3 ms·

I'm very sorry, but I heavily object to the notion that we should treat everyone like criminals. It completely invalidates the assumption of innocence, which -

I'm very sorry, but I heavily object to the notion that we should treat everyone like criminals. It completely invalidates the assumption of innocence, which - as far as I am informed as an European - is part of the Constitution). Besides, as the grandparent mentioned, the potential for abuse is too high. Especially in the hands of a government who shows clear tendencies towards a police state - which most western ones do, including the US.

anigbrowl 15y ago
I'm very sorry, but I heavily object to the notion that we should treat everyone like criminals. So do I. Automating facial recognition seems preferable to broadcasting mugshots and perp walks. The technology already abounds in the private sector anyway; if you can take a photo with your phone and have Facebook or Picasa ID and tag the people in it, it's unrealistic to demand that law enforcement abstain from using technology available to teenagers.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  That's an argumentum ad populum. Just because everyone and their mother uses it is no justification for law enforcement to use it as well - especially considering that these people are (at least in very abstract theory) supposed to be good examples for the general populace. The fact that these technologies are abused to such a degree should be an argument to limit their usage, not further extend it. >Automating facial recognition seems preferable to broadcasting mugshots and perp walks. You might know the story of boiling a frog. The fact that you think it's fine is the worst thing about this ordeal. Next thing we know, people will be fine with a totalitarian government for the same reason. Also, maybe we should consider finding better ways to fight crime instead of fighting criminals, which is, in the long term, pointless. I can never resist to quote Motörhead's March Or Die when it comes to this topic: Children weep and widows wail, Our education systems fail, To hide our guilt we build more jails, and we shall build still more
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I don't understand this response. 'anigbrowl is saying that everyone's privacy is violated by private facial recognition deployments constantly, and law enforcement's alternatives --- which are already universally accepted by our jurisprudence --- are more invasive. Sometimes it does make sense to tie law enforcement's hands behind its back. But it doesn't always or even often make that kind of sense. So why exactly in this case do we want to hobble them? I'm also not sure how much productive conversation there is to be had about what technology law enforcement should get access to when you appear to not believe in the concept of law enforcement at all.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      > 'anigbrowl is saying that everyone's privacy is violated by private facial recognition deployments constantly, and law enforcement's alternatives --- which are already universally accepted by our jurisprudence --- are more invasive. And I am saying that instead of allowing law enforcement to use this technologies as well (because hey, everyone is using them), I'm saying we should instead limit everyone else from using it, as well. Especially big corporations like Google and Facebook. >you appear to not believe in the concept of law enforcement at all. I never said that. What I've been saying is that law enforcement is merely reactive. It doesn't solve problems, it merely fights the symptoms. The true problems are an entire generation of disillusioned people, a failing society reigned by corporate greed and kept in check by false hopes and dreams (yes, I'm talking about the American one). You have to fight these, not (just) the things they inevitably produce.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    That's an argumentum ad populum. Just because everyone and their mother uses it is no justification for law enforcement to use it as well Yes there is; if private citizens have access routine to technology that law enforcement is barred from using, then you'll have situations where there is photographic evidence of criminality that police are unable to act on (a popular example lately: webcams on laptops being used to ID thieves). If the police can't or won't act on it, while the recognition technology is freely available to web service users, then you're quickly heading for vigilantism and a lack of confidence in law enforcement. Vigilantism has a poor record in dispensing justice as it has no procedural safeguards or judicial review whatsoever. Historical records show that prior to the establishment of professional police forces, rates of murder and other violent crimes were considerably higher. State-run police forces are what we got after market solutions had failed. David D Friedman has studied libertarian approaches to law enforcement in some depth, and points out various shortcomings as well as some apparent benefits: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./Englan...

anigbrowl 15y ago

I'm very sorry, but I heavily object to the notion that we should treat everyone like criminals. So do I. Automating facial recognition seems preferable to broadcasting mugshots and perp walks. The technology already abounds in the private sector anyway; if you can take a photo with your phone and have Facebook or Picasa ID and tag the people in it, it's unrealistic to demand that law enforcement abstain from using technology available to teenagers.

slowpoke 15y ago
That's an argumentum ad populum. Just because everyone and their mother uses it is no justification for law enforcement to use it as well - especially considering that these people are (at least in very abstract theory) supposed to be good examples for the general populace. The fact that these technologies are abused to such a degree should be an argument to limit their usage, not further extend it. >Automating facial recognition seems preferable to broadcasting mugshots and perp walks. You might know the story of boiling a frog. The fact that you think it's fine is the worst thing about this ordeal. Next thing we know, people will be fine with a totalitarian government for the same reason. Also, maybe we should consider finding better ways to fight crime instead of fighting criminals, which is, in the long term, pointless. I can never resist to quote Motörhead's March Or Die when it comes to this topic: Children weep and widows wail, Our education systems fail, To hide our guilt we build more jails, and we shall build still more
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't understand this response. 'anigbrowl is saying that everyone's privacy is violated by private facial recognition deployments constantly, and law enforcement's alternatives --- which are already universally accepted by our jurisprudence --- are more invasive. Sometimes it does make sense to tie law enforcement's hands behind its back. But it doesn't always or even often make that kind of sense. So why exactly in this case do we want to hobble them? I'm also not sure how much productive conversation there is to be had about what technology law enforcement should get access to when you appear to not believe in the concept of law enforcement at all.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    > 'anigbrowl is saying that everyone's privacy is violated by private facial recognition deployments constantly, and law enforcement's alternatives --- which are already universally accepted by our jurisprudence --- are more invasive. And I am saying that instead of allowing law enforcement to use this technologies as well (because hey, everyone is using them), I'm saying we should instead limit everyone else from using it, as well. Especially big corporations like Google and Facebook. >you appear to not believe in the concept of law enforcement at all. I never said that. What I've been saying is that law enforcement is merely reactive. It doesn't solve problems, it merely fights the symptoms. The true problems are an entire generation of disillusioned people, a failing society reigned by corporate greed and kept in check by false hopes and dreams (yes, I'm talking about the American one). You have to fight these, not (just) the things they inevitably produce.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  That's an argumentum ad populum. Just because everyone and their mother uses it is no justification for law enforcement to use it as well Yes there is; if private citizens have access routine to technology that law enforcement is barred from using, then you'll have situations where there is photographic evidence of criminality that police are unable to act on (a popular example lately: webcams on laptops being used to ID thieves). If the police can't or won't act on it, while the recognition technology is freely available to web service users, then you're quickly heading for vigilantism and a lack of confidence in law enforcement. Vigilantism has a poor record in dispensing justice as it has no procedural safeguards or judicial review whatsoever. Historical records show that prior to the establishment of professional police forces, rates of murder and other violent crimes were considerably higher. State-run police forces are what we got after market solutions had failed. David D Friedman has studied libertarian approaches to law enforcement in some depth, and points out various shortcomings as well as some apparent benefits: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./Englan...