4 ms·

I, and many people I know, have been the victims of property crimes and other crimes several times over in Seattle. The understaffed police force (meaning per-c

I, and many people I know, have been the victims of property crimes and other crimes several times over in Seattle. The understaffed police force (meaning per-capita officer counts well below median) are unable to investigate these crimes and so perpetrators are never identified and arrested. This is because violent crimes take priority and so there simply isn't enough staffing to devote time to other crimes. Surveillance and facial recognition could help our police force effectively put this limited staff to use, so that criminals face consequences and crime is deterred. I have no problem using technology to enforce existing law effectively, just as I have no problem with cops using cell phones or vehicles to do their job. I do find the dystopian extent of how these technologies are used in China (e.g. social scores) to be unacceptable, but we can institute the right regulations around these technologies to prevent broader abuse while still retaining the benefits (a cheaper and more effective police force).

jacques_chester 6y ago
Before the pandemic, you were probably caught on camera committing several crimes. Nothing serious. Some jaywalking, maybe, or perhaps you stood on private property without knowing it, or you were smoking a few centimetres too close to an entrance ... there are dozens of possibilities. Hundreds. Now: you are T-boned by a car running a red light. The driver is the son of a police captain. You want to press charges, but suddenly, you are being indicted for dozens of crimes. It took all of minutes for the police to pull out every single time you were in public for the past 7 years and, thanks to the wonders of AI, not much longer to narrow down to the forty or fifty occasions during which they have you on record as committing a crime. Are you still sure you want to press charges against the captain's son? Or should bygones be bygones? Because it will be hard to press charges and fight dozens of charges in court, one at a time. In fact you will be in and out of court for years to come. Or not. Who knows?
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  If we have the ability to detect a crime at low cost, we should detect the crime and apply the law uniformly, and dispassionately. It should be applied as often as possible. Either the law exists and is enforced, or the law should be repealed. In your hypothetical scenario, if I have crimes I've "already committed", then those should have already been brought up. But that's sort of my point as well. I think we can come up with the regulations to avoid the situation you describe. It may involve what I suggested above, updates to statutes of limitation, etc.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    It won't be applied uniformly and dispassionately. That's the point. The laws we have on the books far outweigh capacity to enforce them, so enforcement is selective. Lowering the cost will make enforcement more selective, not less.

jacques_chester 6y ago

Before the pandemic, you were probably caught on camera committing several crimes. Nothing serious. Some jaywalking, maybe, or perhaps you stood on private property without knowing it, or you were smoking a few centimetres too close to an entrance ... there are dozens of possibilities. Hundreds. Now: you are T-boned by a car running a red light. The driver is the son of a police captain. You want to press charges, but suddenly, you are being indicted for dozens of crimes. It took all of minutes for the police to pull out every single time you were in public for the past 7 years and, thanks to the wonders of AI, not much longer to narrow down to the forty or fifty occasions during which they have you on record as committing a crime. Are you still sure you want to press charges against the captain's son? Or should bygones be bygones? Because it will be hard to press charges and fight dozens of charges in court, one at a time. In fact you will be in and out of court for years to come. Or not. Who knows?

throwawaysea 6y ago
If we have the ability to detect a crime at low cost, we should detect the crime and apply the law uniformly, and dispassionately. It should be applied as often as possible. Either the law exists and is enforced, or the law should be repealed. In your hypothetical scenario, if I have crimes I've "already committed", then those should have already been brought up. But that's sort of my point as well. I think we can come up with the regulations to avoid the situation you describe. It may involve what I suggested above, updates to statutes of limitation, etc.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  It won't be applied uniformly and dispassionately. That's the point. The laws we have on the books far outweigh capacity to enforce them, so enforcement is selective. Lowering the cost will make enforcement more selective, not less.