"They shot multiple people.... &ou were saying that the reason why they had a hard time catching them is because they had Flock cameras in Austin, but then they shut those cameras off for political reasons...."
Said Joe Rogan, inviting Mark Andreeson to talk about Flock, which applies AI to info from municipal cameras to find cars for the police. Andreeson is a big investor in Flock.
Andreeson: "It's used all over the country. It solves crimes every day. We get reports on carjackings with kids in the back seat and their lives get saved because they track them down. So a lot of towns and cities have this and they love it. In cities like Austin with the intense politics, they run into backlash on privacy and surveillance concerns. And so Austin had Flock and then turned it off. And as a consequence, they were not able to find these guys for several days. And then what happened — the late breaking news today is these guys drove into some adjacent town up against Austin and Flock was live in that town. And so Flock tagged them the minute they drove into that town and then they caught the guys. Subsequent to that, the mayor and your chief of police gave a press conference and said, 'We really need to rethink this,' because it's crazy to have the ability to solve crimes and stop crimes and not be able to use it...."
Posts
96 comments:
Just put a time limit on how long authorities are allowed to keep the data. Let's say 48 hours?
If something happens and it's not questioned withing 48 hours, it didn't happened.
As I recall the podcast, Andreeson even said he was amenable to requiring a judicial order out of civil liberties concerns before the police could use the Flock cameras. But that irretrievably turning the system off was batshit crazy, especially under these circumstances.
He doesn't want you to rethink this. He wants you stop thinking and just do it because you are afraid.
"Never take counsel of your fears."- Stonewall Jackson
It would really suck to be a police officer knowing that the info is there but you can't use it.
I get the privacy concerns--but does anyone really think that they don't have it available and will use it in a sufficient emergency (like terror attack?)
Maybe some version of the exclusionary rule should apply--the information can be used to stop crimes and apprehend criminals, but can't be used as evidence to convict. I'm still thinking this through.
…only a benevolent government can use them…
What about the behavior of big tech has lead anyone to believe they can be trusted? Or that they have anything but self-serving goals and intentions?
There is certainly a connection between big tech and why these kids were out there shooting in the first place.
Does this mean only one political party was assumed to be crime spree lawbreakers?: "they shut those cameras off for political reasons." What else could it possibly mean?
Does this mean only one political party was assumed to be crime spree lawbreakers?: "they shut those cameras off for political reasons." What else could it possibly mean?
One race, not one party. They wish to be left alone to shoot up their own neighborhoods, or it's Jim Crow institutional racism. They will vote en bloc for the party that always supinely acquiesces to their demented demands, not the one that only sometimes gives in.
Democrats want to steal your stuff and throw you in jail if you resist.
The only other thing they support is slavery.
This encapsulates everything the democrat party stands for.
Italics begone!
And again I say, begone!
Out, I say!
The usual tricks are not working.
If someone is shooting a gun in public it seems like that would be probable cause to investigate those people and ask who they are.
Stop it!
like this.
nuclear option attempt.
I am curious how this started. Is i still the italics tag?
delete everything up to 1:49 pm
<\i>
Sigh, always wrong
Anyway, lots of feelings about using private video surveillance and AI on this kind of thing. Really don't care for it, but I also don't care for the miscreants that make it possible/necessary.
Can't stop the signal, apparently.
What the Flock?
I {
font-style: normal;
}Worth a try.
Normal 'end italic' commands are not working; permanent italics must be a new Blogger feature.
Andreeson is a bright, interesting guy whose heart and mind are in the right place, but unfortunately the other users of such systems are frequently not similarly inclined. Chicago tried out gunshot-sensing systems and found them to be too effective, and shut them down.
If you use toll road RFID tags, you're getting your license plate scanned regularly, but that's part of the agreement. There is no such agreement on public roads, and unfortunately many municipalities see this as an opportunity to write traffic tickets automatically. I think concerns like these might be why Austin turned them off, but I'm not sure.
Opportunistic crimes are often considered the most difficult to solve because there's no personal motive to be investigated, other than finding sociopaths who are willing to exploit an opportunity. Similarly, the opportunistic mining of misdemeanor infractions is the kind of poisonous dystopian civic behavior that just makes everybody mad. Your tax dollars are paying for your own automated punishment.
The unease about Flock derives from its resemblance to Bentham's eye in the sky prison called the Panopticon. Another thing is that Flock won't just be used to deal with crime. It will be used to track political adversaries.
Why won't Flock be used to punish chickenshit stuff like speeding or red lights?
Our regulatory systems are designed on the premise of scarcity of enforcement resources. If we knew that every legal violation would be punished, the laws would be different.
On the one hand, punishing every single instance of texting while driving would stop a whole metric ton of accidents. On the other, punishing every instance of speeding would not. Which do you think is more likely to be a focus? Hint: the one you can quantify.
Tech methods like cameras and aggregating software replace the Nosy Neighbor Network that we used to have. If you make a Bruen-like analogy to the founding era, every village town and shire had an NNN. No one thought the government needed to be kept from surfing the NNN to find out stuff about suspects. In fact, there wasn't much police in the founding era; the NNN in many ways was the police.
The NNN continued well into the 20th century, until we started having generation gaps. People stopped wanting to deal with their neighbors. The other day on The Five, Dana Perino and Kennedy mentioned that they live in the same building, and they're the only people they know in the building.
And of course you have the dindu nuffin/ no ha visto nada culture of some neighborhoods.
So the camera/aggregator network does essentially what the NNN used to do: sees and notices things in public. It does it at much higher speed, true. And it has no preference as to who and what it reports. But are these differences of degree or kind? CC, JSM
Now?
Can’t even delete anymore.
"My friends get annoyed when I type my messages in italics... I guess it’s a bit too right-leaning for them."
- Google AI joke
Just put a time limit on how long authorities are allowed to keep the data. Let's say 48 hours
Not sure if it is the case at this time, but originally I think that is exactly how it worked. After all, video storage is expensive. Maybe not 48 hours, but more than 2 weeks is quite long. You do need time for someone to report some crimes, and 48 hours wouldn’t cover a weekend theft discovered later.
Let's cut to the chase and all have electronic tracking devices shoved up our asses so our Top Men can catch us committing crimes.
You guys bend over first.
Our Founding Fathers are puking in their graves.
” So a lot of towns and cities have this and they love it. In cities like Austin with the intense politics, they run into backlash on privacy and surveillance concerns.”
I’m guessing it’s more of a “disparate impact” concern.
Blue cities are all disentegrating
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2057175375365455926
Progressives want everyone dead.
There is no expectation of privacy when you're out showing your ass on a public street.
I don't even have an italics function on this tablet.
They turned off the Shot Spotters in Cambridge, MA yesterday. Disparate impact was the specific issue.
I know I should be more concerned about these cameras than I am. Things is, I'm already SO surveilled, it's hard for me to get exercised about one more way.
So, yes, civil liberties at risk, but I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Obviously enough that catching these perps was delayed, but would they have been caught eventually? 🤷♀️
One thing to point out here is that these cameras wouldn’t be necessary if we threw the 2% of people causing these problems in jail.
"... would they have been caught eventually?" Eventually? A whole lotta mess can be made between now and ... eventually.
There is zero chance that this was the first time these people broke the law.
They likely should have been in jail and the only reason they weren’t was Soros prosecutors and judges.
Which is the point of soros prosecutors and judges to make these cameras necessary.
Italics OFF!
I said OFF!
They didn't need to 'catch them'... just do a Bonnie and Clyde on them... another Frank Hammer job. A few examples like that and I bet those kind of crimes stop.... stop dead right there.
"We really need to rethink this, because it's crazy to have the ability to solve crimes and stop crimes and not be able to use it...."
Lefty thinking really is a mental disease.
JAORE @3:56, very true - but we have always accepted some trade-offs. Someone up thread was talking about how frustrating it must be for the police to know the information exists but not be able to use it - we already have that, requiring proper warrants and constitutional procedures for evidence that will be presented at trial. And we accept that the presumption of innocence and requirement that the jury reach a verdict of guilty only if it's beyond reasonable doubt makes it possible for a guilty person to go free.
But both of those are trial-related. They don't prevent the perp from being apprehended - even wrongly, according to constitutional norms - and therefore at least temporarily unable to keep committing crimes. This is about apprehension. I find it a sticky wicket.
Was it boatbuilder, above, who mused on making this kind of evidence usable for apprehension but not at trial? Maybe something like this? I mean, when a person takes the 5th, the jury is instructed not to impute any guilt to that person, but everyone does.
"They turned off the Shot Spotters in Cambridge, MA yesterday. Disparate impact was the specific issue."
The left really, really, really, really, really doesn't want to admit that the 13% really (etc.) does have a different attitude about lots of things, crime simply being one of them.
By which I mean, if the defense asks prosecution witness how someone was apprehended and the witness says that they can't answer that question, then everyone will assume it's because of surveillance cameras, but officially you're not supposed to be assuming that.
testing testing
"They turned off the Shot Spotters in Cambridge, MA yesterday. Disparate impact was the specific issue."
Essex Police have paused their use of live facial recognition technology after evidence showed that the technology has a racial bias.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWGpPgkDI89/
Too much diversity, apparently.
Old Country Lawyer,
> I don't even have an italics function
> on this tablet.
Au contraire, What you don't have is an understanding of how HTML works.
The only way EZ-PASS could be approved in NY was to write into law it couldn't be used to track and fine speeders. They know exactly tallow fast enough everyone is doing as they pass under the sensors and exactly everyone's average between sensors.
And know it's well above the 65 MPH limit. And they're likely also aware that the slow people have more accidents. They undoubtedly cause more. Someone doing 45 in the right environment is causing sudden stops a mile behind them.
"Too much diversity, apparently."
I suspect a lack of diversity was the problem, not an abundance of it.
That is, if we use the word "diverse" with its original meaning, rather than euphemistically to describe certain distinct, narrowly defined sub-populations.
"That is, if we use the word "diverse" with its original meaning..."
One thing you can be sure of- the left doesn't believe in "original meanings" for words- instead, they're trying to muddy the waters when it comes to communicating ideas.
The moronic leftists of Austin strike again…
Incidentally, regarding this incident in greater Austin, it has come to light that one of the gun-stealing, auto-jacking, bullet-spraying criminals is not only, get this, in the USA illegally, but is also on probation under the juvenile justice system, and has had an ICE detainer placed on him. So it would appear he's been busy racking up those sweet, sweet criminal justice Frequent Flier points. Just as he was getting his life together.
Second City Cop and Crime in Wrigleyville/Boystown have an ongoing series of postings about shootings (always of POCs) that, since Chicago turned off Shotspotter, don't get discovered or called in for hours. Sometimes hours that could have made the difference in the victim living.
The race hustlers say crimefighting tech has disparate impact - and they're right. The victims of the crimes are overwhelmingly POCs. By banning the tech, they keep some of their people out of jail, but send more of them to the morgue. CC, JSM
As I commented on the original thread, the cameras were doomed as soon as the members of the Austin City Council realized that the cameras recorded their license plates, and not just the plates of working stiffs
Big brother is not your friend.
Someone broke the internet
Looks like it.
Gold ole Marc A., my boss’s boss’s boss at Loudcloud / Opsware in the early 2Ks. There were loads of brilliant folks there creating stuff we take for granted now. What I learned there from creating early cloud data center environs keep me happily sys admin’ing at Cisco till retirement late 2020.
Jamie--what happens in court is that the defense lawyer files a motion before the trial asking that the prosecution not ask questions about the process used to apprehend the defendant--i.e., the Flock system. If there is an evidentiary rule or law in place, most reasonable judges (Yes, I know...) will rule that the prosecution can't ask those questions. But the prosecution can ask the arresting officer: "When you arrested the defendant, what was he wearing?" Etc.
That is how criminal (and civil) actions proceed--the boundaries get established before the jury hears the questions and answers.
Rob said...
Big brother is not your friend.
Of course not.
Why do you think democrats keep releasing criminals?
They want these surveillance systems in place AND they want criminals terrorizing citizens so they can thrown them in jail when they are caught resisting.
They destroy everything in their path see laguardia
“The race hustlers say crimefighting tech has disparate impact - and they're right. The victims of the crimes are overwhelmingly POCs. By banning the tech, they keep some of their people out of jail, but send more of them to the morgue. CC, JSM”
That’s really the problem - disparate impact on minority communities - especially Black and recent immigrant, but also Hispanic. And we can’t have disparate impacts in law enforcement. Never mind that there is a significant disparate amount of criminality between different ethnicities and races.
Muslim immigrants are esp problematic. Their sexual morality is quite different than ours. Under our morality, rape is rape, and both sexes have agency. In much of Islam, only essentially females have agency. If their males encounter single immodestly dressed women, their rape is almost expected. Not only that, but this attitude is enshrined in their sacred Koran. The males can’t control themselves, so often don’t.
The righr is libertarian. The far-right is anarchist. The left-right nexus is leftist.
Italics please stop...
Well that didn't work. Ugh.
If you believe the austin mayor or police chief will support any anti crime plan is well umm..... I have some bottom land to sell you.
People on my city's subreddit hate Flock cameras. According to them, they not only read the license plate, they scan the car and can recognize the dents and dings, even if the plate is changed.
off
Hmmm
DD you voted for Biden. You have no say in this.
Let's try this…
dems want more crime. Their Chi com paymasters insist.
off
off
Evena Donkey Kong coulda not geta rid of the Italics.
Scenario: Local drug dealer who got off on his last felony charge due to a traffic stop without probable cause.
Gets a new car but keeps old license plate. (bad decision)
Exits I-95 and camera takes photo and local cops know this "bad guy" so they follow him into historically-black area with only two exits. They wait at the main exit that he entered at. LDD has crack, and fentanyl loose in a piece of plastic wrap. He comes up to the exit and (he says) comes to a full stop at the stop sign. Local cop does not have his vehicle camera pointed at that spot. He testifies later that LDD did not come to a full stop, so cop attempts to initiate a traffic stop. Puts on the blues. LDD attempts to flee, turning onto main road, then crossing median and causes accident, hitting or getting hit by three other vehicles. Abandons vehicle in road and attempts to flee on foot. This is captured on bodycam. An off duty cop from another town is present and assists. They tase the LDD and before that happens, he pulls something out of his pocket and onto the ground. After arrest is done, that something is gathered. Turns out to be crack and FOUR grams exactly (with plastic wrapper) of fentanyl, and LDD is charged with trafficking. LDD is denied bail on the trafficking charge by judge who declares LDD to be "the problem" and "evil". LDD is still in county lockup at one year point. His lawyer was able to get a private forensic lab to re-weigh the seized fentanyl to see if the charge will be reduced to simple possession. No results at this point. Lawyer will argue that the use of the camera was unlawful and LDD had no current charges against him and no criminal convictions in the past decade. He was "set up" so to speak. Problem is, less than two years earlier, the toddler son of the LDD and his baby mama, ODed in their car from exposure to fentanyl. LDD claims (privately) it was from the BM and circumstances prior to the exposure uphold that view IMO. No one was charged but the thought is that the child's death had the LDD still under suspicion and investigation and the cops will be using that as a defense for why they followed the LDD that day of the arrest after notification from the camera.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.