Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

guessingheadlights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 248 posts

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#61

Post by cdrnsf »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25
VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Successful policing looks like directing funding away from police and towards solutions better tailored to problems they do a poor job of handling.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#62

Post by FpUser »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25
VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

If policing was really "successful" there will not be a single person not charged with some crime. So fuck that. There has to be a balance. Lots of laws serve anything but "the people"

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#63

Post by giantrobot »

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #34
Someone1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason why so called "Swatting" is largely a non-issue outside the US: Police in the US are trained to respond to the hilt by default, and then lower their heavy-handed response later if they warrant it. Contrast that with most other countries, where police are trained to respond and only escalate based on the findings/as the situation unfolds. This training is supposedly for "officer safety." But being a police…

Devils advocate here but your argument is that they should change their safety policy because the job has great safety statistics? What if they change tactics and danger goes up?

That's not Devil's advocate, that's just foolishness. First of all their job is "protect and serve" not threaten people with summary execution. Second, their instant escalation does nothing to keep them safe. If anything it makes them less safe.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#64

Post by JacesArchivist »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25
VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Policing is enforcement of law, which inherently lags/fails to reflect reality. "100% Successful Policing" would have even larger swaths of the population in prison for use of controlled substances, which includes you if you've ever even TRIED smoking weed.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#65

Post by pkul »

nemomarx wrote: post #42
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Should they? There's lots of things that are currently crimes that I don't believe should be crimes, so I have no reason to support policing in at least those cases.

Yeah imagine a purely efficient state that actively enforced all written laws. We would need to rescind a lot of them.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#66

Post by M3L0NM4N »

EGreg wrote: post #39
M3L0NM4N wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For successful policing*. Which everyone should be for. edit: Every single thing you guys have replied with are policy/law debates, not enforcement debates. I disagree with many laws on the books today. I want the laws changed, not selective/arbitrary enforcement of them.

Or else! “Sir, we are coming by today because we are concerned you are insufficiently supportive of our public servants in uniform. It has come to our attention that you have been disparaging some members of our law enforcement divisions to groups as large as 100 people! This is part of our new thought policing initiatives, we need everyone to support our policing efforts!” “Yes, I work for Flock Online. We only inde…

This is not an issue with bad policing, but bad policy.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#67

Post by jvanderbot »

VariousPrograms wrote: post #13

The inaccuracy of our omniscient AI surveillance network isn't why I'm against it. The conclusion of this article is that we need more humans in the loop for a successful police state.

Right. A perfect surveillance state is still wrong by design.

If you dont accept this, consider the perfect surveillance state under president N, used by president N+1 given the inevitable flipflop in party control.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#68

Post by tamimio »

> Flock camera, an automated system that scans license plates

> Flock cameras work by reading plates and comparing them against active alerts

False, flock cameras are car identification and fingerprinting devices, they would ID your car even if you don’t have a license plate at all.

> A tool built to keep communities safer

This should be put as a quote taken from the corporate BS, because obviously it didn’t make any community safer

> As for the rest of us, it is a good reminder that these cameras are everywhere now

Trying to normalize a police state, is this journalism now or straight up paid shills?!

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#69

Post by chaps »

mnky9800n wrote: post #14
joshstrange wrote: post #7

> Technology is supposed to make police work faster and safer. Not sure I agree with the premise... > Most of the time it does. Citation needed > But every so often, a computer system hiccups, and an ordinary person ends up staring down the barrel of a gun for no reason at all. "Aww shucks, you know, bugs happen and sometimes guns get pointed at people because of them". Pardon my language but: What the actual fuck? H…

Journalists have given up except for organizations like bellingcat, lighthouse reports, etc. that focus on data based reporting instead of narrative.

This is a broad, broad statement about journalism that's just... untrue. Local investigative journalism is wonderful and you should consider donating to a local newsroom to see more like it.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#70

Post by nemomarx »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #58
nemomarx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still die less often than pizza delivery drivers even with that. I think they could eat the extra risk in traffic stops.

I would prefer less people die, actually.

If it comes down to it, I would prefer an officer die compared to an innocent civilian mistakenly die because a cop was scared or already had their finger on the trigger. Their job is to serve the public, accepting some level of risks is part of this.

"About as risky as low paid delivery work" doesn't seem unreasonably high to me basically. Most cops die in car crashes, not being shot by potential suspects as it stands.

Post reply on HN