91–100 of 250 posts
Why did they need to have guns drawn and that many cops, even if the flag had been correct? A car involved in a homicide investigation doesn't mean it's even being driven by the suspect. It's not a positive ID at all
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.
So the question isn't: "Should we take away the tools these cops use to serve the public?" but "Should we give even more powerful surveillance tools to a group of unaccountable thugs who routinely abuse what they already have?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Fun fact; apparently that's just like a local police force's motto (LAPD's originally), and not a national policy for all law enforcement in the US. While reading about this some days ago, I came across this:
> The phrase “To Protect and to Serve” originated as the motto for the Los Angeles Police Department before being adopted by departments throughout the country. The popular phrase has turned out to be quite misleading. Through a series of former decisions, the courts have affirmed that the police have no legal obligation to prevent harm except under specific circumstances [...] The Supreme Court upheld the precedent set in DeShaney and affirmed that State actors, in this case police departments, have no legal duty to protect - https://guulr.com/2021/05/10/a-review-of-to-protect-and-serv...
I think overall the motto is simply a marketing term today.
The outrage level and desire to stop tech being used this way ought to be reaching a fever pitch rather than being a kind of unfortunate documentary of how it isn't working right.
Facebook is flooded with Anti-Flock content and encouragement to cut them down right now. And the comments are overwhelmingly in support aside from the usual "if you have nothing to hide..." comments.
Make software as creepy as you want, intangibly creepy, and there’s not enough for normal people to latch on to.
(If I could only permaban one not sure whether I would choose Facebook or Flock)
That's not a Flock error. That's a law enforcement error. Flock isn't responsible for a bogus warrant in the system. The woman probably has a good case for damages from the police department for doing it twice. That's sloppy police work.
No this is bad logic. Flock is absolutely responsible and they should not be releasing or selling products that are this poorly made. Saying that the responsibility is only on the user is extremely myopic. It's also dismissing the role Flock has in how they make and design their software. If they can't handle this maybe they should be disbanded as a company or nationalized for better public control.
That's not a Flock error. That's a law enforcement error. Flock isn't responsible for a bogus warrant in the system. The woman probably has a good case for damages from the police department for doing it twice. That's sloppy police work.
No this is bad logic. Flock is absolutely responsible and they should not be releasing or selling products that are this poorly made. Saying that the responsibility is only on the user is extremely myopic. It's also dismissing the role Flock has in how they make and design their software. If they can't handle this maybe they should be disbanded as a company or nationalized for better public control.
I am not a fan of flock, nor police surveillance state, but what could they have done better here?
"Milwaukee police later admitted the alert should have been cleared out of the system days earlier, but an employee simply forgot to remove it. "
The system seemed to work as intended - that numberplate was flagged for investigation with homicide - and gave the alarm as intented, nothing more. The problem was wrong data given to them by humans.
> 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…
>> 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? How does a site write that with a straight face? At the end of the day, the worst bug I could write might delete an object from a bucket. No b…
I always find it interesting that everyone outside the industry focuses on the downside and completely ignores the positives like, you know, actually keeping people alive.
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.
Police were like this before glitches
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah imagine a purely efficient state that actively enforced all written laws. We would need to rescind a lot of them.
Yes, this sounds amazing. Enforce all the laws and rescind the bad ones! There are tons!