4 ms·

The point of legislation isn't to prevent people from doing something, but to create some consequences and make it so you can't be too brazen about it. For exam

The point of legislation isn't to prevent people from doing something, but to create some consequences and make it so you can't be too brazen about it. For example, speed limits don't stop people from speeding, but they do reduce it. Those who speed will be more vigilant around corners watching for cops and this has some improvement on safety. Arguing that you shouldn't have speed limits just because it's too easy for anyone to speed so you can't have 100% enforcement misses the point.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Speed limits are a bad example. Unless you've got Orwellian enforcement most people go however fast they feel is reasonable for the conditions (which just so happens to usually not be that much more than the speed limit) and enforcement is basically a lottery with a large negative reward. I agree with your point though.
- admiralEyebrows 8y ago
  In my experience drivers tend to keep the speed limit in mind regardless. If the drive is a 45 mph road, straight line, low traffic, and high visibility most drivers will still cap out around 70 mph. This is because depending on how fast you are going, in the small chance you do get pulled over the difference between going 70 and going 90 could be the difference between a warning and winding up with a high fine and multiple points on your license [1]. Even if it is a lottery, if you lose your penalty is determined by the sliding scale of how reckless you were. That is a major factor in how fast drivers feel is reasonable. With facial recognition, the farther along we go the frequency of its use will increase. However having the equivalent of a sliding scale of punishment could be useful. Did the police department use facial recognition to try and identify who broke into a store? O.K. Did the police department use facial recognition to preemptively surveil a high crime rate area and identify and keep track of everyone that goes to that area? Warning. Did the police department use facial recognition to identify minorities and keep track of their activity across the city? The police department is banned from using facial recognition in the future and if caught again will face punishment on a case by case basis.
PeterisP 8y ago
The main arguments of the article about why a ban would be needed are about using the technology for oppression by some local government. If they'd like to follow the suggestions of this article, they can simply voluntarily choose to abstain from using it; but if they don't choose to do so, then the rest of the world banning the technology won't make a difference.
- cfmcdonald 8y ago
  Since local governments in the U.S. have no sovereignty, the states to which they belong can certainly impose bans that would prevent them from using facial recognition technology. The federal government probably could do so as well, using the commerce clause.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Speed limits are a bad example. Unless you've got Orwellian enforcement most people go however fast they feel is reasonable for the conditions (which just so happens to usually not be that much more than the speed limit) and enforcement is basically a lottery with a large negative reward. I agree with your point though.

admiralEyebrows 8y ago
In my experience drivers tend to keep the speed limit in mind regardless. If the drive is a 45 mph road, straight line, low traffic, and high visibility most drivers will still cap out around 70 mph. This is because depending on how fast you are going, in the small chance you do get pulled over the difference between going 70 and going 90 could be the difference between a warning and winding up with a high fine and multiple points on your license [1]. Even if it is a lottery, if you lose your penalty is determined by the sliding scale of how reckless you were. That is a major factor in how fast drivers feel is reasonable. With facial recognition, the farther along we go the frequency of its use will increase. However having the equivalent of a sliding scale of punishment could be useful. Did the police department use facial recognition to try and identify who broke into a store? O.K. Did the police department use facial recognition to preemptively surveil a high crime rate area and identify and keep track of everyone that goes to that area? Warning. Did the police department use facial recognition to identify minorities and keep track of their activity across the city? The police department is banned from using facial recognition in the future and if caught again will face punishment on a case by case basis.

PeterisP 8y ago

The main arguments of the article about why a ban would be needed are about using the technology for oppression by some local government. If they'd like to follow the suggestions of this article, they can simply voluntarily choose to abstain from using it; but if they don't choose to do so, then the rest of the world banning the technology won't make a difference.

cfmcdonald 8y ago
Since local governments in the U.S. have no sovereignty, the states to which they belong can certainly impose bans that would prevent them from using facial recognition technology. The federal government probably could do so as well, using the commerce clause.