5 ms·

On the contrary. It is times like these in which citizens need protections from those that may not have their best interests in mind. People have every right to

by aarchi 6y ago

On the contrary. It is times like these in which citizens need protections from those that may not have their best interests in mind. People have every right to protest and should not be surveilled in doing so.

throwawaysea 6y ago
People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Identifying criminals should be made efficient and facial recognition is part of that.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  > Identifying criminals should be made efficient This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
  - fiter 6y ago
    Better for us to actually remove those laws.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life. We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
        sokoloff 6y ago
        > If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.) Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.
        jimmydorry 6y ago
        Speed cameras can be poorly calibrated / setup, there can be multiple cars in frame and they ticket them all, it can be a different person driving, the OCR on the license plate can fail and pick a different car, the officer may have tampered with the evidence, the car may have been stolen, etc. All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.
    - scribbles99 6y ago
      Best to do both.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    We have laws for a reason and they must be enforced. Your argument here seems to be hinged around naming less damaging crimes like jaywalking to make enforcement seem frivolous. But to most people, enforcing laws against vandalism or littering do matter. Leaving aside the crimes you named, police do need tools to identify, locate, and arrest those who engage in more serious crimes like property damage (car thefts, burglaries, bike thefts, etc), violence (rioters throwing Molotov cocktails, assaults, shootings), looting, etc. Enforcing the law matters in order to retain a stable and just society. It absolutely should be efficient, both in the interest of serving justice so there is a deterrent against crime, but also to save taxpayers’ money by making more efficient use of policing resources. Suggesting we keep police from enforcing the law efficiently is illogical and dangerous, and followed to its conclusion, is no different than arguing that police should also be denied other tools like computers or electricity.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Then get rid of the law! What is the point of the law if we're all "criminals" according to you and any attempts at prosecuting such laws is met with "rules" about making it less effective. How ever did this become about "how can this tool be used to harass people". Police can harass you using absolutely nothing other than the powers given to them by virtue of being a policeman. Identifying criminals that are breaking the law should absolutely be easy, efficient and absolute. Either you agree they are breaking the law and that the law is just, or the law is unjust. Otherwise, if you agree that there is a "grey" area between the two, then you're just inviting abuse by virtue of selective-policing.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    Thank God - speeding, jaywalking and littering are very rarely criminal.
  - drusepth 6y ago
    I would very much like to see less speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, and loitering. Reducing these all seem like they'd have a net positive effect. Giving police better technology to do their jobs doesn't automatically make them corrupt. Those who are corrupt are going to temporarily have more power, sure, but that's all the more reason to root them out and implement better transparency and balance checks at the same time.
- krapp 6y ago
  >People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Yes they do, it's called civil disobedience, and many Americans from marginalized groups wouldn't have the rights they enjoy now without it. In fact, as people like to point out, America was born from it.
  - gwright 6y ago
    My understanding is that the "traditional" notion of civil disobedience excludes acts of violence (the crimes that the parent was probably referring to) and for the participants to be willing to accept punishment for the law that they are breaking (i.e. you must be prepared to be arrested, fined, etc.). The point is to show respect for the rule of law while at the same time calling attention to an injustice. The notion that you can commit arson, theft, assault, vandalism, and so on with impunity as long as you self-proclaim you are doing it for a just cause is not what "civil disobedience" is about, IMHO. Your reference to the founding of America only seems relevant if you think the current government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced forcefully and in its entirety (i.e. you are making a revolutionary argument). If someone wants to make that argument then I think they should be able to justify that drastic measure with a rationale that is a bit more coherent than protest slogans and be able to explain what they intend to put in place instead of the current government.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      You are correct, that's why sit ins and say blocking a road work. Grabbing a rock and using it to destroy someone's storefront is a crime and those people need to go to jail. It just seems like a shame that some people don't seem to see the difference now and support the rioters and people destroying property as if they are noble souls or something rather than the criminals that they are.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by aarchi 6y ago

throwawaysea 6y ago

People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Identifying criminals should be made efficient and facial recognition is part of that.

Pfhreak 6y ago
> Identifying criminals should be made efficient This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
- fiter 6y ago
  Better for us to actually remove those laws.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life. We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        > If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.) Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.
      - jimmydorry 6y ago
        Speed cameras can be poorly calibrated / setup, there can be multiple cars in frame and they ticket them all, it can be a different person driving, the OCR on the license plate can fail and pick a different car, the officer may have tampered with the evidence, the car may have been stolen, etc. All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.
  - scribbles99 6y ago
    Best to do both.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  We have laws for a reason and they must be enforced. Your argument here seems to be hinged around naming less damaging crimes like jaywalking to make enforcement seem frivolous. But to most people, enforcing laws against vandalism or littering do matter. Leaving aside the crimes you named, police do need tools to identify, locate, and arrest those who engage in more serious crimes like property damage (car thefts, burglaries, bike thefts, etc), violence (rioters throwing Molotov cocktails, assaults, shootings), looting, etc. Enforcing the law matters in order to retain a stable and just society. It absolutely should be efficient, both in the interest of serving justice so there is a deterrent against crime, but also to save taxpayers’ money by making more efficient use of policing resources. Suggesting we keep police from enforcing the law efficiently is illogical and dangerous, and followed to its conclusion, is no different than arguing that police should also be denied other tools like computers or electricity.
- zo1 6y ago
  Then get rid of the law! What is the point of the law if we're all "criminals" according to you and any attempts at prosecuting such laws is met with "rules" about making it less effective. How ever did this become about "how can this tool be used to harass people". Police can harass you using absolutely nothing other than the powers given to them by virtue of being a policeman. Identifying criminals that are breaking the law should absolutely be easy, efficient and absolute. Either you agree they are breaking the law and that the law is just, or the law is unjust. Otherwise, if you agree that there is a "grey" area between the two, then you're just inviting abuse by virtue of selective-policing.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  Thank God - speeding, jaywalking and littering are very rarely criminal.
- drusepth 6y ago
  I would very much like to see less speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, and loitering. Reducing these all seem like they'd have a net positive effect. Giving police better technology to do their jobs doesn't automatically make them corrupt. Those who are corrupt are going to temporarily have more power, sure, but that's all the more reason to root them out and implement better transparency and balance checks at the same time.
krapp 6y ago
>People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Yes they do, it's called civil disobedience, and many Americans from marginalized groups wouldn't have the rights they enjoy now without it. In fact, as people like to point out, America was born from it.
- gwright 6y ago
  My understanding is that the "traditional" notion of civil disobedience excludes acts of violence (the crimes that the parent was probably referring to) and for the participants to be willing to accept punishment for the law that they are breaking (i.e. you must be prepared to be arrested, fined, etc.). The point is to show respect for the rule of law while at the same time calling attention to an injustice. The notion that you can commit arson, theft, assault, vandalism, and so on with impunity as long as you self-proclaim you are doing it for a just cause is not what "civil disobedience" is about, IMHO. Your reference to the founding of America only seems relevant if you think the current government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced forcefully and in its entirety (i.e. you are making a revolutionary argument). If someone wants to make that argument then I think they should be able to justify that drastic measure with a rationale that is a bit more coherent than protest slogans and be able to explain what they intend to put in place instead of the current government.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    You are correct, that's why sit ins and say blocking a road work. Grabbing a rock and using it to destroy someone's storefront is a crime and those people need to go to jail. It just seems like a shame that some people don't seem to see the difference now and support the rioters and people destroying property as if they are noble souls or something rather than the criminals that they are.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]