! I think its cool that Flock is trying to help police departments fight crime. But it's time to yell at your lawmakers. Don't hate the player, hate the game!
I don't want to stop Flock the company. I want to stop Flock the business model, along with all the other mass surveillance, and the data brokers. If the business models can't be made illegal, it should at least come with liabilities so high that no sane business would want to hold data that is essentially toxic waste. Without that, we are quickly spiraling into the dystopia where privacy is gone, and when the wrong…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I did see a whole lot of stupid people doing stupid things, and none of them were ICE agents, so I'm surprised there weren't more deaths. Random masked goons in unmarked cars trying to arrest people is pretty damn stupid, yes. Same goons putting themselves in front of cars, and shooting through side windows of cars driving away, or shooting at random people on the street, is pretty damn stupid.
I'm going to provide a bit of nuance here, but would like to clarify I am not a fan of ICE's tactics in the slightest. Yes, the ICE agent was stupid for standing in front of the car, just as Renee Good was stupid for hitting the gas while he was standing in front of her car. At that moment, he became 100% legally justified to shoot. The limits of human cognitive performance significantly limit how fast your brain can…
The ICE agent was 100% in the wrong, completely, totally unjustified in murdering Renee Good.
Nothing you wrote changes that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to provide a bit of nuance here, but would like to clarify I am not a fan of ICE's tactics in the slightest. Yes, the ICE agent was stupid for standing in front of the car, just as Renee Good was stupid for hitting the gas while he was standing in front of her car. At that moment, he became 100% legally justified to shoot. The limits of human cognitive performance significantly limit how fast your brain can…
That's a lot of words to cover for being intentionally obtuse. The ICE agent was 100% in the wrong, completely, totally unjustified in murdering Renee Good. Nothing you wrote changes that.