4 ms·

on another note, would you want police to not implement tools that improve the success rate of finding those with outstanding warrants?

code_duck 11y ago
It depends whether those warrants are for offenses like armed robbery and rape or drug offenses and parking tickets.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Or sedition and lese majesty. This technology can be used to enforce laws hostile to the masses as well as it can help enforce laws friendly to us. Since we do not control it, it will inevitably be used for both. In areas where violent and property crimes are high, it will be a blessing. In places where law enforcement is used mainly for supplementing municipal revenue, it will be a curse. And where the government uses the law as a weapon against dissent, it will be a nightmare.
  - therobot24 11y ago
    >> In areas where violent and property crimes are high, it will be a blessing. In places where law enforcement is used mainly for supplementing municipal revenue, it will be a curse. And where the government uses the law as a weapon against dissent, it will be a nightmare. This is true of almost any police tool. I mean you can apply to guns, pepper spray, probable cause, etc. As a blanket statement reply: It really comes down to implementation and training. Really though, i'm not arguing for or against face recognition in local law enforcement. As a biometrics researcher i love to see real applications that actually work for the community, but as someone who disagrees with mass collections, outside of the obvious, such as a license photo or voluntary admittance to a NEXUS/TSA pre-check/Global Entry program, i worry.
romaniv 11y ago
The question is how many false positives the systems has and whether it will be used as "probably cause" for stuff. Also, eventually they might connected to body cameras and public security cameras and start tracking everyone. If it seems to far fetch, read up on license plate scanning databases used today.
- therobot24 11y ago
  Here's an interesting piece by NPR on license plate scanning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/27/409725538/questions-remain-about-how-to-use-data-from-license-plate-scanners http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/27/409... To quote: >> "I think it's helpful for people to understand that their fears that they're being tracked or that they are somehow having their privacy violated by tracking their personal pursuits over time is not even something we have the capabilities of doing. And we have no interest in that."
  - pageld 11y ago
    Here's a different take on that: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-youve-been-ars-acquires-4-6m-license-plate-scans-from-the-cops/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-you... Ars 'creeped' out a couple of people by getting the license location data and doing look ups on people's plates. So yes, they may not be able to track everyone every where, but if someone wanted to know where 'you' were going it would be trivial to figure out. I'm not as worried about police and the .gov having the data. I'm more worried about when 'bad' people get access to that data and use it for nefarious purposes. See the Federal security clearance hack for an example.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    > not even something we have the capabilities of doing. Today. > And we have no interest in that. Today.
pjc50 11y ago
Wasn't there a news article about how in Ferguson there was an average of more than one outstanding "warrant" per person?
- angersock 11y ago
  No idea why you're being downvoted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-warrants-per-household_n_5698454.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-warrants-p... A more interesting one is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-finding-from-the-doj-ferguson_b_6858388.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-f... In Ferguson -- a city with a population of 21,000 -- 16,000 people have outstanding arrest warrants, meaning that they are currently actively wanted by the police.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Probably downvoted for asking a question in order to make an oblique point, which was that improving the efficiency of an unjust process makes it less just. I don't think anyone can argue that actually enforcing all those arrest warrants would improve the situation - does it really make sense to lock up 3/4 of a town? No, obviously not. But then they sit there ready to be used as justification for other police action.
    - therobot24 11y ago
      >> improving the efficiency of an unjust process makes it less just Your right here, but fighting the tools that improve efficiency also doesn't solve the systematic problem, only puts focus on those tools. >> don't think anyone can argue that actually enforcing all those arrest warrants would improve the situation - does it really make sense to lock up 3/4 of a town? No, obviously not. Enforcement is left to the officer/department/prosecutor. The tools merely provide the officer with additional means of conducting their work in the field. >> But then they sit there ready to be used as justification for other police action. Comes off as quite bitter, but there's an actual point here. There is a consistent need to be "hard on crime", and provided your point that there is "average of more than one outstanding 'warrant' per person" in Ferguson suggests that finding additional means to identify those with warrants is a good thing - to, again, be "hard on crime". However, the fact is that if a person has a warrant, then even a simple license plate/ID check will return the same information. In an 'active' system, the officer would need to manually take a photo to return any matches - this is not much different than the ID check. Though in a 'passive' system the officer would be notified of the individual's warrants as they pass by. This system is clearly the most invasive and feared amongst HN readers, and while a warrant can be issued for innocuous things like missing child support payments, the same system could also be used to identify those who are suspected of more serious crimes. I don't necessarily agree with locking up someone because they missed a payment or two (your "unjust process"), but I'd much rather fight those issues separately rather than condemn a piece of technology.

code_duck 11y ago

It depends whether those warrants are for offenses like armed robbery and rape or drug offenses and parking tickets.

logfromblammo 11y ago
Or sedition and lese majesty. This technology can be used to enforce laws hostile to the masses as well as it can help enforce laws friendly to us. Since we do not control it, it will inevitably be used for both. In areas where violent and property crimes are high, it will be a blessing. In places where law enforcement is used mainly for supplementing municipal revenue, it will be a curse. And where the government uses the law as a weapon against dissent, it will be a nightmare.
- therobot24 11y ago
  >> In areas where violent and property crimes are high, it will be a blessing. In places where law enforcement is used mainly for supplementing municipal revenue, it will be a curse. And where the government uses the law as a weapon against dissent, it will be a nightmare. This is true of almost any police tool. I mean you can apply to guns, pepper spray, probable cause, etc. As a blanket statement reply: It really comes down to implementation and training. Really though, i'm not arguing for or against face recognition in local law enforcement. As a biometrics researcher i love to see real applications that actually work for the community, but as someone who disagrees with mass collections, outside of the obvious, such as a license photo or voluntary admittance to a NEXUS/TSA pre-check/Global Entry program, i worry.

romaniv 11y ago

The question is how many false positives the systems has and whether it will be used as "probably cause" for stuff. Also, eventually they might connected to body cameras and public security cameras and start tracking everyone. If it seems to far fetch, read up on license plate scanning databases used today.

therobot24 11y ago
Here's an interesting piece by NPR on license plate scanning: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/27/409725538/questions-remain-about-how-to-use-data-from-license-plate-scanners http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/05/27/409... To quote: >> "I think it's helpful for people to understand that their fears that they're being tracked or that they are somehow having their privacy violated by tracking their personal pursuits over time is not even something we have the capabilities of doing. And we have no interest in that."
- pageld 11y ago
  Here's a different take on that: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-youve-been-ars-acquires-4-6m-license-plate-scans-from-the-cops/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-you... Ars 'creeped' out a couple of people by getting the license location data and doing look ups on people's plates. So yes, they may not be able to track everyone every where, but if someone wanted to know where 'you' were going it would be trivial to figure out. I'm not as worried about police and the .gov having the data. I'm more worried about when 'bad' people get access to that data and use it for nefarious purposes. See the Federal security clearance hack for an example.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > not even something we have the capabilities of doing. Today. > And we have no interest in that. Today.

pjc50 11y ago

Wasn't there a news article about how in Ferguson there was an average of more than one outstanding "warrant" per person?

angersock 11y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-warrants-per-household_n_5698454.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-warrants-p... A more interesting one is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-finding-from-the-doj-ferguson_b_6858388.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-f... In Ferguson -- a city with a population of 21,000 -- 16,000 people have outstanding arrest warrants, meaning that they are currently actively wanted by the police.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Probably downvoted for asking a question in order to make an oblique point, which was that improving the efficiency of an unjust process makes it less just. I don't think anyone can argue that actually enforcing all those arrest warrants would improve the situation - does it really make sense to lock up 3/4 of a town? No, obviously not. But then they sit there ready to be used as justification for other police action.
  - therobot24 11y ago
    >> improving the efficiency of an unjust process makes it less just Your right here, but fighting the tools that improve efficiency also doesn't solve the systematic problem, only puts focus on those tools. >> don't think anyone can argue that actually enforcing all those arrest warrants would improve the situation - does it really make sense to lock up 3/4 of a town? No, obviously not. Enforcement is left to the officer/department/prosecutor. The tools merely provide the officer with additional means of conducting their work in the field. >> But then they sit there ready to be used as justification for other police action. Comes off as quite bitter, but there's an actual point here. There is a consistent need to be "hard on crime", and provided your point that there is "average of more than one outstanding 'warrant' per person" in Ferguson suggests that finding additional means to identify those with warrants is a good thing - to, again, be "hard on crime". However, the fact is that if a person has a warrant, then even a simple license plate/ID check will return the same information. In an 'active' system, the officer would need to manually take a photo to return any matches - this is not much different than the ID check. Though in a 'passive' system the officer would be notified of the individual's warrants as they pass by. This system is clearly the most invasive and feared amongst HN readers, and while a warrant can be issued for innocuous things like missing child support payments, the same system could also be used to identify those who are suspected of more serious crimes. I don't necessarily agree with locking up someone because they missed a payment or two (your "unjust process"), but I'd much rather fight those issues separately rather than condemn a piece of technology.