5 ms·

I think it's a debate worth having. Personally I am heavily in the pro-privacy, limited state power camp on most issues. However, if: (a) the technology is bei

I think it's a debate worth having. Personally I am heavily in the pro-privacy, limited state power camp on most issues. However, if: (a) the technology is being deployed in specific environments where there really is a credible threat of criminal behaviour, and (b) it is being used only as an initial filter prior to normal, lawful police action (or inaction) with normal safeguards, and (c) the target data set used for comparisons is generated on a lawful and justified basis then I'm not sure there is anything inherently unethical about this sort of technology. Is it really any different to having police officers at the entrances to a stadium with mugshots of known hooligans who have been identified while discussing trouble-making online ahead of the match? Whether it is technically capable enough to be useful and cost-effective is a different matter, and it's also a test that might give a different result tomorrow. Whether it is possible to have sufficient safeguards that a system could reliably meet the standards above is also a different question. And whether the public would trust that those safeguards existed and have confidence that the standards were being met is another question again.

bigiain 8y ago
Ask any #blacklivesmatter supporter just how effective police "normal safeguards" end up being... :-/
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  Better yet, ask the data.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    As well. "Indigenous Australians account for 15 times as many offensive language offences as would be expected for their population." http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/53.html http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/53.html :sigh:
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    The data reported in the article shows 0 incidents of wrongful arrest due to false positives. It also implies several hundred cases where the correct people were properly identified by the technology. There is plenty of room for debate about this technology, but so far, just saying "ask the data" doesn't seem to make the point you might have intended.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  Clearly policing in the US has some problems, and I'm not sure technology can fix them. However, this story isn't about the US.
  - godelski 8y ago
    > Clearly policing in the [country] has some problems, and I'm not sure technology can fix them. FTFY
godelski 8y ago
There's a lot of principles I agree with you here, but I'd still rather not have the surveillance, and here's why > (a) the technology is being deployed in specific environments where there really is a credible threat of criminal behaviour, You need to define what credible threat is, pretty exactly. Just a thief? A terrorist? I think we all agree that this would be nice if there was foreknowledge of an imminent attack. BUT I think there still is a danger in setting them up for only that kind of use. We know that if we give police (or anyone really) tools, they will use them (why wouldn't they?). So having the ability uses to more abuse of use. But also as time goes on and people get used to it, the regulations relax. So in this terrorist scenario I would be okay with bringing in cameras, or hooking into the already existing system, but it would need to tear down and be required to only come out when time is of the essence. As we say in America, I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be stripped of their freedom.
- monetus 8y ago
  As we say in America, I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be stripped of their freedom. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that, but I don't like how simple it is. Anyways, I always wondered if the discretion allowed to police engenders more societal problems than it solves. I imagine this would have a similar effect.
- fyolnish 8y ago
  It’s a bit ironic that America both reveres that quote and has the largest prison population in the world.
  - godelski 8y ago
    I'll give you that. But that's also why I try to remind people what one of the founding beliefs was. And that your system is always going to fail to some degree, so do you want it to fail safe (innocent go to jail) or fail open (guilty go free)?
    - fyolnish 8y ago

bigiain 8y ago

Ask any #blacklivesmatter supporter just how effective police "normal safeguards" end up being... :-/

staticautomatic 8y ago
Better yet, ask the data.
- bigiain 8y ago
  As well. "Indigenous Australians account for 15 times as many offensive language offences as would be expected for their population." http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/53.html http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/53.html :sigh:
- Silhouette 8y ago
  The data reported in the article shows 0 incidents of wrongful arrest due to false positives. It also implies several hundred cases where the correct people were properly identified by the technology. There is plenty of room for debate about this technology, but so far, just saying "ask the data" doesn't seem to make the point you might have intended.
Silhouette 8y ago
Clearly policing in the US has some problems, and I'm not sure technology can fix them. However, this story isn't about the US.
- godelski 8y ago
  > Clearly policing in the [country] has some problems, and I'm not sure technology can fix them. FTFY

godelski 8y ago

There's a lot of principles I agree with you here, but I'd still rather not have the surveillance, and here's why > (a) the technology is being deployed in specific environments where there really is a credible threat of criminal behaviour, You need to define what credible threat is, pretty exactly. Just a thief? A terrorist? I think we all agree that this would be nice if there was foreknowledge of an imminent attack. BUT I think there still is a danger in setting them up for only that kind of use. We know that if we give police (or anyone really) tools, they will use them (why wouldn't they?). So having the ability uses to more abuse of use. But also as time goes on and people get used to it, the regulations relax. So in this terrorist scenario I would be okay with bringing in cameras, or hooking into the already existing system, but it would need to tear down and be required to only come out when time is of the essence. As we say in America, I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be stripped of their freedom.

monetus 8y ago
As we say in America, I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be stripped of their freedom. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that, but I don't like how simple it is. Anyways, I always wondered if the discretion allowed to police engenders more societal problems than it solves. I imagine this would have a similar effect.
fyolnish 8y ago
It’s a bit ironic that America both reveres that quote and has the largest prison population in the world.
- godelski 8y ago
  I'll give you that. But that's also why I try to remind people what one of the founding beliefs was. And that your system is always going to fail to some degree, so do you want it to fail safe (innocent go to jail) or fail open (guilty go free)?
  - fyolnish 8y ago