| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
"And I'd be 100% OK with it provided it wasn't just tracking everyone, and instead it was passively scanning for a specific person of interest" You can't "passively" scan someone's face and then check it against a database of facial features. That's actively scanning every face and checking it against a database. Are you OK with that? How would you be sure every face's location was not logged? Applications log things. Any decently written one does, anyway. Sounds a bit too much like Idiocracy for my taste. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Seriously? Two days after the fact? With such a broad description? I just don't see how we can achieve liberty and freedom by, well, throwing away liberty and freedom. I don't want unskilled police. I want highly skilled police. And I want them operating under sound and agreed upon principals that balance effectiveness, cost, and how invasive they are on freedoms and liberties. Maybe I am naive about what works and what doesn't in policing, I'm not in that field. About 1 in 4 cars are "white". So that is basically a lousy criteria. I don't know what percentage of men have facial hair, perhaps one in 5? How many people wear red hats? How many people live in the area near the crime? It would be a reasonable thing for a detective to investigate and consider. And enough to follow the car for a while and see if the registration matches the driver, and if there are any warrants or outstanding tickets. But as the sole criteria to permit you to force someone to stop and respond to your questioning? I still call horsepucky. In this case, the cop was technically within the law, as I believe he pulled the guy over for a broken tail light. I'm not thrilled with that either, as I think any good cop can find a reason to pull over anyone within about a block and a half, which I'm not that comfortable with either, but it's currently the law. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Any system can be abused. The system I am envisioning would be a device that does scan everyone it can see, but it only looks for matches to a predefined list of "wanted" people. We could put some judicial controls around who gets put in there for what reason. It could be abused, sure, and it could log and maintain things, sure. But it would be auditable, objective, and under judicial reviews and controls. All your concerns about "abuse" apply even more to an individual. So I'm more OK with the system I described then a cop pulling over somebody because they are in a white car with a red had and have facial hair. That's a far more eggragarious infringement on liberty. I just don't think matching a description that 1 in 20 random people will match is an acceptable a primary actionable probable cause. | ||
| Hootowl |
Did the BOLO contain an image of the suspect from the security camera? The officer said he recognized a facial feature. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That's possible. And it would be much more reasonable to do the stop if the car, facial hair, and hat were additional correlating details, not the primary reason. I'd still favor tools that are transparently auditable and objectively applied over tools that depend on instinct and subjective application. I realize that they make the cops job harder in some respects, but it also makes the cops job easier in others (they are less vulnerable to attacks on their objectivity and accusations of bias). (don't get me wrong, there will be bias baked into the tools as well, but the bias can be more carefully governed, vetted, applied, and managed) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Basically, you want ALL natural human instinct to be removed from anyone with authority. That just won't happen. And it shouldn't. It is part of human nature and will never be removed, I think what you want is robot police... and I also think you want to design and control the software that runs them. | ||
| Court |
>>>>scan someone's face and then check it against a database of facial features. If you don't think this is being done now . . . you're living in the dark ages. It's been more than 10 years ago that I used to see the dual camera set-ups on the on ramps to the NYC highways. One camera trained on the license plate the other on the driver. There have been several interesting documentaries done . . but if you drive my car into Manhattan or if I go at a time, outside my normal hours, it "registers". If you want to drill down a search for a 5'11" tall fellow wearing a gray suit with a red tie, a nose ring and a brown briefcase with silver hardware who walks with a limp. . . . no problem. The technology we love to play with is insuring that our movements can not only be tracked but predicted with a high degree of accuracy. It pisses me off when I get in the car on Wednesday afternoons and WAZE pops up with "going to Columbia University?". I shut the tracking feature off in my iPhone but am not unaware that many folks can access it. | ||
| Glitch |
Any system can be abused. I can't think of one that hasn't One camera trained on the license plate the other on the driver. Yep, they've been doing that for years, its one way to make sure we are all safe from the scoff laws using the diamond lane. Also in Gwinnett county, they've nearly abandon the dangerous game of speed trap in favor of just sitting with readers waiting for a bite. Its gotten bit out of hand if you ask me. I wonder what would happen if just part of the grid went down for more than 16hours | ||
| Hughlysses |
By that rule, anyone anywhere could be pulled over at any time by any cop. Has it occurred to the rest of you we're pretty much universally already in that situation? When was the last time you saw somebody obeying the speed limit, outside of times when a cop is in traffic or clearly visible, standing by the road, with a radar gun? So everybody speeds 5-20 MPH over the speed limit at ALL times. Because speed limits are rarely, if ever, enforced, a police officer can say "Hmm, that guy looks suspicious" and then completely legally pull him for speeding. It doesn't matter if the other 50 cars around you were speeding too, you just gave the officer a free pass to pull you for any or no reason. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That's actually pretty close. I am willing to be subject to the rule of law. I do not want to be subject to the rule of man. I recognize that there may be limits of physics that make my achievement of my goal incomplete.
Half right. When my freedom is going to be infringed, I want it as objective, repeatable, auditable, and public as is possible. Everyone knows what the rules are, we agreed on them as best we can, and we enforce them as consistently as possible. When they are broken we fix them. So yes, it's more like a math problem and less like Loretta Lynch deciding that she shouldn't prosecute her future boss. I didn't expect this opinion to be controversial.
That's getting personal, but truth be told, I'd rather be dipped in molten lead than have that job. There is a reason the CISO role has one of the highest burn out rates of anything short of combat veteran. It's typically 18 months before it breaks you. I'd do it if I thought it was the only way to do the right thing for the country, but it would be a distasteful suicide mission, and whoever does it would be ground up and spit out in the process. So I would avoid it if I could. Hugh, you are right, and that's the problem I was pointing out. With so many complex laws on the books, if a cop wants to play a game of "gotcha", they will always win. Fortunately most cops don't do this, or they do it responsibly and respectfully. But I bet it REALLY sucks when they don't (something I have only experienced a couple times, and never of any real significance). (Message edited by reepicheep on July 11, 2016) | ||
| 86129squids |
For a bit of levity (Lord knows we all need some), I ran across this story today... I know several good cops around here, and also know there are LOTS of good cops all over. Here's one who break-dances! http://www.knoxnews.com/topstories/Tennessee-polic e-officer-busts-out-dance-moves-at-community-cook- out-386291811.html FWIW, look out for that paywall, dangit... | ||
| Court |
The private video surveillance . . . perhaps to a greater extent than government surveillance . . . is proving to be a game changer. Lies that have traditionally been foisted upon us are now quickly dispelled. Case in point . . . . a mere couple days ago we were being assured that a point blank shooing in Brooklyn was justifiable as the off duty officer had been "repeatedly punched in the face" and there were no reasonable means of retreat. We now see, that's to the local gossip rag who actually dug up facts, and video, that the guy (an idiot in his own right) was shot, through a closed window (we're told, this can't be verified from the video) the moment he walked up to the off duty officers car. This cop, at this point, looks like he will face murder charges. You can't do that people. Doesn't matter who you are. This, as long as we're stirring the political pot, is what alienates people against the Clinton's. They've told us lie after lie after lie and, in nearly every case, subsequent evidence proves we were being played for fools. Shouldn't matter who you are. | ||
| Pwnzor |
| ||
| Reepicheep |
And to Court's point, if you think the facial recognition thing isn't already scanning all of social media, most high risk US cities, and all of London and other nations, you are likely deluding yourself. The difference is that because it was done in private and behind closed doors, I'm just about certain it has been built without the most critical and fundamental privacy controls. I'm sure it proactively captures and retains everyone it sees, and retains it forever. There might be some "get a warrant" controls in some secret court that has never said anything but yes to any request, that try and limit what kind of queries can be run and who can run them. And there are likely thousands of people not even subject to that kangaroo court. So many problems, none really fixable, but most can be improved with very high transparency and rules and procedures that are as objective as possible. (Message edited by reepicheep on July 11, 2016) | ||
| Reepicheep |
Spot freaking on article that maps nicely to this topic. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprisin g-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-b ut-not-in-shootings.html So... that data suggests interactions with blacks are 20% more likely to go worse. But that shootings are roughly even. So both sides and neither side is supported by that data. Yes there is a problem. No blacks do not appear to be "executed" any more often than whites. Really interesting data. Interesting hypothesis also (shooting is a lot of paperwork, so it is done more carefully). | ||
| Court |
Bingo . . . and it's why those, mired in prejudice and lacking any sincere resolve to actually solve problems are able to have such a cynical heyday. By the way . . . Einstein could shed some light on that subject as well . . .
| ||
| 86129squids |
Thanks Matthew! Still bummed I missed you a few days ago... be sure to holler when you pass thru on the way to BITA '16, and I'll take you to lunch at an even BETTER bakery!   | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/11/greg-gut feld-dallas-attacks-killed-five-injured-318-millio n.html | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not sure a technological fix will work with a cultural problem. I have some issues with Big Data also being Big Police. I fully realize that any bitches I have about Big Data are yelling at the hurricane, ( useless, therefor kinda silly ) and are recorded to be used against me outside any law.  The problem is the current trend, being pushed from D.C and state Capitals, is more central control, less local police, ( in more than one way ) and a top down command and control system fed with what's already an information overload, to be made worse by jillions of hours of video, Social network mining and "if it's bigger it's better" attitudes on budgets and bureaucratic empires. Right now the Mission Impossible data version of big brother is a bit limited to the Federal agencies and the biggest Blue State & Blue Cities. I EXPECT the NSA to be able to be asked "what ya got on this Aesquire" and instantly throw up a resume in hypertext of my life from vaccinations to selected tweets. Soon, it will be possible across the board. As the Deputy walks up to you at a traffic stop in Cat's Square N.C. Colossus links that file to my file. The Deputy already knows who the car owner is and my preference in toothpaste. Also last deodorant purchase, ammo purchase, and latest internet rants with keywords selected by Central. To be fair the toothpaste purchase will be harder for that Deputy to get clearance for than my last EKG. You have to Pay for that kind of information. George Orwell would have been amused we bought our own cameras. | ||
| Court |
>>>To be fair the toothpaste purchase will be harder for that Deputy to get clearance for than my last EKG Don't think . . . . if you have one of the major health care carriers . . . that they are not quite well aware of the cigarettes and Häagen-Dazs you've been buying at CVS. :-) | ||
| Glitch |
| ||
| Torquehd |
cool vid Glitch | ||
| M1combat |
Watch closely... http://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/108527614 1511303/ | ||
| Reepicheep |
Plenty to warrant further investigation in that shaky video of a video monitor showing a video from a crappy camera that was pretty far away. Also enough to make you wonder if something more might have been going on. | ||
| Rick_a |
There's always more going on. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.click2houston.com/news/video-of-officer -shooting-of-armed-man-in-se-houston-to-be-release d Remember that Houston, like most big cities, is entirely run by the left, from the Mayor on down. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
You'd need an electron microscope to come to any definite conclusions from that video. | ||
| Hootowl |
The city of Houston plans to release the police body cam video. They claim it will exonerate the police. If such a thing is possible in today's environment. Everyone has their jump to conclusions mats out, and are champing at the bit for their turn. | ||
| Aesquire |
There is a notable rise in directed murder of police in the last year. Heard the NPR Echo Chamber folk today say that Black Lives Matter may have made a few unwise comments, BUT Police had done even worse by claiming Police are perfect and can do no wrong. So, basically "kill the pigs" chanted over and over is fine, as long as you can lie about what the cops said and get away with it.... no difference between calls to murder people, and ... well, nothing at all, really since they just flat out lied about what the police said. This anti police attitude is pervasive, organized, and from the TOP. The Obama Machine issues the Day's Talking Points each day... have been for 7 years. Recently some whistle blowers have pointed out Obama's minions PAY to have fake stories run and stories they don't like thrown away with no one ever seeing them. Top. Down. So I basically think some of you are being a bit naive to buy anything NBC/CNN/etc. sells you. The agenda is real, it's evil, and it's NOW. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Look at the audience at the end of the video. How did Caucasians go from the "greatest generation" to this? Evil mixed with stupidity is abundant. |
