zlacker

[return to "Microsoft won’t sell police its facial-recognition technology"]
1. moksly+P8[view] [source] 2020-06-11 18:23:27
>>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.

◧◩
2. jfenge+ha[view] [source] 2020-06-11 18:30:51
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. luckyl+Ne[view] [source] 2020-06-11 18:54:49
>>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".

◧◩◪◨
4. domado+Cm[view] [source] 2020-06-11 19:42:55
>>luckyl+Ne
"Defund the police" is very unfortunate terminology. It is viscerally appealing to the groups most upset about police brutality, but can scare away potential allies, who might get the impression that "defund" means doing away with any kind of armed law enforcement and leaving society at the mercy of violent criminals.

"Defund" is a good example of a term which has a precise, nuanced, technical definition to its main users but which shouldn't be used in common speech because it is so easily and terribly misunderstood. For another example, think about the word "intercourse". It can just mean "communication"... but what is the first idea that comes to most people's mind when people come across that word?

[go to top]