4 ms·
No it’s not, and that isn’t the reason for the ban, because it’s not true.
by hevelvarik 6y ago
No it’s not, and that isn’t the reason for the ban, because it’s not true.
- maldeh 6y agoDon't think OP is claiming that was the reason for the ban, they may be alluding to this separate incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23628394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23628394 Edit: Agreed, no conviction was involved, so their statement looks exaggerated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 99_00 6y ago>During Wednesday's meeting and before the vote, Wu said that Boston shouldn't be using racially discriminatory technology. She noted the reports of the first known case of a man arrested after being misidentified by facial recognition technology in Michigan.
- hevelvarik 6y agoAre you presenting that quote in support of some particular point I made or are you just being generally helpful? Yes, so a wrongful arrest was made, and thus the technology isn’t perfect, so we shouldn’t use it is the thinking? Well actually no, apparently wrongful arrests aren’t sufficient cause to ban a technology but only one believed to racially discriminate lol. Or maybe the real reason is because it’s become fashionable of late to fuck the police and the whole because reasons is an afterthought. In any case, the larger point, the one suggested by the OP, the one met with foolish acquiescence in response, the one suggesting that our justice system convicts people on the basis of facial recognition technology is wrong..
- 99_00 6y agoYour tone is completely inappropriate. You're making a lot of assumptions about what people are thinking and what position they are taking in the debate. I can discuss the topic with you when you are feeling better.