4 ms·

So are we talking about minimizing theft or maximizing justifiable human suffering?

Ekaros 1y ago
Clearly the system people have voted in has failed to minimize theft as it is left unprosecuted too often. Thus rational and moral actors have to work inside system people voted for. And that is to reach state where crimes are properly prosecuted.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  It has failed to eliminate it, is what you mean. Do you want to minimize theft at the expense of any other concern?
bmn__ 1y ago
If the state fails to punish a criminal, the suffering is externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair? Why should the moral people put up with that?
- fluoridation 1y ago
  If the company chooses to allow the thefts to continue unimpeded, why should it be anyone else's problem? Like, if someone walks into your home, picks up some items from your shelf, makes eye contact with you, and walks off, and you let them keep doing that over time, at some point you're just consenting to it. I think if you tried to sue them after they stole some arbitrary threshold, a judge would be right to ask why you didn't say anything at all, not even a simple "hey, stop that".
  - DaSHacka 1y ago
    Hence why this very post is about the method those companies are using to prevent such theft (in this case, facial recognition).
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      This subthread is not about the use of such a technology, but about Home Depot tracking a customer to build a prosecution case over time. So, no, they're not using it to prevent theft, they're using it to punish theft they've allowed.
      - DaSHacka 1y ago
        Potato, potato. Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem?
        fluoridation 1y ago
        Sorry, not sure what you're getting at.
        nobody9999 1y ago
        >Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem? Because a company isn't the government. The government prosecutes. A company might be an interested bystander, but they don't prosecute anyone.

Clearly the system people have voted in has failed to minimize theft as it is left unprosecuted too often. Thus rational and moral actors have to work inside system people voted for. And that is to reach state where crimes are properly prosecuted.

fluoridation 1y ago
It has failed to eliminate it, is what you mean. Do you want to minimize theft at the expense of any other concern?

bmn__ 1y ago

If the state fails to punish a criminal, the suffering is externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair? Why should the moral people put up with that?

fluoridation 1y ago
If the company chooses to allow the thefts to continue unimpeded, why should it be anyone else's problem? Like, if someone walks into your home, picks up some items from your shelf, makes eye contact with you, and walks off, and you let them keep doing that over time, at some point you're just consenting to it. I think if you tried to sue them after they stole some arbitrary threshold, a judge would be right to ask why you didn't say anything at all, not even a simple "hey, stop that".
- DaSHacka 1y ago
  Hence why this very post is about the method those companies are using to prevent such theft (in this case, facial recognition).
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    This subthread is not about the use of such a technology, but about Home Depot tracking a customer to build a prosecution case over time. So, no, they're not using it to prevent theft, they're using it to punish theft they've allowed.
    - DaSHacka 1y ago
      Potato, potato. Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem?
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        Sorry, not sure what you're getting at.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >Why should the company prosecuting the thieves be anyone else's problem? Because a company isn't the government. The government prosecutes. A company might be an interested bystander, but they don't prosecute anyone.