5 ms·

is this the same company that's shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments? for some reason i'm thinking this point of view isn't held company w

is this the same company that's shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments? for some reason i'm thinking this point of view isn't held company wide.

m0zg 8y ago
>> shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments That's a rather poor choice of words. I prefer "helping police departments catch criminals", myself. 'cuz, you know, police departments exist for a reason.
- endofcapital 8y ago
  Where I come from the police used to hunt and kill "undesirables", and bury the bodies up in the mountains. One of the first things my dad taught me was how to recognize those long skinny headlights on a cop car, you had to learn to avoid them at all costs to survive if you didn't have the appropriate skin color. They aren't always good guys, and it's ok to have legitimate concerns about cooperation with law enforcement.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Both of these POVs are a bit extreme versus actual real-life implementation. Police have a legitimate, important societal purpose, and have historically abused and over-surveilled minority populations in a way that's highly problematic. There's a compelling use case for facial recognition in law enforcement. There's also a compelling case that it needs to be closely scrutinized and regulated.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    >> abused and over-surveilled minority populations Citation needed.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
      - m0zg 8y ago
        Really. The first one wasn't even "police". The second was 34 years ago. I'd expect something more recent if your argument is to hold any water whatsoever.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        Sub in "law enforcement" for "police" if you want to be that pedantic, and I did say "historically". If you want more recent examples, Chicago was disappearing people to black sites for interrogation this decade. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli... and torturing suspects for decades, well into the 2000s: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-torture-chicago-police-brutality https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-t...
    - netphobee 8y ago
      I do think you don’t need citations to know that over-surveillance is a consistent happening, my apologies if you aren’t American. New York recently finished settling and paying out a case where they were accused of heavily, unreasonably surveilling a number of muslim people and properties. In the end, they still admitted to no misconduct. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusing-nypd-of-spying-on-muslims-is-settled.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusi... This is just a single drop in heavy policing that NYC pushed for and is still dealing with the effects of doing so. Stop and Frisk comes to mind: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=846365 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=846365
      - m0zg 8y ago
        What you're missing though is that without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole. And I don't know about you, but I also believe countermeasures are necessary to prevent Islamic radicalization (and any other kind of radicalization as well). Don't try nothing - won't be nothing. I do not for a second believe that US law enforcement is "systematically" oppressing anybody.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > What you're missing though is that without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole. Sounds like an argument for addressing income inequality.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Yeah, that was my initial reaction.
        ameister14 8y ago
        That's because you're looking at US law enforcement as a unified system. It is not and never has been a unified system. I don't think the FBI is still running surveillance on all civil rights leaders so they can blackmail them, but that happened - I don't really doubt that the police department in Baltimore is planting drugs on people though, as was shown on their own video cameras in the last year.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      >Citation needed See: South Africa
- kjsbfkjbf 8y ago
  Police departments exist to perpetuate the interests of the state and those in power. They exist to defend private property. I would strongly disagree with your assertion especially in America. :)

is this the same company that's shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments? for some reason i'm thinking this point of view isn't held company wide.

m0zg 8y ago

>> shilling Rekogition to police departments and governments That's a rather poor choice of words. I prefer "helping police departments catch criminals", myself. 'cuz, you know, police departments exist for a reason.

endofcapital 8y ago
Where I come from the police used to hunt and kill "undesirables", and bury the bodies up in the mountains. One of the first things my dad taught me was how to recognize those long skinny headlights on a cop car, you had to learn to avoid them at all costs to survive if you didn't have the appropriate skin color. They aren't always good guys, and it's ok to have legitimate concerns about cooperation with law enforcement.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Both of these POVs are a bit extreme versus actual real-life implementation. Police have a legitimate, important societal purpose, and have historically abused and over-surveilled minority populations in a way that's highly problematic. There's a compelling use case for facial recognition in law enforcement. There's also a compelling case that it needs to be closely scrutinized and regulated.
- m0zg 8y ago
  >> abused and over-surveilled minority populations Citation needed.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
    - m0zg 8y ago
      Really. The first one wasn't even "police". The second was 34 years ago. I'd expect something more recent if your argument is to hold any water whatsoever.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Sub in "law enforcement" for "police" if you want to be that pedantic, and I did say "historically". If you want more recent examples, Chicago was disappearing people to black sites for interrogation this decade. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli... and torturing suspects for decades, well into the 2000s: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-torture-chicago-police-brutality https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/18/guantanamo-t...
  - netphobee 8y ago
    I do think you don’t need citations to know that over-surveillance is a consistent happening, my apologies if you aren’t American. New York recently finished settling and paying out a case where they were accused of heavily, unreasonably surveilling a number of muslim people and properties. In the end, they still admitted to no misconduct. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusing-nypd-of-spying-on-muslims-is-settled.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/nyregion/last-suit-accusi... This is just a single drop in heavy policing that NYC pushed for and is still dealing with the effects of doing so. Stop and Frisk comes to mind: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=846365 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=846365
    - m0zg 8y ago
      What you're missing though is that without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole. And I don't know about you, but I also believe countermeasures are necessary to prevent Islamic radicalization (and any other kind of radicalization as well). Don't try nothing - won't be nothing. I do not for a second believe that US law enforcement is "systematically" oppressing anybody.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        > What you're missing though is that without heavy policing a large city with very high income inequality like NYC would quickly turn into a dystopian shithole. Sounds like an argument for addressing income inequality.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Yeah, that was my initial reaction.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        That's because you're looking at US law enforcement as a unified system. It is not and never has been a unified system. I don't think the FBI is still running surveillance on all civil rights leaders so they can blackmail them, but that happened - I don't really doubt that the police department in Baltimore is planting drugs on people though, as was shown on their own video cameras in the last year.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    >Citation needed See: South Africa
kjsbfkjbf 8y ago
Police departments exist to perpetuate the interests of the state and those in power. They exist to defend private property. I would strongly disagree with your assertion especially in America. :)