5 ms·

Identifying terrorists is a positive outcome.

by walls 6y ago

remarkEon 6y ago
This statement in the abstract is correct. The context in which it’s applied ... well I’m sure many actually believe Trump supporters are “literally” terrorists. This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.
- klyrs 6y ago
  I'm not really accustomed to thinking about what others want me to think, but if you're like many who are trying to guess what progressives want you to think; facial recognition bad, clearview extra bad.
uniqueid 6y ago
Is this technology going to identify anyone Twitter won't? I mean, correctly identify because it'll probably belch up a lot of false positives, too.
jonas21 6y ago
Identifying terrorists and violent criminals is always the argument in favor of using facial recognition for law enforcement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Steltek 6y ago
I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker") because I think that's the key to this discussion. The military is given access to dramatically more advanced weapons and technology than police. When the US has suffered such an obviously violent and direct attack (vs planning or "alleged"), is that not a reason to loosen the restraints? However, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with technology. Like we've seen this summer with local police using military hardware, there will always be the urge to inappropriately deploy military-grade technologies in a civilian setting.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker") There was a mix of terrorists, insurrectionists, rioters, hooligans and protesters in the crowd. Those who entered the Capitol were no longer protesters. Those damaging or stealing property were more than hooligans. Those aiming to disrupt the election count were more than rioters. And those with aims on harming members of Congress were more than incompetent insurrectionists.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I think those are useful distinctions. Not everyone in that crowd was rioting. This was an important distinction I feel was lost during the BLM protests as well: Any given media narrative wanted to paint the people involved as all one thing or another. The truth is it's all mixed. I look at this also as a failure for a movement to generate leaders with a clear strategic vision that in turn guides participants with consistent boundaries. When, instead, the feeling is simply "anger" without a specific plan for channeling it usefully, you get people doing their own thing, others following along, etc.
  - j8hn 6y ago
    I agree that we shouldn't paint all the people in attendance with a broad brush. What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour? Hooligans. To be criminally charged but allowed to avoid jail time. If they, I don’t know, refrain from breaking into federal property for a few years and pass a community college civics course, the record is sealed. What they did was serious. Little different from people who jump the White House fence. But many of us on this forum can look to their youth and remember when being in a crowd doing something feloniously mischevious was something they would have gone along with. I can. We have enough of a problem with mass incarceration to not add to it.
croes 6y ago
Terrorism or child abuse are always the reason to legitimize surveillance software. But once installed the purpose of use changes.
paganel 6y ago
These were not “terrorists”, you can call them insurrectionists, mob, angry horde or anything of the sorts, but “terror” was no-where to be found among their motives. Or maybe I’m wrong and they did want to terrorize people (like ISIS set out to do), in which case some sources will help.
- idiocrat 6y ago
  Does not matter, in any case -- straight into reeducation camps. God Bless the Holy AI.
- vntok 6y ago
  Yes, you are wrong and any video of the event will show you that they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", that they built hanging knots that they left for everyone to see, that they ran after senators and that they trampled police officers.
  - paganel 6y ago
    > Hang Mike Pence Somewhere on an older hard-disk I have a copy of all the terrorist incidents starting from the 1960s up to 2006 or so (web-scrapped at the time when that data was still partially open), no-where in there had I seen this type of events, there were mostly bombings, airplane kidnapping and the like. What you are describing falls though under the "insurrection" label, heck, we were saying the same thing about Ceausescu in December 1989 and thankfully no-one branded us as terrorists (I'm from Romania).
    - vntok 6y ago
      An insurrection is when "The People" rebel against their Government. Participants in that specific (failed) coup were not "The People". For a very close example, you can read about the failed 1981 Spanish coup d'Etat attempt here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... It's uncanny how similar these events were: > Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero led 200 armed Civil Guard officers into the Congress of Deputies during the vote to elect a President of the Government. The officers held the parliamentarians and ministers hostage for 18 hours, during which time King Juan Carlos I denounced the coup in a televised address, calling for rule of law and the democratic government to continue. Though shots were fired, the hostage-takers surrendered the next morning without killing anyone.
pvaldes 6y ago
Identifying cover agents infiltrated into the mob, for example would be a not so positive one. Once this cat is out of the box, is out. Can't be entered again. All that you need is money to buy the product, and narcos have a lot of it.

Identifying terrorists is a positive outcome.

by walls 6y ago

Identifying terrorists is a positive outcome.

This statement in the abstract is correct. The context in which it’s applied ... well I’m sure many actually believe Trump supporters are “literally” terrorists. This technology was of course also used to identify those laying siege to various federal buildings over the summer, but I guess it’s okay now. This is to say that the context in which this technology is used obviously matters a lot and is directly related to who holds the reigns of cultural power. Yay.

klyrs 6y ago
I'm not really accustomed to thinking about what others want me to think, but if you're like many who are trying to guess what progressives want you to think; facial recognition bad, clearview extra bad.

uniqueid 6y ago

Is this technology going to identify anyone Twitter won't? I mean, correctly identify because it'll probably belch up a lot of false positives, too.

jonas21 6y ago

Identifying terrorists and violent criminals is always the argument in favor of using facial recognition for law enforcement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Steltek 6y ago

I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker") because I think that's the key to this discussion. The military is given access to dramatically more advanced weapons and technology than police. When the US has suffered such an obviously violent and direct attack (vs planning or "alleged"), is that not a reason to loosen the restraints? However, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with technology. Like we've seen this summer with local police using military hardware, there will always be the urge to inappropriately deploy military-grade technologies in a civilian setting.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> I love the back and forth of terminology ("rioter" vs "terrorist" vs "attacker") There was a mix of terrorists, insurrectionists, rioters, hooligans and protesters in the crowd. Those who entered the Capitol were no longer protesters. Those damaging or stealing property were more than hooligans. Those aiming to disrupt the election count were more than rioters. And those with aims on harming members of Congress were more than incompetent insurrectionists.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I think those are useful distinctions. Not everyone in that crowd was rioting. This was an important distinction I feel was lost during the BLM protests as well: Any given media narrative wanted to paint the people involved as all one thing or another. The truth is it's all mixed. I look at this also as a failure for a movement to generate leaders with a clear strategic vision that in turn guides participants with consistent boundaries. When, instead, the feeling is simply "anger" without a specific plan for channeling it usefully, you get people doing their own thing, others following along, etc.
- j8hn 6y ago
  I agree that we shouldn't paint all the people in attendance with a broad brush. What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > What would you call the people who entered the Capital building and stayed inside the red velvet ropes, who took selfies and made videos like they were on a tour? Hooligans. To be criminally charged but allowed to avoid jail time. If they, I don’t know, refrain from breaking into federal property for a few years and pass a community college civics course, the record is sealed. What they did was serious. Little different from people who jump the White House fence. But many of us on this forum can look to their youth and remember when being in a crowd doing something feloniously mischevious was something they would have gone along with. I can. We have enough of a problem with mass incarceration to not add to it.

croes 6y ago

Terrorism or child abuse are always the reason to legitimize surveillance software. But once installed the purpose of use changes.

paganel 6y ago

These were not “terrorists”, you can call them insurrectionists, mob, angry horde or anything of the sorts, but “terror” was no-where to be found among their motives. Or maybe I’m wrong and they did want to terrorize people (like ISIS set out to do), in which case some sources will help.

idiocrat 6y ago
Does not matter, in any case -- straight into reeducation camps. God Bless the Holy AI.
vntok 6y ago
Yes, you are wrong and any video of the event will show you that they were chanting "Hang Mike Pence", that they built hanging knots that they left for everyone to see, that they ran after senators and that they trampled police officers.
- paganel 6y ago
  > Hang Mike Pence Somewhere on an older hard-disk I have a copy of all the terrorist incidents starting from the 1960s up to 2006 or so (web-scrapped at the time when that data was still partially open), no-where in there had I seen this type of events, there were mostly bombings, airplane kidnapping and the like. What you are describing falls though under the "insurrection" label, heck, we were saying the same thing about Ceausescu in December 1989 and thankfully no-one branded us as terrorists (I'm from Romania).
  - vntok 6y ago
    An insurrection is when "The People" rebel against their Government. Participants in that specific (failed) coup were not "The People". For a very close example, you can read about the failed 1981 Spanish coup d'Etat attempt here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... It's uncanny how similar these events were: > Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero led 200 armed Civil Guard officers into the Congress of Deputies during the vote to elect a President of the Government. The officers held the parliamentarians and ministers hostage for 18 hours, during which time King Juan Carlos I denounced the coup in a televised address, calling for rule of law and the democratic government to continue. Though shots were fired, the hostage-takers surrendered the next morning without killing anyone.

pvaldes 6y ago

Identifying cover agents infiltrated into the mob, for example would be a not so positive one. Once this cat is out of the box, is out. Can't be entered again. All that you need is money to buy the product, and narcos have a lot of it.