zlacker

>>longde+(OP)
I’m not American, but isn’t the police about the only people you should ever trust (if any) with facial-recognition technology?

If you can’t trust your police with it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your society.

>>moksly+P8
You got it in one: we don't trust our police with it, and there is something fundamentally wrong with society. That is why there have been calls to radically re-think, or even eliminate, policing in the US.

This announcement coincides with protests against police brutality, at which many police have behaved brutally. That was sparked by an outright homicide by a police officer, captured on video, of a man who was subdued and presented no threat -- while other police officers watched, and many others have subsequently attempted to justify.

The "something fundamentally wrong" is very complex and subject to genuine debate, but it's not subject to debate that whatever it is, people don't trust the police.

>>jfenge+ha
> That is why there have been calls to radically re-think, or even eliminate, policing in the US.

Isn't "defund the police" 99% "that's a nice slogan", not actually "we'll be good without any form of law enforcement"? From what I understand it's a play to break unions: you defund and dismantle the police department and then you can create a new department, can start fresh with new people, new tactics etc pp. Might work, might not, but it's certainly not "eliminate policing".

>>luckyl+Ne
that is how the message has been coopted. when meant sincerely it aims to drastically reduce both the responsibilities and budgets of law enforcement as close to zero as is practicable by replacing militarized violent enforcement with evidence-based programs that reduce criminality, often at much reduced cost.

you can google for more details.