4 ms·

The created technology is totally unfit for it's purpose, so no, it does not count as an "achievement." If they wanted to spend money on something that doesn't

The created technology is totally unfit for it's purpose, so no, it does not count as an "achievement." If they wanted to spend money on something that doesn't work, they should have purchased darkpuma™ brand divination rods.

pilsetnieks 7y ago
They could just buy some military surplus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651) as police is often wont to do.
dllthomas 7y ago
That depends on what the purpose is. Assuming very few suspects in a large crowd, it sounds like it's acting as a pretty strong filter, especially if it has few false negatives. "5x the number of actual suspects" seems like probably a practical number to sort through manually. That's not to say that I have particular confidence that the system is being deployed effectively, much less ethically, but your dismissal is unsound.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > That's not to say that I have particular confidence that the system is being deployed effectively, much less ethically, but your dismissal is unsound." If it cannot be deployed ethically (which you seem prepared to concede), then it's not fit for purpose and is therefore not a real accomplishment. My dismissal is that the error rates make it unsuitable for real use by real police officers. So no, my dismissal is not unsound. If it hasn't already, the purpose in practice of this machine will devolve into confirming the unfounded biases of police officers harassing the innocent (e.g. ADE 651, as mentioned by another user.) In the real world, devices like this are not fit for police work. Full stop.
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    I am willing to concede that it perhaps cannot be deployed ethically, but for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. It may be that being able to find anyone put on a list is too big a concentration of power, even in light of the benefits. That's every bit as much a problem if the system is 100% accurate. If "find the people on this list, with near 100% accuracy" is something we're willing to accept, I think it's possible to build a system around this technology that doesn't deserve additional objection (outside detailed analysis of cost effectiveness or whatnot). That outputting "there's a 20% chance they're on the list" might be used to deliberately harass those who aren't on the list is an argument that you didn't make in your first comment. Certainly safeguards against such behavior would be a necessary component of appropriate use of the technology - but it doesn't seem technically or socially implausible. There's a wide margin between a system that outputs "we think this person is sketchy" and a system that outputs "we think this person might be that specific person."
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      The root of the problem is that you simply cannot expect your average police officer to have a working intuitive knowledge of bayes theorem.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        Ideally, procedures are not designed by "your average police officer." All of this said, I agree that there's reason to be skeptical and keep close watch to ensure rights aren't being trampled. That's the case without this tech as well.

pilsetnieks 7y ago

They could just buy some military surplus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651) as police is often wont to do.

dllthomas 7y ago

That depends on what the purpose is. Assuming very few suspects in a large crowd, it sounds like it's acting as a pretty strong filter, especially if it has few false negatives. "5x the number of actual suspects" seems like probably a practical number to sort through manually. That's not to say that I have particular confidence that the system is being deployed effectively, much less ethically, but your dismissal is unsound.

darkpuma 7y ago
> That's not to say that I have particular confidence that the system is being deployed effectively, much less ethically, but your dismissal is unsound." If it cannot be deployed ethically (which you seem prepared to concede), then it's not fit for purpose and is therefore not a real accomplishment. My dismissal is that the error rates make it unsuitable for real use by real police officers. So no, my dismissal is not unsound. If it hasn't already, the purpose in practice of this machine will devolve into confirming the unfounded biases of police officers harassing the innocent (e.g. ADE 651, as mentioned by another user.) In the real world, devices like this are not fit for police work. Full stop.
- dllthomas 7y ago
  I am willing to concede that it perhaps cannot be deployed ethically, but for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. It may be that being able to find anyone put on a list is too big a concentration of power, even in light of the benefits. That's every bit as much a problem if the system is 100% accurate. If "find the people on this list, with near 100% accuracy" is something we're willing to accept, I think it's possible to build a system around this technology that doesn't deserve additional objection (outside detailed analysis of cost effectiveness or whatnot). That outputting "there's a 20% chance they're on the list" might be used to deliberately harass those who aren't on the list is an argument that you didn't make in your first comment. Certainly safeguards against such behavior would be a necessary component of appropriate use of the technology - but it doesn't seem technically or socially implausible. There's a wide margin between a system that outputs "we think this person is sketchy" and a system that outputs "we think this person might be that specific person."
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    The root of the problem is that you simply cannot expect your average police officer to have a working intuitive knowledge of bayes theorem.
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      Ideally, procedures are not designed by "your average police officer." All of this said, I agree that there's reason to be skeptical and keep close watch to ensure rights aren't being trampled. That's the case without this tech as well.