3 ms·

>When people unlawfully break into a building, why the heck shouldn't facial recognition be used to identify them? Because trespass by itself is not a big enou

>When people unlawfully break into a building, why the heck shouldn't facial recognition be used to identify them? Because trespass by itself is not a big enough crime to handle in that manner. Trespass is a crime that exists solely as a means to prosecute people for other not criminal enough to violate the letter of the law type behavior. There need to be other factors to make it worth tracking people down (theft, vandalism, stalking, etc). A pure trespass charge is not worth it. By all means prosecute the people who smashed stuff but in this day and age you don't need to go after everyone in order to do that. >We are not talking about using cameras on the street to give people jaywalking tickets. Do you know what the MA state police use their ALPRs for since we don't really have a car theft problem big enough to warrant running plates all the time? They park on a main road by an intersection and automate the sending of expired inspection sticker tickets. Government programs are under immense pressure to justify their budget. This is why you have swat teams responding to BS, gotta use it or lose it. Dragnet crap inevitably gets used on petty crimes in order to justify it. All the incentives point that way so that's what you get. >If you owned a business that was looted, and you had video of the looters, wouldn't you want them caught? Looters, not trespassers. > We are not talking about using cameras on the street to give people jaywalking tickets. But that is exactly where it winds up leading. But because it's not politically popular to prosecute jaywalking and rich people jaywalk they do things like prosecute all the weed dealers and backyard mechanics for not obtaining all the proper licensing and paying proper taxes. Also as an aside I find your username very fitting. I've lived in half a dozen states and only the DMV areas gives the Boston area a run for its money when it comes to approval of doing anything to enforce the law paired with blindness to downsides of enforcing the law to the letter. (Yes I am aware this is a sweeping generalization but I think it's an accurate enough one that I don't feel bad about making it.) Though I will admit that I have not lived in the wealthy suburbs of NYC and I have my suspicions about them.

exporectomy 6y ago
> automate the sending of expired inspection sticker tickets I think that's an excellent use of the technology. These are minor offences that would be too expensive and burdensome to pursue individually by hand. If it were enforced reliably, almost nobody would do be doing it. People get charged a late penalty for not paying their power bill. It's enforced with 100% reliability. But expired inspection tickets is less obnoxious because you can just stop driving your car when it becomes illegal to do so. You can't just return electricity you already used but haven't paid for yet. If you believe people should drive cars without safety certifications, that's a different issue. In that case, the solution isn't haphazard enforcement but no enforcement at all.

exporectomy 6y ago

> automate the sending of expired inspection sticker tickets I think that's an excellent use of the technology. These are minor offences that would be too expensive and burdensome to pursue individually by hand. If it were enforced reliably, almost nobody would do be doing it. People get charged a late penalty for not paying their power bill. It's enforced with 100% reliability. But expired inspection tickets is less obnoxious because you can just stop driving your car when it becomes illegal to do so. You can't just return electricity you already used but haven't paid for yet. If you believe people should drive cars without safety certifications, that's a different issue. In that case, the solution isn't haphazard enforcement but no enforcement at all.