Hillary Clinton violated policy in her email handling, but the investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a case that she committed a crime.
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Also: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That latter statement is not "she's innocent" or "there's no evidence", it's a pretty clear "there is evidence" and "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He's right, no prosecutor is going to waste the time and effort to counter every legal maneuver that Clinton's team would make to try to avoid a guilty verdict. And nobody wants to take down the golden girl who "won the election" (if only the rules for how to win the election were different!)
When this is over, the cable companies are going to with they hadn't fought this.
Is it a good thing for the companies that when this bill takes effect 100% of the internet users in California (except dialup) will have broadband internet, or is it a bad thing? I seem to recall that the existing ISPs have an interest in getting the broadband numbers up, so if Comcast or Verizon can say that 100% of their customers have broadband I think it's a win for them.
So the evidence is being collected and forwarded to the authorities.
I just bet that the NCMEC is just thrilled to be getting 8.7 million images from Facebook. I can hear it now, NCMEC coffee room: "Gawd, if I have so see one more photo of Aunt Jean's cute little niece swimming topless in the backyard pool I'm gonna puke..."
The problem is not Facebook choosing to censor its own site. The problem is Facebook forwarding the meme that "child nudity" is "child exploitation".
Facebook is a social media site. People who have kids have friends and a social life, and they are likely to post pictures of their kids on Facebook so their friends can see them. Facebook is touted as how modern people stay in touch, which means modern parents sharing modern pictures of modern kids with modern gramma who live 2000 miles away and can't just drop by to see how the kids are. Saying "don't post pix of kids" is inane and flies in the face of reality.
Leaving the evidence on Facebook has it's pros and cons. While leaving it on may allow catching others acting on the data,
You know what "acting on the data" means, in this context, don't you? It means someone getting a notice that one of their friends on Facebook has posted a new photo, and then they get arrested for "downloading kiddie porn" because they clicked on the link to see what that picture was.
I'm still trying to figure out what market demand 5G is trying to meet. The only use case I can think of which isn't already met by 4G data is pirating movies (downloading multi-gigabyte files in a short period of time).
AND doing it to your phone instead of your home computer.
Don't worry. "5G" will be what the carriers call the next incremental improvement over "4G", because of course "5G" sounds more modern and hip and will sell a lot of phones.
90% of the CRAP from the past is better than 90% of the "GOOD" stuff that is put out today.
"Nature abhors a vacuum." "A gas expands to fill the volume available." As the pipes of today get bigger than the pipes of the past, producers will expand to fill the volume. That doesn't mean the quality will go along with it.
For example, a favorite magazine of mine went from 10 issues per year to 6 "doubles". Twice the space to fill, right? Half the quality. A recent issue had a story about an old truck driver who couldn't drive trucks anymore on Earth because the highways were 100% AV. So, a company carted him off to Mars to drive trucks across the Martian deserts carrying watermelons from colony to colony. AV technology was fully developed on Earth but instead of taking that to Mars, they took a meatbag. Part of the story involved him NOT SHUTTING OFF THE ELECTRIC MOTOR on his truck because it might not start again. I kid you not. The next story was about some odd species on a planet somehow luring two humans and someone from a third species to a dead space port to observe their ritual suicide in the name of art. I think the editor's decision to print it was based on it having at least two commas in 90% of the sentences. I know he's made decisions based on the author using "zim" and "ze" for pronouns because that's "edgy" and "modern".
It's truly sad. The magazine's tag line is "science fiction/science fact" and it is becoming "science fantasy/malarky". Kind of like "news for nerds, stuff that matters" has degraded.
If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right?
And what is the fancy term for defining something as a "dangerous technology" and then arguing is has to be rejected because it is dangerous? Facial recognition isn't dangerous just because it can be misused, just as screwdrivers aren't dangerous just because they can be misused, or clubs, or fire, or caves.
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
By using this nonsentience of facial recognition technology as an argument against allowing it, you make it sound like there will be no humans involved in the process. You seem to think that the output of Rekognition will be sent directly to a fleet of autonomous vehicles which will then go out and detain the people whose images are flagged as potential matches, and no human will be looking at the potential matches to weed out false positives. That's just absurd. "Unlike police officers", but police officers will absolutely involved in making final decisions. How is the use of that technology "unlike police officers" when they are the users of the facial recognition output?
If nobody tells the police they can't then they'll give themselves the right to do it for this.
The only possible antecedent for "this" is my statement that they can use facial recognition to flag potential matches from their known-felon database much faster than doing it manually. Why don't they already have the right to do this? Why would you tell them they don't?
The Constitution already tells them they don't have the right to do a lot of abusive things with the technology, and there are already laws dealing with other criminal information. It's not like we're on new ground here.
Might as well argue that because I disagree with you I must be a looney
That's not what I said. If you don't know that already, then we clearly don't speak the same language at all.
Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him".
There is no guarantee this actually happens.
Oh for fuck's sake. I don't know what country you live in, but it clearly isn't the US. Nobody is going to waste their time even talking to someone whose name pops out of the facial recognition without looking at the pictures. Why would they? They're going to have a hundred or more flagged images to deal with; they're not going to go out and interview a hundred or more people before taking simple steps to cut the list down a lot.
You seem to think that mindless police are going to go out rounding up every person who's image is flagged as a potential match just for fun. Here's a free clue: they don't need facial recognition if they were going to do that.
That's supposing there is a baby in that bathwater.
Of course there's a baby in the bathwater. Just cutting down the number of potential matches by a factor of, what, tens of thousands, is a HUGE baby in the bathwater. If you don't know what facial recognition is or what it does, please stop yammering about how bad it is.
Let's duke it out and decide whether this is tech we'd like the police to have.
Let's not "duke it out". Let's recognize the argument "this technology might be abused so you cannot have it at all" as the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Ask them.
In other words, you don't know and cannot come up with a reasonable way they could know. Because you are posting as an AC you accept no responsibility for anything posted as AC, and I understand why you'd want to avoid having to explain such a patently absurd claim.
Yes yes I know you had far too much fun trying to be sarcastic in the 'merkin fashion
I was seriously asking someone who made an outrageous claim to explain why it was true. I gave reasons why it could not be true, but certainly, if an Anonymous Coward said it was possible, then it must be possible. ACs don't lie, do they?
And they break'em too.
Yes, of COURSE some people break the rules. Gee, did anyone say otherwise? You're trying to use a criminal act on the part of a vast minority of people as a reason not to allow the rest of them to use a technology that would make their jobs vastly easier, AND make their communities safer because serious criminals could be caught faster. Wow. Baby and bathwater down the drain, ignore the cries from the infant as it disappears.
Do you also argue that cops not be allowed to have cars to patrol in because they sometimes get in accidents?
The problem is that sort of thing doesn't fly in a functioning democracy,
Why aren't you ranting about fingerprints or driver's license photos while you are at it? DNA is another big one. Gosh, I have a camera in my front window that records people that pass by "in perpetuity", maybe I'm violating someone's rights, too? A "functioning democracy"
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days. Actually, worse. We'd have rejected fire and caves because you can burn someone with fire or imprison them unjustly in a cave. The clubs we use to kill our food would be right out -- clubs can kill other humans as well as food.
I'd love to find some abuse for loin cloths but I can't really, so we do get to keep our clothes at least.
or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that a speed trap gets to decide where it is placed, or are you claiming that the speed trap is programmed to give tickets only to people of a certain race? That's the only way an automated speed-trap could be racist.
There would have to be an awful lot of determined racists involved if the photo of a white criminal was identified as a black person and nobody bothered to reject that potential match before someone was arrested or even questioned. If that were true, pointing the finger at Rekognition would be an incredible waste of time; it did not create the problem.
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties.
In this case anyway. That sneaky generalisation you snuck in there is sneaky, but not entirely honest.
POLICE: "We can use facial recognition technology to help up apprehend violent criminals faster, because we can run pictures of an unknown one from a security camera through the database of known felons and identify possible suspects. We can manually compare the hundred flagged possibilities much faster than the hundreds of thousands of images in our mug shot database. "
ACLU: "No you can't. You might misuse it."
Sounds like a fair assessment of the situation to me. The ACLU doesn't get involved unless it things there is a civil rights issue.
From TFA: "And using Amazon's software, the ACLU discovered this July that inputting photos of every member of Congress into a mugshot database misidentified 28 individuals as other people who had been arrested for a crime, with a disproportionate error rate for people of color." In other words, out of 535 people, 28 were flagged as a potential match. That's a five percent false positive error rate. Now, if you believe that those 28 people would be taken to court for committing a crime based on that flagging, you're a looney. Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him". And if you think when those 28 people were somehow actually taken to trial the prosecutor would tell the jury "ignore the fact that you can look at the photos yourself and see they aren't the same person, and that the person sitting in the dock has an airtight alibi, the Amazon software infallibly identifies the perpetrator of the crime as Maxine Waters, U.S. Representative for California's 43rd congressional district since 2013. If Rekognition says it, it must be true", then you are even loonier.
Criminals break the law.
Thereby violating the civil rights of the victim. 100% of the time. There is only a potential for misuse of Rekognition -- one that can be dealt with by setting limits and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The TSA does, down to the book you've been reading on the plane.
I need to know. How does TSA know what book I'm reading on "the plane"? Do they have magic tempest receivers that pick up the minute electrical signals from my tablet or phone that they can decode into knowledge of what book I'm reading? Are they bribing the waitress (I mean "flight attendant") to look over my shoulder and use her photographic memory to tell them the words on the screen so they can match it to the book? Does TSA have agents in every airport bookstore recording what book you've bought and connecting it to you personally, assuming if you bought it at the airport you are actually going to read it on the plane?
The paper books I might bring with me on a flight are in my carry-on, which is xrayed and rarely opened. Xrays cannot divine the name of the book. How can they tell?
AND you make a huge leap in assuming that when a TSA agent sees a book I'm carrying that they're are literate enough to read the title. I watched a pair of these folks open my checked bag and pull out a stack of books I was carrying. They had such a mystified look on their faces that I was almost ready to shout across at them "they're books. They have words and ideas in them. BOOM!" But I did not.
I'm fascinated by your insight on this matter; may I subscribe to your newsletter?
therefore we hold law enforcement to higher standards of conduct than we hold criminals
That's right. They already have access to a lot of things so they can do their job that we as the public do not have, and they have rules regarding how they can use those things. I've just been through the CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System) training, and that training makes it very clear that acc
How many police officers stand 24x7 in one spot, remember EVERYONE that EVER passes,
I listen to the cops on the scanner to keep up with what is going on in my community. You would be amazed at the number of people that cops remember by sight. It is not unusual to hear one of them tell another that they've just seen Frank Smarkle someplace he was trespassed from, and the other one asks "isn't that the guy we dealt with six months ago...". It's their JOB to remember people, especially criminals.
combining, correlating, and ensuring that every citizen that they see, is logged and tracked between every officer.
That's not a property inherent in facial recognition. It is debatably a misuse of a technology, but if you want to argue that a possible misuse of a technology renders it off limits for any use, then we'll have to talk about the use of anesthetic drugs during life-saving surgery just because a well-known person misused the technology. And then a thousand other technologies that can be misused but have valuable uses otherwise.
And my response is that if a social media site requires real identity,
"True freedom of speech" has NOTHING to do with social media sites and their right to control their own hardware. You are arguing with me over something I DID NOT SAY, and your quote proves that. It was a response to the statement: "It seems rather hysterical when all these folks are screaming about their freedom of thought, yet won't put their name on it." That's an insult referring to the AUTHORS not wanting to put their names on what they say, and has nothing to do with what social media sites do or don't do. You pulled the quote out of context and then rant about how I object to you using it out of context. I expect nothing less.
You say something and then when someone challenges you, your response is always, "You're putting words in my mouth".
My response to YOU is that you are trying to put words in my mouth, because that's your normal method of operations. Like you are trying to do now when you argue with me about social media sites. It's an especially inane attempt, since I'm on record in this forum that social media sites are free to publish or not publish what they choose, because they own the hardware and it's not the government doing it. I am also on record as saying that calling such daily, normal operations as that "censorship" is stupid and wasteful, because it's like crying wolf.
The words you put in your own mouth are sufficient for this discussion.
For the discussion of the insult over people who are "hysterical" about having thoughts but not wanting to put their names on them, they are sufficient to dispel that insult.
For the discussion you want to have, no, it has nothing to do with that, but you keep trying to pretend it does. Knock it off. You've been corrected on that misinterpretation at least twice now, so if you keep it up it will be exposed as deliberate.
As long as you have access to anonymous speech elsewhere, there is no property of freedom that is infringed if you require real identity on a commercial website.
The comment I replied to was not about a commercial website requiring names, it was insulting the people speaking who don't want to put their names on their speech. Typical nonsequitor.
Promoting genocide is a little more than an "unpopular opinion".
Being a nazi doesn't mean you take actions to do illegal things. It means you have a political belief system that is unpopular in today's world, in most places. "Stopping nazis" doesn't limit itself to stopping illegal actions, it talks about that political belief system.
Society gets to defend itself from monsters.
Not by having "Bear Jew" go out and kill anyone he doesn't like.
Ask your parents.
I understand why you might want to use that ad hominem at this point, since you probably do ask your parents about all kinds of things. It is, after all, as simple for you as yelling up the stairs. Some of us, however, are grown ups and know how what limits society are supposed to have. And some of have lost our parents already, so see the patent insult in your attitude.
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
Your biggest worry should be that the Bear Jew is going to bring his 36" Hank Greenberg model Louisville slugger into sudden contact with your head and that you will fill your briefs with shit.
You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
The statement made was not that "people advocating bans are never worse than nazis", it was "Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth." "Never" and "immutable" are very strong words.
That is a statement that the ends justify the means. Pope's "Bear Jew" trying to kill someone who thinks Jews are bad is an example of exactly the opposite. Those means are not justified by the ends; to claim otherwise is to create a civilization of lynch mobs and murder, as we each justify our killing of our neighbor based on his personal beliefs.
It seems rather hysterical when all these folks are screaming about their freedom of thought, yet won't put their name on it.
You cannot have true freedom of speech without anonymous speech. Otherwise you get Pope's "Bear Jew with a baseball bat" policing the speech by killing anyone he doesn't agree with.
Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth.
No, the immutable truth is that the ends do not justify the means.
If you are a "political group" that promotes genocide,
Last I knew, having an unpopular opinion was not quite as bad as someone killing a person who has an unpopular opinion. Maybe you live in a different universe than those of us in the US do.
I don't think anyone is asking for the government to step in and police hate speech.
Uhhh, government regulation is exactly that.
If you want a free and open platform for video discourse there's an easy solution: National Public Access. Make a national Youtube. You'll have to pay for it though, and that means taxes.
You want a government-censored "open" platform for discourse? You think a taxpayer-funded platform would be exempt from government regulation of content? What planet do you live on? Here on Earth you don't get freedom from government intervention by asking them to run the services.
Otherwise the price you pay is your watered down, advertiser friendly content.
Better an advertiser friendly pipeline than a government friendly one. It's easy to build a new pipeline with different advertisers, compared to building a new government.
Since "deceptive" has been defined as "anything that I disagree with."
Now now, I think most people would agree that there truly is "deceptive" that is not simply stuff you don't agree with. Things like the cell phone ad I saw last night and had to rewind on the DVR and pause to read the fine print. Big print: "Five lines for $25 each". Small print: "good until 1/1/2020. First line $60, second line $40, and $20/each for 3, 4, and 5 thereafter." That's deceptive when you consider the font size of the disclaimer (unreadable on regular NTSC TV.)
There are a lot of other companies that put out stuff that nobody would doubt is deceptive, because it's just patent nonsense. Part because it it truly devious. I fell for sales on a discount website twice when they were selling a "free" cell phone and internet service (which itself was a scam -- you had to pay in advance just in case you broke the quantity cap) where the wireless service was already planning to shut that service off in just a few months. Did anyone say anything about that? Of course not. Deceptive.
Regulation of advertising speech is done under truthiness rules, not speech rules. Yes, a company is free to claim that they can change the outcome of a sporting event based on a veggie snack platter they sell, but then when they are sued for lack of truthiness they lose.
Pretty simple, if you pay any type of tax, you get a vote on how it is used.
I don't know what country you live in, but if that works for you, that's nice. In the USA you need to be a citizen to vote, and a resident of the area in which you vote. That seems to work out pretty well here.
I'm not sure why you think that anyone who walks up to the polling place with a receipt showing he paid sales tax on something should be allowed to vote for your executive leadership, but like I said, if it works for you, more power to you. Let me know what country that is and I'll make sure to take my next vacation there and come help you elect your politicians. If nothing else, I'll have paid an airport tax of some kind and have every right to vote in your elections. Right?
Chastity is the only honest way to go. However, you'll notice that requirement seriously interferes with recruitment in the modern world.
If you think you need to avoid chastity to get employees, then you should rethink your workplace, and if you think you need to avoid chastity to get a job, you need to rethink your job application.
how do you know if an advance is unwanted if you don't try your luck?
If the person you are 'trying your luck' with is in a position where your success isn't dependent on luck, then you can be pretty sure the advance is unwanted. When they say "no", you've got a clear signal.
Ergo, the only sane solution is to say that all advances are unwanted in that community, which is called chastity.
You have it backwards. Chastity has nothing to do with the recipient.
Either the community is a place where one of the side-benefits is the possibility of romance/sex
Yeah, that attitude from the people in positions of power isn't working out so well these days, is it? Harvey Weinstein figured that his "community" had a lot of side-benefits, didn't he?
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton violated policy in her email handling, but the investigation concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a case that she committed a crime.
Now you're making things up. Quotes from Comey's statement:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Also: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That latter statement is not "she's innocent" or "there's no evidence", it's a pretty clear "there is evidence" and "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He's right, no prosecutor is going to waste the time and effort to counter every legal maneuver that Clinton's team would make to try to avoid a guilty verdict. And nobody wants to take down the golden girl who "won the election" (if only the rules for how to win the election were different!)
When this is over, the cable companies are going to with they hadn't fought this.
Is it a good thing for the companies that when this bill takes effect 100% of the internet users in California (except dialup) will have broadband internet, or is it a bad thing? I seem to recall that the existing ISPs have an interest in getting the broadband numbers up, so if Comcast or Verizon can say that 100% of their customers have broadband I think it's a win for them.
Wrong part, moron. And $17 is still a lot to pay for 37 cents worth of plastic.
Subaru wants $57 for a replacement fan control knob. This is "tech"?
So the evidence is being collected and forwarded to the authorities.
I just bet that the NCMEC is just thrilled to be getting 8.7 million images from Facebook. I can hear it now, NCMEC coffee room: "Gawd, if I have so see one more photo of Aunt Jean's cute little niece swimming topless in the backyard pool I'm gonna puke..."
The problem is not Facebook choosing to censor its own site. The problem is Facebook forwarding the meme that "child nudity" is "child exploitation".
Facebook is a social media site. People who have kids have friends and a social life, and they are likely to post pictures of their kids on Facebook so their friends can see them. Facebook is touted as how modern people stay in touch, which means modern parents sharing modern pictures of modern kids with modern gramma who live 2000 miles away and can't just drop by to see how the kids are. Saying "don't post pix of kids" is inane and flies in the face of reality.
Leaving the evidence on Facebook has it's pros and cons. While leaving it on may allow catching others acting on the data,
You know what "acting on the data" means, in this context, don't you? It means someone getting a notice that one of their friends on Facebook has posted a new photo, and then they get arrested for "downloading kiddie porn" because they clicked on the link to see what that picture was.
I'm still trying to figure out what market demand 5G is trying to meet. The only use case I can think of which isn't already met by 4G data is pirating movies (downloading multi-gigabyte files in a short period of time).
AND doing it to your phone instead of your home computer.
Don't worry. "5G" will be what the carriers call the next incremental improvement over "4G", because of course "5G" sounds more modern and hip and will sell a lot of phones.
90% of the CRAP from the past is better than 90% of the "GOOD" stuff that is put out today.
"Nature abhors a vacuum." "A gas expands to fill the volume available." As the pipes of today get bigger than the pipes of the past, producers will expand to fill the volume. That doesn't mean the quality will go along with it.
For example, a favorite magazine of mine went from 10 issues per year to 6 "doubles". Twice the space to fill, right? Half the quality. A recent issue had a story about an old truck driver who couldn't drive trucks anymore on Earth because the highways were 100% AV. So, a company carted him off to Mars to drive trucks across the Martian deserts carrying watermelons from colony to colony. AV technology was fully developed on Earth but instead of taking that to Mars, they took a meatbag. Part of the story involved him NOT SHUTTING OFF THE ELECTRIC MOTOR on his truck because it might not start again. I kid you not. The next story was about some odd species on a planet somehow luring two humans and someone from a third species to a dead space port to observe their ritual suicide in the name of art. I think the editor's decision to print it was based on it having at least two commas in 90% of the sentences. I know he's made decisions based on the author using "zim" and "ze" for pronouns because that's "edgy" and "modern".
It's truly sad. The magazine's tag line is "science fiction/science fact" and it is becoming "science fantasy/malarky". Kind of like "news for nerds, stuff that matters" has degraded.
If we reject some dangerous technologies then we must reject all dangerous technologies, right?
And what is the fancy term for defining something as a "dangerous technology" and then arguing is has to be rejected because it is dangerous? Facial recognition isn't dangerous just because it can be misused, just as screwdrivers aren't dangerous just because they can be misused, or clubs, or fire, or caves.
The actual argument is that if you use the potential for misuse as an argument to prevent the use of one technology, then the potential for misuse of every technology becomes an argument for it's rejection. You cannot limit what "abusable technologies" that argument is applied to without being a hypocrite.
You act as if it's never happened in history.
You lack reading comprehension. I said that "the only reason they would like to be able to" use the technology, not that technology has never been abused.
However, my point clearly was that unlike police officers, it is fundamentally incapable of questioning or objecting to how the data it collects will be used.
So what? A club is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. A syringe of propofol is incapable of questioning or objecting to how it will be used. That's why there are humans in the system to manage such concerns.
By using this nonsentience of facial recognition technology as an argument against allowing it, you make it sound like there will be no humans involved in the process. You seem to think that the output of Rekognition will be sent directly to a fleet of autonomous vehicles which will then go out and detain the people whose images are flagged as potential matches, and no human will be looking at the potential matches to weed out false positives. That's just absurd. "Unlike police officers", but police officers will absolutely involved in making final decisions. How is the use of that technology "unlike police officers" when they are the users of the facial recognition output?
If nobody tells the police they can't then they'll give themselves the right to do it for this.
The only possible antecedent for "this" is my statement that they can use facial recognition to flag potential matches from their known-felon database much faster than doing it manually. Why don't they already have the right to do this? Why would you tell them they don't?
The Constitution already tells them they don't have the right to do a lot of abusive things with the technology, and there are already laws dealing with other criminal information. It's not like we're on new ground here.
Might as well argue that because I disagree with you I must be a looney
That's not what I said. If you don't know that already, then we clearly don't speak the same language at all.
Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him".
There is no guarantee this actually happens.
Oh for fuck's sake. I don't know what country you live in, but it clearly isn't the US. Nobody is going to waste their time even talking to someone whose name pops out of the facial recognition without looking at the pictures. Why would they? They're going to have a hundred or more flagged images to deal with; they're not going to go out and interview a hundred or more people before taking simple steps to cut the list down a lot.
You seem to think that mindless police are going to go out rounding up every person who's image is flagged as a potential match just for fun. Here's a free clue: they don't need facial recognition if they were going to do that.
That's supposing there is a baby in that bathwater.
Of course there's a baby in the bathwater. Just cutting down the number of potential matches by a factor of, what, tens of thousands, is a HUGE baby in the bathwater. If you don't know what facial recognition is or what it does, please stop yammering about how bad it is.
Let's duke it out and decide whether this is tech we'd like the police to have.
Let's not "duke it out". Let's recognize the argument "this technology might be abused so you cannot have it at all" as the ridiculous nonsense that it is.
Ask them.
In other words, you don't know and cannot come up with a reasonable way they could know. Because you are posting as an AC you accept no responsibility for anything posted as AC, and I understand why you'd want to avoid having to explain such a patently absurd claim.
Yes yes I know you had far too much fun trying to be sarcastic in the 'merkin fashion
I was seriously asking someone who made an outrageous claim to explain why it was true. I gave reasons why it could not be true, but certainly, if an Anonymous Coward said it was possible, then it must be possible. ACs don't lie, do they?
And they break'em too.
Yes, of COURSE some people break the rules. Gee, did anyone say otherwise? You're trying to use a criminal act on the part of a vast minority of people as a reason not to allow the rest of them to use a technology that would make their jobs vastly easier, AND make their communities safer because serious criminals could be caught faster. Wow. Baby and bathwater down the drain, ignore the cries from the infant as it disappears.
Do you also argue that cops not be allowed to have cars to patrol in because they sometimes get in accidents?
The problem is that sort of thing doesn't fly in a functioning democracy,
Why aren't you ranting about fingerprints or driver's license photos while you are at it? DNA is another big one. Gosh, I have a camera in my front window that records people that pass by "in perpetuity", maybe I'm violating someone's rights, too? A "functioning democracy"
It can track ...
If we reject every piece of technology that CAN be misused then I fear we'd be living in cave-man days. Actually, worse. We'd have rejected fire and caves because you can burn someone with fire or imprison them unjustly in a cave. The clubs we use to kill our food would be right out -- clubs can kill other humans as well as food.
I'd love to find some abuse for loin cloths but I can't really, so we do get to keep our clothes at least.
or systematically killing those deemed a threat to an oppressive agenda.
Yes, of course, the only reason police would like to be able to identify suspects easily is so they can kill anyone who is a threat to an oppressive agenda. "Come see the violence inherent in the system..."
What if a disproportionate number of said speed-traps are placed in minority neighborhoods?
Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that a speed trap gets to decide where it is placed, or are you claiming that the speed trap is programmed to give tickets only to people of a certain race? That's the only way an automated speed-trap could be racist.
There would have to be an awful lot of determined racists involved if the photo of a white criminal was identified as a black person and nobody bothered to reject that potential match before someone was arrested or even questioned. If that were true, pointing the finger at Rekognition would be an incredible waste of time; it did not create the problem.
ACLU's stance is, law-enforcement endangers our civil liberties.
In this case anyway. That sneaky generalisation you snuck in there is sneaky, but not entirely honest.
POLICE: "We can use facial recognition technology to help up apprehend violent criminals faster, because we can run pictures of an unknown one from a security camera through the database of known felons and identify possible suspects. We can manually compare the hundred flagged possibilities much faster than the hundreds of thousands of images in our mug shot database. "
ACLU: "No you can't. You might misuse it."
Sounds like a fair assessment of the situation to me. The ACLU doesn't get involved unless it things there is a civil rights issue.
From TFA: "And using Amazon's software, the ACLU discovered this July that inputting photos of every member of Congress into a mugshot database misidentified 28 individuals as other people who had been arrested for a crime, with a disproportionate error rate for people of color." In other words, out of 535 people, 28 were flagged as a potential match. That's a five percent false positive error rate. Now, if you believe that those 28 people would be taken to court for committing a crime based on that flagging, you're a looney. Well before any action involving those people was taken someone would look at the images and say "no, that really isn't him". And if you think when those 28 people were somehow actually taken to trial the prosecutor would tell the jury "ignore the fact that you can look at the photos yourself and see they aren't the same person, and that the person sitting in the dock has an airtight alibi, the Amazon software infallibly identifies the perpetrator of the crime as Maxine Waters, U.S. Representative for California's 43rd congressional district since 2013. If Rekognition says it, it must be true", then you are even loonier.
Criminals break the law.
Thereby violating the civil rights of the victim. 100% of the time. There is only a potential for misuse of Rekognition -- one that can be dealt with by setting limits and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The TSA does, down to the book you've been reading on the plane.
I need to know. How does TSA know what book I'm reading on "the plane"? Do they have magic tempest receivers that pick up the minute electrical signals from my tablet or phone that they can decode into knowledge of what book I'm reading? Are they bribing the waitress (I mean "flight attendant") to look over my shoulder and use her photographic memory to tell them the words on the screen so they can match it to the book? Does TSA have agents in every airport bookstore recording what book you've bought and connecting it to you personally, assuming if you bought it at the airport you are actually going to read it on the plane?
The paper books I might bring with me on a flight are in my carry-on, which is xrayed and rarely opened. Xrays cannot divine the name of the book. How can they tell?
AND you make a huge leap in assuming that when a TSA agent sees a book I'm carrying that they're are literate enough to read the title. I watched a pair of these folks open my checked bag and pull out a stack of books I was carrying. They had such a mystified look on their faces that I was almost ready to shout across at them "they're books. They have words and ideas in them. BOOM!" But I did not.
I'm fascinated by your insight on this matter; may I subscribe to your newsletter?
therefore we hold law enforcement to higher standards of conduct than we hold criminals
That's right. They already have access to a lot of things so they can do their job that we as the public do not have, and they have rules regarding how they can use those things. I've just been through the CJIS (Criminal Justice Information System) training, and that training makes it very clear that acc
How many police officers stand 24x7 in one spot, remember EVERYONE that EVER passes,
I listen to the cops on the scanner to keep up with what is going on in my community. You would be amazed at the number of people that cops remember by sight. It is not unusual to hear one of them tell another that they've just seen Frank Smarkle someplace he was trespassed from, and the other one asks "isn't that the guy we dealt with six months ago ...". It's their JOB to remember people, especially criminals.
combining, correlating, and ensuring that every citizen that they see, is logged and tracked between every officer.
That's not a property inherent in facial recognition. It is debatably a misuse of a technology, but if you want to argue that a possible misuse of a technology renders it off limits for any use, then we'll have to talk about the use of anesthetic drugs during life-saving surgery just because a well-known person misused the technology. And then a thousand other technologies that can be misused but have valuable uses otherwise.
And my response is that if a social media site requires real identity,
"True freedom of speech" has NOTHING to do with social media sites and their right to control their own hardware. You are arguing with me over something I DID NOT SAY, and your quote proves that. It was a response to the statement: "It seems rather hysterical when all these folks are screaming about their freedom of thought, yet won't put their name on it." That's an insult referring to the AUTHORS not wanting to put their names on what they say, and has nothing to do with what social media sites do or don't do. You pulled the quote out of context and then rant about how I object to you using it out of context. I expect nothing less.
You say something and then when someone challenges you, your response is always, "You're putting words in my mouth".
My response to YOU is that you are trying to put words in my mouth, because that's your normal method of operations. Like you are trying to do now when you argue with me about social media sites. It's an especially inane attempt, since I'm on record in this forum that social media sites are free to publish or not publish what they choose, because they own the hardware and it's not the government doing it. I am also on record as saying that calling such daily, normal operations as that "censorship" is stupid and wasteful, because it's like crying wolf.
The words you put in your own mouth are sufficient for this discussion.
For the discussion of the insult over people who are "hysterical" about having thoughts but not wanting to put their names on them, they are sufficient to dispel that insult. For the discussion you want to have, no, it has nothing to do with that, but you keep trying to pretend it does. Knock it off. You've been corrected on that misinterpretation at least twice now, so if you keep it up it will be exposed as deliberate.
Wasting time arguing with me about something I didn't say. Just like always.
As long as you have access to anonymous speech elsewhere, there is no property of freedom that is infringed if you require real identity on a commercial website.
The comment I replied to was not about a commercial website requiring names, it was insulting the people speaking who don't want to put their names on their speech. Typical nonsequitor.
Promoting genocide is a little more than an "unpopular opinion".
Being a nazi doesn't mean you take actions to do illegal things. It means you have a political belief system that is unpopular in today's world, in most places. "Stopping nazis" doesn't limit itself to stopping illegal actions, it talks about that political belief system.
Society gets to defend itself from monsters.
Not by having "Bear Jew" go out and kill anyone he doesn't like.
Ask your parents.
I understand why you might want to use that ad hominem at this point, since you probably do ask your parents about all kinds of things. It is, after all, as simple for you as yelling up the stairs. Some of us, however, are grown ups and know how what limits society are supposed to have. And some of have lost our parents already, so see the patent insult in your attitude.
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
The statement made was not that "people advocating bans are never worse than nazis", it was "Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth." "Never" and "immutable" are very strong words.
That is a statement that the ends justify the means. Pope's "Bear Jew" trying to kill someone who thinks Jews are bad is an example of exactly the opposite. Those means are not justified by the ends; to claim otherwise is to create a civilization of lynch mobs and murder, as we each justify our killing of our neighbor based on his personal beliefs.
It seems rather hysterical when all these folks are screaming about their freedom of thought, yet won't put their name on it.
You cannot have true freedom of speech without anonymous speech. Otherwise you get Pope's "Bear Jew with a baseball bat" policing the speech by killing anyone he doesn't agree with.
Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth.
No, the immutable truth is that the ends do not justify the means.
If you are a "political group" that promotes genocide,
Last I knew, having an unpopular opinion was not quite as bad as someone killing a person who has an unpopular opinion. Maybe you live in a different universe than those of us in the US do.
I don't think anyone is asking for the government to step in and police hate speech.
Uhhh, government regulation is exactly that.
If you want a free and open platform for video discourse there's an easy solution: National Public Access. Make a national Youtube. You'll have to pay for it though, and that means taxes.
You want a government-censored "open" platform for discourse? You think a taxpayer-funded platform would be exempt from government regulation of content? What planet do you live on? Here on Earth you don't get freedom from government intervention by asking them to run the services.
Otherwise the price you pay is your watered down, advertiser friendly content.
Better an advertiser friendly pipeline than a government friendly one. It's easy to build a new pipeline with different advertisers, compared to building a new government.
Since when is deceptive advertising free speech?
Since "deceptive" has been defined as "anything that I disagree with."
Now now, I think most people would agree that there truly is "deceptive" that is not simply stuff you don't agree with. Things like the cell phone ad I saw last night and had to rewind on the DVR and pause to read the fine print. Big print: "Five lines for $25 each". Small print: "good until 1/1/2020. First line $60, second line $40, and $20/each for 3, 4, and 5 thereafter." That's deceptive when you consider the font size of the disclaimer (unreadable on regular NTSC TV.)
There are a lot of other companies that put out stuff that nobody would doubt is deceptive, because it's just patent nonsense. Part because it it truly devious. I fell for sales on a discount website twice when they were selling a "free" cell phone and internet service (which itself was a scam -- you had to pay in advance just in case you broke the quantity cap) where the wireless service was already planning to shut that service off in just a few months. Did anyone say anything about that? Of course not. Deceptive.
Regulation of advertising speech is done under truthiness rules, not speech rules. Yes, a company is free to claim that they can change the outcome of a sporting event based on a veggie snack platter they sell, but then when they are sued for lack of truthiness they lose.
Pretty simple, if you pay any type of tax, you get a vote on how it is used.
I don't know what country you live in, but if that works for you, that's nice. In the USA you need to be a citizen to vote, and a resident of the area in which you vote. That seems to work out pretty well here.
I'm not sure why you think that anyone who walks up to the polling place with a receipt showing he paid sales tax on something should be allowed to vote for your executive leadership, but like I said, if it works for you, more power to you. Let me know what country that is and I'll make sure to take my next vacation there and come help you elect your politicians. If nothing else, I'll have paid an airport tax of some kind and have every right to vote in your elections. Right?
Chastity is the only honest way to go. However, you'll notice that requirement seriously interferes with recruitment in the modern world.
If you think you need to avoid chastity to get employees, then you should rethink your workplace, and if you think you need to avoid chastity to get a job, you need to rethink your job application.
how do you know if an advance is unwanted if you don't try your luck?
If the person you are 'trying your luck' with is in a position where your success isn't dependent on luck, then you can be pretty sure the advance is unwanted. When they say "no", you've got a clear signal.
Ergo, the only sane solution is to say that all advances are unwanted in that community, which is called chastity.
You have it backwards. Chastity has nothing to do with the recipient.
Either the community is a place where one of the side-benefits is the possibility of romance/sex
Yeah, that attitude from the people in positions of power isn't working out so well these days, is it? Harvey Weinstein figured that his "community" had a lot of side-benefits, didn't he?
I can't tell you how many folks I know don't vote because their vote's suppressed.