3 ms·

I hate hate hate the idea of the use of drones by police fishing for crimes to prosecute. OTOH, I agree with the sentiment of the article on the notion that dro

I hate hate hate the idea of the use of drones by police fishing for crimes to prosecute. OTOH, I agree with the sentiment of the article on the notion that drones are simply a new (as in newly economical) technology, and neither good nor bad. One of my favorite ideas for drones is scouting for forest fires during drought. Finding a forest fire before it becomes too large to fight could save lives and property.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago
>> Fishing for crimes to prosecute Err, if its a crime its a crime. Upping the detection rate is not a bad thing in itself - it merely hastens the day when we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population. (See the US approach to mandatory drug sentences for a tired example)
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  I would argue that upping the detection rate is a bad thing, given the current status quo of the relationship people have with government. Our system relies upon investing some amount of trust in individuals (law enforcement agents, prosecutors, jurors, etc.) to ensure that laws are enforced fairly, by applying them selectively (or at least that's the ideal case). As for hastening "the day we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population." I'd expect that number to be nearer to 99%, and, it can't happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    presumably the happen soon enough is the reduction of statutory crimes, not banging up 99% of the population (although that too might ... No.) Actually increasing the detection rate is IMO a Good Thing. I would like it if violent crimes were caught on CCTV, then the MIT-derived algorithm to pick individuals from stance and gait is used to follow them through the streets out and the taxis, to their front door where a cop car pulls up. Add to that all the white-collar crimes, the lax banking departments that move billions around for terrorists, tax evaders and criminals.
- markkanof 14y ago
  So are you saying that it would cause our society to no longer classify certain activities as crimes? If so, then I agree that sounds like a good direction to head, but am not sure that things that are currently crimes will actually be reclassified as not crimes. Especially if it generates revenue for the government through ticketing I can't imagine those going away. It is a real problem though, because I think many laws only exist so that law enforcement can take action with regard to extreme cases (ie. when they are alerted to an egregious enough example that they have to take action). If we have robots constantly watching us, it will drastically change that dynamic, and I think many of us could be getting ticketed all the time for things that are technically legal violations, but don't actually hurt anyone (the reason why laws exist in the first place) unless taken to the extreme.
MrQuincle 14y ago
Exactly my idea! Please, feel free to come up with other humane use case scenarios, because it is regretfully very easy for people to come up with ones for the police, border patrol, the army, drugs crime fighting, etc. etc. Technologies like this are inevitable, but it is essential that we reach a critical mass early with respect to the positive side of technology. To create nuclear reactors and engines, before we create the bombs.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

>> Fishing for crimes to prosecute Err, if its a crime its a crime. Upping the detection rate is not a bad thing in itself - it merely hastens the day when we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population. (See the US approach to mandatory drug sentences for a tired example)

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
I would argue that upping the detection rate is a bad thing, given the current status quo of the relationship people have with government. Our system relies upon investing some amount of trust in individuals (law enforcement agents, prosecutors, jurors, etc.) to ensure that laws are enforced fairly, by applying them selectively (or at least that's the ideal case). As for hastening "the day we reduce the number of crimes because if we prosecute we manage to bang up 20% of the population." I'd expect that number to be nearer to 99%, and, it can't happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  presumably the happen soon enough is the reduction of statutory crimes, not banging up 99% of the population (although that too might ... No.) Actually increasing the detection rate is IMO a Good Thing. I would like it if violent crimes were caught on CCTV, then the MIT-derived algorithm to pick individuals from stance and gait is used to follow them through the streets out and the taxis, to their front door where a cop car pulls up. Add to that all the white-collar crimes, the lax banking departments that move billions around for terrorists, tax evaders and criminals.
markkanof 14y ago
So are you saying that it would cause our society to no longer classify certain activities as crimes? If so, then I agree that sounds like a good direction to head, but am not sure that things that are currently crimes will actually be reclassified as not crimes. Especially if it generates revenue for the government through ticketing I can't imagine those going away. It is a real problem though, because I think many laws only exist so that law enforcement can take action with regard to extreme cases (ie. when they are alerted to an egregious enough example that they have to take action). If we have robots constantly watching us, it will drastically change that dynamic, and I think many of us could be getting ticketed all the time for things that are technically legal violations, but don't actually hurt anyone (the reason why laws exist in the first place) unless taken to the extreme.

MrQuincle 14y ago

Exactly my idea! Please, feel free to come up with other humane use case scenarios, because it is regretfully very easy for people to come up with ones for the police, border patrol, the army, drugs crime fighting, etc. etc. Technologies like this are inevitable, but it is essential that we reach a critical mass early with respect to the positive side of technology. To create nuclear reactors and engines, before we create the bombs.