Slashdot Mirror
Law Enforcement by Machines
Inst1gator writes "Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either. This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
The purpose of using automation for anything, even law enforcement, is to gain efficiency while not losing accuracy.
Since people conceive of these devices, and people are by turns greedy, mistake-prone, and downright incompentent at times, we can expect the devices to share these same characteristics.
By the same token, a tool in the wrong hands can become a weapon. Imagine the guy/gal who installs traffic cameras hooking up their own little transmitter to surveil the intersection looking for their boyfriend/girlfriend/hermaphrodite riding in someone else's car! Better yet, imagine the CIA or FBI doing the same.
We need to enforce the laws on the enforcers of laws or the Constitution goes right out the window.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
"Please put down your keyboard, you have 20 seconds to comply."
Intellectual property law is going to be a big chunk of automated law enforcement. Check out this : Intellectual Property Bots Wonder if IBM found this eBay auction for IBMLinux.com with it yet.
One of the bots mentioned is one that searched around of "Harrison" and got some preteen images.
Another bot mentioned looks for people who search for preteen images.
We need to get these two bots to cross paths. Then their owners will be so busy sueing each other they won't care what the rest of us do.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Not only does the robots need to get better at law enforcement,
... testified that an IP address is, "in very simple terms, a Social Security number. Only one person at one specific time can have that number." In fact, an IP address identifies a computer, rather than a person, and may not even consistently map to a particular machine in networks that use dynamic IP addressing.
... is not authorized by Warner Bros. ... or the law."
so do the Humans involved
At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the FBI's Kristen Sheldon
any one that is even allowed to even get near law enforcement in this area show have some kind of technology background, judges and jury included
The brief also identifies a file entitled "harry potter book report.rtf" whose name and tiny size (1K) make obvious that it is not an illegal copy of the Harry Potter movie. Obvious to anyone who looks, anyway. But why should the record and movie companies bother to look? They're unlikely to suffer any damages if ISPs take down the wrong files, and the consumers involved are unlikely to sue them. (In filing with the Internet Service Providers, a company representative even certified in writing "that we have a good faith belief that use of the material
a person was definately involved in this situation, yet it was allowed to get this far
this should let everyone know that we have a problem, and that the "general public" is not as informed as we had hoped/thought
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
There is one of these devices near my house. Although it does not give tickets still ellicits a Pavlovian response. Going more than 5 milez per hour over the speed limit, triggers a siren noise, and a "strobe" light until you decrease speed back to the psudo-legal range (Max MPH+5).
For the first few weeks of it being there, brake lights were flashing like none other (people tend to go very fast in this area), but now about 4 months later, the speeds in the area are back to the legal (and slow) speeds.
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
Go with humans, who are known fallable and subjective, or machines, who are known fallable and too objective. In the name of jusice (being blind and all) I think most of us would agree we would prefer an emotionally-inert policing force. The problem is then this: how do we trust them? Are they just being unilaterally fair or inept?
Cops now might pick up someone for Driving while Black but a machine wouldn't differentiate between the lunatic going 125 and the man rushing to get his dying wife to the hospital.
In the end we all assume we have a good idea how people are going to act. Thus we will always distrust machines to watch over us. These story remind me of Skynet from the Terminator. "Afterwards all stealth bombers flew with perfect operational records."
How did that story turn out? Man, out of fear, turns against the Machine. The Machine retaliates. Funny thing is that I think most people would agree with the story. In our heart of hearts all of us are Luddites. Heck, just read the poster's last comment: "This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
What is music when you despise all sound?
machines are too easy to deploy in large numbers to stop simple violations (speeding, jaywalking, stop sign rolling, etc).
.02
I actually believe this to be a Bad Thing. We are getting to the point were we are:
1. coming to accept this as acceptable.
2. actually making jokes about it.
I agree that it will allow for manpower to be directed towards more violent crime, but it will also threaten the rest of us and our pockets and our records.
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
That's my worthless
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law rant?
Its makes sense, that if some piece of software is going to make legally binding judgements against you, that you should at least get to see the source code.
If not, then how the hell do you really know what the law is...
A computer won't shake you down for bribes, or plant evidence. A computer won't selectively enforce the law, unless told to, but then it becomes its own proof of corruption. A computer will not lie in court, unless its records are modified, but the maliable nature of digital files ensures greater standards for repudiation.
I trust machines over cops for the same reasons I trust Amazon over shifty checkout clerks.
There are laws on the books today which, if they were regularly enforced, might be considered opressive. The reason they continute to be on the books is that detection is currently fairly difficult, so they are enforced infrequently. Also it is MUCH harder to repeal laws than to pass them.
If we create an aparatus of total detection and enforcement with automatic penalties, then these laws will suddenly be enforced completely. The net effect will be almost like suddenly passing a large number of intrusive laws. In short, the enforcement regime will have changed to something that was not envisioned by the original authors of the law, and the change of regime will not be subject to any real legislative review. Also, many people (esp those who lean the libertarian way) may have objected to the law when it was first passed, but decided that since it was unenforceable, there was no point in protesting it.
Another problem is that technological systems always have a human element which can lead to the very same corruption that you fear, only in the machine enforcement case, it is much harder to demonstrate the human corruption element to a jury. (I assume you still want a jury?)
--
MM
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Ben Franklin warned us that, "He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."
It is amazing how far from the constitution America has wandered.
I ripped the following from the TAFA website but it is right on
Due Process:
DEFINITION: The legal process by which U.S. citizens are promised a fair trial in the U.S. Constitution Article XVI Paragraph 1. U.S. Citizens are promised "The Equal Protection of Law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These rights have been reaffirmed in numerous federal court cases. A successful civil rights lawsuit against the "State" for unlawful deprivation of law was reaffirmed in "Gault vs Arizona," 87 SupCt 1428
1. The RIGHT to receive notice of charges.
2. The RIGHT of the assistance of Counsel.
3. The RIGHT to confront your accuser and to cross-examination of the complainants.
4. The RIGHT to exercise a privilege against self-incrimination.
5. The RIGHT to a transcript of the proceedings and,
6. The RIGHT to appellate review.
7. The RIGHT to subpoena witnesses and subpoena documentary evidence to support your position or contradict evidence presented against you.
8. The RIGHT to "Trial by Jury of Citizens at Common Law."
9. The RIGHT to receive Equal Protection of the Law.
10. The RIGHT to a "Presumption of Innocence" prior to trial.
11. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" the protection of the U.S. and State Constitution Bill of Rights.
12. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" any defense expressly created in statute and case law precedent.
13. The RIGHT to sue any U.S. citizen for "Unlawful Deprivation of any constitutional, statutory, or administrative right."
14. The RIGHT of access and use of any taxpayer-funded law library, government building, and courtroom.
P.S. can anyone show me where in teh constitution it says anything about seperation of church and state? There is that statement that congress shall make no law
A little Constitutional law will go a long way
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK