5 ms·

Yep, (downtown) Portlander here also with similar thoughts. I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 ho

Yep, (downtown) Portlander here also with similar thoughts. I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 hours prior. The cashier was obviously having a bad day, but still absolutely livid at the response time. We don't have enough cops to go around right now. Technology helps what cops we do have scale the impact each one can have. Ideally, we'd have more cops _and_ more technology that helps them do their job. This ordinance is outright silly at best, and detrimental/dangerous at worst, IMO.

OzCrimson 6y ago
Technology can help. Good, proven technology. Facial recognition tech is not ready for prime time. Too often we've seen the legal system use flimsy evidence, and comb the earth for experts who'll back up the flimsy evidence. Then years later the city is paying someone for their wrongful conviction. I don't want to be the person whose life is turned upside-down, and unable to pay legal fees all because of some flawed facial recognition. When facial recognition is reliable, then we need to talk about privacy and access to the data and how it's used. I can already imagine what'll happen. Government entities like, law enforcement, will have to jump through hoops to get warrants and prove they have a good reason to access the data. However, private entities like grocery stores, marijuana dispensaries and car washes won't need a good reason. They'll use it for marketing, and making money allowing 3rd parties to access the data. I'm not cool with any of that.