3 ms·

Okay, I'll say it: there are things that could save the life of a few children that we should still not do. We could save the lives of more children by 24/7 su

Okay, I'll say it: there are things that could save the life of a few children that we should still not do. We could save the lives of more children by 24/7 surveillance and GPS tracking of all adults and children. Even more if we gave law enforcement the ability to activate a disabling implant at will. Should we do that? "But the children!" has its limits; it's not an argument, but a cynical attempt to make your opponent look like a jerk if they persist in disagreement.

jbob2000 7y ago
But we're not doing 24/7 surveillance, and it does not follow that using this system will lead to that. It is good to stay vigilant for these things, but we should not allow people to be harmed today because of a worry that it might lead to something else that might be worse down the road.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jjgreen 7y ago
  Come visit London, we're not far off that
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    And yet; people still walk around London going about their lives, it's one of the most desired places to travel to, companies still setup offices there...
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      Well, companies were going there, but with brexit factories and firms are on the whole heading the other way, at least more than are coming there.
- RileyJames 7y ago
  If politicians or the police actually wanted to ensure this wasn’t going to be a slippery slope, it could be done. With great power comes great responsibility, which time and time again is shown not to be the case. If the police want these powers to go after child abusers, let’s give it to them. But I want to see enshrined into law some consequences to ensure they act responsibly. For example: * all use of the technology must be audited and reported upon each year. Any case of the technology being used, but not included the audit leads to a penalty. * any use of the technology outside of the acceptable use cases put forth (child abuse) leads to a penalty. The penalty? * the police department in question loses 25% of their budget. * loses access to the technology * the officer in question is fired without pay * the manager of the officer is fired without pay * the head of the department is fired * the minister responsible for the department also fired. This doesn’t happen. It never happens. Because it’s intended. Australia’s meta data collection laws were immediately abused to obtain data on journalists. Consequences? Not worth investigating... https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/29/public-metadata-six-cases-of-alleged-police-misconduct-investigated https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/29/publi...
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    I have a thought, and you may disagree with it (and I want to hear your criticisms), but hear me out: Police forces exist to fill power vacuums. When a police force is weak, other organizations step in to fill the gap. Private security companies are one side of this, organized crime is another. The reality is that somebody has to enforce order, and if it's not the police, then who is it? So all of these actions you see governments taking around police activities are all about keeping the Police in power so that nobody else takes up the reigns. And continuing on that, it's better for the police to be in power than whatever organization may replace it. So if we implement the policies you've suggested, we'll greatly weaken the police force's power. Losing 25% of their budget would create a power gap - that's 25% less officers on the street, and 25% more opportunities for criminals. Police make mistakes, sure, but do we want to replace them with private security? Do we want to replace them with the mob?
    - JasonFruit 7y ago
uhhhhhhh 7y ago
Is using AI to search for missing children in social media posts the same as 24/7 tracking? Is limited application really as bad as the worst case outcome?

jbob2000 7y ago

But we're not doing 24/7 surveillance, and it does not follow that using this system will lead to that. It is good to stay vigilant for these things, but we should not allow people to be harmed today because of a worry that it might lead to something else that might be worse down the road.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jjgreen 7y ago
Come visit London, we're not far off that
- jbob2000 7y ago
  And yet; people still walk around London going about their lives, it's one of the most desired places to travel to, companies still setup offices there...
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Well, companies were going there, but with brexit factories and firms are on the whole heading the other way, at least more than are coming there.
RileyJames 7y ago
If politicians or the police actually wanted to ensure this wasn’t going to be a slippery slope, it could be done. With great power comes great responsibility, which time and time again is shown not to be the case. If the police want these powers to go after child abusers, let’s give it to them. But I want to see enshrined into law some consequences to ensure they act responsibly. For example: * all use of the technology must be audited and reported upon each year. Any case of the technology being used, but not included the audit leads to a penalty. * any use of the technology outside of the acceptable use cases put forth (child abuse) leads to a penalty. The penalty? * the police department in question loses 25% of their budget. * loses access to the technology * the officer in question is fired without pay * the manager of the officer is fired without pay * the head of the department is fired * the minister responsible for the department also fired. This doesn’t happen. It never happens. Because it’s intended. Australia’s meta data collection laws were immediately abused to obtain data on journalists. Consequences? Not worth investigating... https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/29/public-metadata-six-cases-of-alleged-police-misconduct-investigated https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/29/publi...
- jbob2000 7y ago
  I have a thought, and you may disagree with it (and I want to hear your criticisms), but hear me out: Police forces exist to fill power vacuums. When a police force is weak, other organizations step in to fill the gap. Private security companies are one side of this, organized crime is another. The reality is that somebody has to enforce order, and if it's not the police, then who is it? So all of these actions you see governments taking around police activities are all about keeping the Police in power so that nobody else takes up the reigns. And continuing on that, it's better for the police to be in power than whatever organization may replace it. So if we implement the policies you've suggested, we'll greatly weaken the police force's power. Losing 25% of their budget would create a power gap - that's 25% less officers on the street, and 25% more opportunities for criminals. Police make mistakes, sure, but do we want to replace them with private security? Do we want to replace them with the mob?
  - JasonFruit 7y ago

uhhhhhhh 7y ago

Is using AI to search for missing children in social media posts the same as 24/7 tracking? Is limited application really as bad as the worst case outcome?