7 ms·

We don't need police-connected camera networks running machine learning in any US city.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Especially when a officer on the street corner will do the job (and prevent a ton of other petty law violations) just as well without being Orwellian about it. Edit : Do the down-voters care to explain how a networked camera system is somehow better or less orwellian than a human cop?
- javagram 7y ago
  This problem is so widespread you would need a lot of cops. Frankly I’d rather have things like automatic cameras than police posted at every intersection. Look at how stuff like speeding works. Putting cops on the highways just makes people alert each other on waze to slow down in one specific area.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    That's why I'm in support of automated linear speed checks absolutely everywhere.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      You mean interval speed cameras? I'd be fine with that if we first can have a conversation on speed limits. It seems on the road network places put in interval cameras and drop the speed limit by 10+mph. On motorways we get a de facto 80mph road going down to 50, regardless of conditions and traffic flow. That seems way to extreme a limitation IMO. Though if the trains were cheaper it wouldn't bother me!
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Yeah, I mean the contraption that identifies you at two points of a straight segment of a road and fines you if your average speed between the points exceeded the limit. Sure, we should have a conversation on speed limits. I know some places use them as revenue sources, and this would have to disappear. But speed limits are sometimes (usually?) set for safety reasons too. And we can't move forward on getting the speed limits set to safety-optimal values while almost all drivers completely disregard them. This is one case when I'm supportive of metaphorically beating the drivers into submission, so that they start following the law, and traffic engineering can be done under assumption that people follow the law.
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Agreed, TeMPOraL for PM!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry cops with a license to murder on every corner of every US city. That sounds both insanely wasteful and also dangerous. 2. I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched, but one case comes with the added benefit that the watcher has a loaded gun. 3. The power imbalance is worse with a cop than a camera. With footage, you might be able to subpoena the footage. With a cop testifying against you, it's their word against yours and cops are almost always trusted more than the people they arrest/accuse.
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    >>I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. If it's really not clear, I would venture most people being OK with cop but not OK with a camera, feel that an honest cop may notice a particular law being broken right now, but a network of cameras may notice all kinds of things that are not illegal, as such, but may still be used against you. (not to say that I disagree with your premise of US Cops being more dangerous than cameras; just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives)
    - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
      > I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion. > One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report. > just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?
megablast 7y ago
Yes, we do. Every single car should be tracked. 40,000 people are killed every year due to car drivers, we should start taking this seriously.
- Franciscouzo 7y ago
  That just sounds like a band-aid solution, what is needed are walkable cities, and decent public transportation.
  - megaremote 7y ago
    That just sounds like a huge change that will take a long time and a lot of money to do.
    - uoaei 7y ago
      With all the discussion on HN about "technical debt" I wonder why the same sort of strategies to avoid technical debt aren't applied outside the domain of software engineering. Sure, it's effort now to do the smarter-but-harder thing, but the payoff will be huge in a few decades. Sure beats having a police state that is precipitated by goody-two-shoes demanding video surveillance of nearly all public roads in the USA.
      - badwolf 7y ago
        Probably because leaders have to get elected, and "we're going to work through this backlog" is far less exciting in general to "new features!"
    - ddingus 7y ago
      Well, in the US, that means jobs, and we've got the money. Done right, it makes us worth more and won't even have a meaningful impact on the overall value of currency.
  - bogomipz 7y ago
    Well New York City is the epitome of a "walkable city" and also has "decent public transportation." Yet there's no shortage of either cars and drivers behind the wheel texting.

Especially when a officer on the street corner will do the job (and prevent a ton of other petty law violations) just as well without being Orwellian about it. Edit : Do the down-voters care to explain how a networked camera system is somehow better or less orwellian than a human cop?

javagram 7y ago
This problem is so widespread you would need a lot of cops. Frankly I’d rather have things like automatic cameras than police posted at every intersection. Look at how stuff like speeding works. Putting cops on the highways just makes people alert each other on waze to slow down in one specific area.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  That's why I'm in support of automated linear speed checks absolutely everywhere.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    You mean interval speed cameras? I'd be fine with that if we first can have a conversation on speed limits. It seems on the road network places put in interval cameras and drop the speed limit by 10+mph. On motorways we get a de facto 80mph road going down to 50, regardless of conditions and traffic flow. That seems way to extreme a limitation IMO. Though if the trains were cheaper it wouldn't bother me!
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Yeah, I mean the contraption that identifies you at two points of a straight segment of a road and fines you if your average speed between the points exceeded the limit. Sure, we should have a conversation on speed limits. I know some places use them as revenue sources, and this would have to disappear. But speed limits are sometimes (usually?) set for safety reasons too. And we can't move forward on getting the speed limits set to safety-optimal values while almost all drivers completely disregard them. This is one case when I'm supportive of metaphorically beating the drivers into submission, so that they start following the law, and traffic engineering can be done under assumption that people follow the law.
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Agreed, TeMPOraL for PM!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lovehashbrowns 7y ago
1. A camera can't shoot you--seeing as this thread is about cameras in US cities, and police brutality is an issue here, I don't want a bunch of power-hungry cops with a license to murder on every corner of every US city. That sounds both insanely wasteful and also dangerous. 2. I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched, but one case comes with the added benefit that the watcher has a loaded gun. 3. The power imbalance is worse with a cop than a camera. With footage, you might be able to subpoena the footage. With a cop testifying against you, it's their word against yours and cops are almost always trusted more than the people they arrest/accuse.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  >>I really don't understand how having a cop on the street corner is any better than the "Orwellian" camera. In both cases, you're being watched Hmm; that feels a dishonest argument - I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. If it's really not clear, I would venture most people being OK with cop but not OK with a camera, feel that an honest cop may notice a particular law being broken right now, but a network of cameras may notice all kinds of things that are not illegal, as such, but may still be used against you. (not to say that I disagree with your premise of US Cops being more dangerous than cameras; just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives)
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    > I would expect HN audience to understand the differences between the two without being prompted. I would expect you to not be so condescending. The comment I replied to didn't make any sort of actual argument; it's just a statement. Therefore, I don't understand how they reached their conclusion. > One of them will record the observation, store it potentially indefinitely, and enable unfathomable correlations for unfathomable purposes. Right, and the other will not record the observation, potentially beat you or shoot you, and if you take it to court, have their word trusted against yours almost universally by a jury, leaving you absolutely no recourse when you lose the case because the police officer may or may not have lied in their report. > just that it shouldn't take much effort to have a basic understanding about other perspectives Sorry I'm so dumb, I guess?

megablast 7y ago

Yes, we do. Every single car should be tracked. 40,000 people are killed every year due to car drivers, we should start taking this seriously.

Franciscouzo 7y ago
That just sounds like a band-aid solution, what is needed are walkable cities, and decent public transportation.
- megaremote 7y ago
  That just sounds like a huge change that will take a long time and a lot of money to do.
  - uoaei 7y ago
    With all the discussion on HN about "technical debt" I wonder why the same sort of strategies to avoid technical debt aren't applied outside the domain of software engineering. Sure, it's effort now to do the smarter-but-harder thing, but the payoff will be huge in a few decades. Sure beats having a police state that is precipitated by goody-two-shoes demanding video surveillance of nearly all public roads in the USA.
    - badwolf 7y ago
      Probably because leaders have to get elected, and "we're going to work through this backlog" is far less exciting in general to "new features!"
  - ddingus 7y ago
    Well, in the US, that means jobs, and we've got the money. Done right, it makes us worth more and won't even have a meaningful impact on the overall value of currency.
- bogomipz 7y ago
  Well New York City is the epitome of a "walkable city" and also has "decent public transportation." Yet there's no shortage of either cars and drivers behind the wheel texting.