2 ms·
I believe it's the latter, given the last two paragraphs of TFA: > In order to protect civil liberties without hampering innovation, lawmakers should require p
by hudon 8y ago
I believe it's the latter, given the last two paragraphs of TFA:
> In order to protect civil liberties without hampering innovation, lawmakers should require public input before surveillance tools are deployed and ensure that facial recognition databases are purged of data related to law-abiding people.
> lawmakers should ensure that real-time facial recognition capability is not merged with police cameras, whether they are dash cams, CCTV cameras, or body cameras. Facial recognition may well be a valuable investigatory tool, but outfitting police with real-time facial recognition capability will only increase the likelihood of needlessly contentious and violent confrontations between police officers and members of communities across the country.
- dopamean 8y agoWho decides what's law abiding? Is it just felonies? Felonise + certain misdemeanors? Jay walking? What if I broke the law 10 years ago but have been a model citizen since? This kind of language worries me. > lawmakers should require public input before surveillance tools are deployed Again, what does that mean? Input is not the same thing as saying the public can veto it. Even if it does required explicit approval from the public is that really a great solution? The public has made a lot of shitty political decisions recently. Furthermore, who counts as part of the public? If you're a convicted felon who served his time do you count as part of the public? This shit reeks.
- imaoreo 8y agoExactly, look what's happening in China and try to convince yourself that we are not starting to walk down that road.