5 ms·

I don't understand the issue with facial recognition if it is only used as a lead, and isn't considered evidence in and of itself, and a person's rights are res

I don't understand the issue with facial recognition if it is only used as a lead, and isn't considered evidence in and of itself, and a person's rights are respected even if they are flagged by the facial recognition software. If the issue is disparate success rates between races or other demographics, then let's just fuzz the incoming data until it's all equal. Facial recognition still sounds like an incredibly useful tool. Banning facial recognition sounds to me like the legislature knows that the police force abuses people and will abuse people even more with facial recognition. Instead of banning tools that can increase the scope for abuse, why not try rooting out the people and culture perpetrating abuse in the first place?

mulmen 3y ago
If I am flagged by facial recognition software my rights have already been violated. This is a bad idea even before we consider that LEO is composed of fallible human beings with an established history of abusing the information systems they already possess.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  What right of yours was violated if you were flagged by facial recognition?
  - mulmen 3y ago
    The 4th amendment.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Rights afforded by Illinois law, I suppose.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    If mass surveillance is limited by the ability for humans to look at camera feeds, that provides a check on it.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    in the United States, there is a history of limitation of occupying armies, and to some extent police. It comes from a time when you, citizen, had to stop what you are doing and become under questioning or controlled without any checks and balances. A group of men in uniform could stop and hold any number of people for "suspicion" .. that is illegal here. So in reverse, if you are going to be stopped, questioned, and your actions controlled, there must be sufficient reason, and that authority has limitations. Cars have changed that calculus a lot, laws are being updated. Murky legal waters for "searching" crowds.. one factor is that information systems hold data for days and years, millions of records can be searched instantly on a regular basis. so the practical reach of technology has changed. IANAL
localplume 3y ago
agree. the technology is exceptionally useful and banning it doesn't stop already corrupt LEO from fudging evidence. they should be removed entirely. individually, many forms of evidence in forensic science are complete BS but as part of a whole they add value. its the same with facial recognition. this is just a kneejerk reaction that sounds good on headlines and for politics but doesn't actually help anyone.
99_00 3y ago
It makes much more sense to ban facial recognition instead of addressing corruption and incompetence in a state like Illinois. 1.) Progressive voters get good feelings as they think they are helping 'minorities' and advancing social justice. 2.) Politicians please a large segment of voters. 3.) People who benefit from corruption are not threatened as the status quo is maintained. 4.) Politicians's in power is not threatened by the system as the status quo is maintained. The corrupt system only negatively impacts people who can't afford a good private lawyer.

mulmen 3y ago

If I am flagged by facial recognition software my rights have already been violated. This is a bad idea even before we consider that LEO is composed of fallible human beings with an established history of abusing the information systems they already possess.

oh_sigh 3y ago
What right of yours was violated if you were flagged by facial recognition?
- mulmen 3y ago
  The 4th amendment.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Rights afforded by Illinois law, I suppose.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  If mass surveillance is limited by the ability for humans to look at camera feeds, that provides a check on it.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  in the United States, there is a history of limitation of occupying armies, and to some extent police. It comes from a time when you, citizen, had to stop what you are doing and become under questioning or controlled without any checks and balances. A group of men in uniform could stop and hold any number of people for "suspicion" .. that is illegal here. So in reverse, if you are going to be stopped, questioned, and your actions controlled, there must be sufficient reason, and that authority has limitations. Cars have changed that calculus a lot, laws are being updated. Murky legal waters for "searching" crowds.. one factor is that information systems hold data for days and years, millions of records can be searched instantly on a regular basis. so the practical reach of technology has changed. IANAL

localplume 3y ago

agree. the technology is exceptionally useful and banning it doesn't stop already corrupt LEO from fudging evidence. they should be removed entirely. individually, many forms of evidence in forensic science are complete BS but as part of a whole they add value. its the same with facial recognition. this is just a kneejerk reaction that sounds good on headlines and for politics but doesn't actually help anyone.

99_00 3y ago

It makes much more sense to ban facial recognition instead of addressing corruption and incompetence in a state like Illinois. 1.) Progressive voters get good feelings as they think they are helping 'minorities' and advancing social justice. 2.) Politicians please a large segment of voters. 3.) People who benefit from corruption are not threatened as the status quo is maintained. 4.) Politicians's in power is not threatened by the system as the status quo is maintained. The corrupt system only negatively impacts people who can't afford a good private lawyer.