8 ms·
If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've alrea
by pesus 6mo ago
If the drones are "providing information" to the police, it's only a matter of time before their AI hallucinates something that gets someone killed. We've already seen AI gun detection services that report things like Doritos bags as guns.
- scottyah 6mo ago[flagged]
- Quinner 6mo agoThose people have proven very untrustworthy and are structurally unaccountable.
- thomastjeffery 6mo agoYou are giving those people the benefit of the doubt. It's been proven many many times that police will use "more information" to excuse their own decision to use violence. A decision that they already made well before the incident.
- pesus 6mo agoIt's more "sus" that you blindly trust the police, politicians, and billionaires that have a history of discrimination, violence, and oppression and attempt to slander those who don't. Not to mention blindly trusting AI systems with someone's life - the only reason one would do that is because they either stand to profit from it or don't understand how they work. Are you really willing and eager to put your life in the hands of a piece of software that can't distinguish a gun and a Doritos bag? Remember, oppression and invasion of privacy is still bad even if it isn't currently happening to you. If you think you can't be a target, you're sorely mistaken.
- _DeadFred_ 6mo agoIf you give me long enough, I can find something to charge anyone with.
- goatlover 6mo agoI don't trust the authorities to use information just for public safety and against legitimate criminal activity (in part because legitimate crime needs to be decided legally in court not just because of police suspicion). There's too many examples where they've abused information for harassment, dubious arrests and prosecutions. And this can be systematic not just a few bad apples here and there. We've already seen this with how ICE has conducted itself with more funding and surveillance.
- grimcompanion 6mo agoOTOH it will provide more surveillance of the police themselves. Humans are also bad at gun detection (sometimes willfully so) and this provides another check.
- FireBeyond 6mo agoWatch for Flock footage to be "unavailable"/"deleted"/"corrupt" just as often as bodycam footage is.
- gretch 6mo agoThat's right. And also just like the missing epstein footage. Because it's a social problem, not a technology problem. At the same time, just because these instances of "missing" tape happen, does not mean that body cams and jailhouse CCTV are useless. We would not take those away. Likewise for the future drone footage
- islandfox100 6mo agoThe categorization of the problem isn't an excuse to propogate and intensify the problem. The tech should not be used until the problem is resolved.
- IAmBroom 6mo agoNot as often; it creates friction and requires cooperation from others (or an officer with unusual skill and access, presumably). It will absolutely happen in corrupt departments, or those involving an officer with those skills and access. But data that is uploaded is infinitely harder to erase than simply turning off the camera in the first place.
- chaps 6mo agoHow exactly does this provide more surveillance of the police themselves? I've done about ten FOIA lawsuits against police departments and it's laughable to think that they won't just lock footage away and exempt it from the public's eyes. Probably through a trade secret exemption because private companies are involved.