2 ms·
Unfortunately the "cost" of poor performance is sometimes pushed to the public, or worse, subsets of the public. Consider the million-name-long restricted fly l
by TuringNYC 8y ago
Unfortunately the "cost" of poor performance is sometimes pushed to the public, or worse, subsets of the public. Consider the million-name-long restricted fly list of the last decade -- they were nice juicy profitable projects for corporations but the cost was borne by a subset of mostly innocent people sometimes lost all ability to fly. If the costs are compartmentalized enough, sometimes the general public doesnt care (see: NYC's Stop and Frisk policy.)
- fixermark 8y agoAgreed. I don't see much benefit to pushing back against the technologies themselves; they're here, they're easy to apply, and we're well past the point where trying to ban them will just push them underground. Misapplication of the technologies and erosion of fundamentals of evidence-based action are a real problem. Contrast the California police using genealogy datasets to narrow the realm of potential "John Doe" serial killers. As court evidence? Shouldn't be admissible. As a tool to focus the search to a subset of the population? Extremely good idea. Similarly, the face-recognition camera can tell the authorities where to turn their eyes but should never be the be-all and end-all of adjudication; they're too easy to fool (as Maryland discovered when it started auto-ticketing cars that blew through red lights at camera-tagged intersections, only to find a wave of high-schoolers thinking it was hilarious to tape a photo of an unliked teacher's license plate across their own and then blow through an empty intersection at 80 MPH at 2AM).