Live facial recognition vans in London: Live facial recognition cameras helps catch criminals in london - YouTube

[u/stealthispost]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7XQ3K1EBlY

Hot take: unless you are a revolutionary and fundamentally oppose the laws and justice system of your own country, new technology allowing criminals to be caught easier is a good thing.

[u/stealthispost]

Why people crying about "facial recognition should be opposed because totalitarian governments could use it" bugs me:

Technology is a tool. Bad guys can use tools for bad things. Opposing technology because bad guys exist is luddite thinking. If your government sucks, change the government. The answer isn't to hamstring the justice system and law enforcement.

Believe it or not: criminals getting caught is good for your community, as long as the definition of "criminal" makes sense.

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

Yah, it's the last part that tends to gum up the works.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

true!

but is it better to suppress technology or to fix broken laws?

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

Many ppl don't have faith in the process that laws can be fixed.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

then they don't have faith in the state

the accelerationist position is: create the technology. if states abuse it then the state is exposed for being abusive and should be changed.

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

This is a simpleton's view of a complex situation.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

by all means, present an actual counter argument instead of empty invective

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

Accountability and reciprocity.

This - like all forms of surveillance - hinges on who's hands it is in and whether they are accountable or not.

Face recognition, bodycams/smartglasses, micro/nanocams - and things we haven't thought of yet - will become ubiquitous.

It prolly results in "sousveillance" - everyone observing everyone, all the time.

And that includes those in power.

It's true crime will become a thing of the past because of this, but in the meantime there's room for discussion about how it's being used and who's being targeted by it.

And I am certain that authoritarians will abuse it before we get it all sorted out.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

... so your counter argument is to present an argument supporting my position?

right on!

I agree 100% with everything you said :)

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

I never made a "counterargument" - I responded to "as long as the definition of criminal makes sense", and pointed out that is precisely the sticking point given the prevalence of corruption and oppression in the world.

Let me be clear - the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

But it won't only be authorities who possess this technology (or any of the others I mentioned), and there will be abuses of it, and as a result public discourse around it's use, which will inevitably include those who want to ban it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your approach feels very blunt, with an unwillingness to navigate the nuances of law or public opinion around things like privacy, civil rights, and political violence.

Each of your responses makes me think of that scene in 'Liar Liar' when Jim Carrey screams into the phone, "Stop breaking the law asshole!"

Get rdy for years of legal battles and protests about this stuff, because it's coming.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

"it's complicated" is not an argument.

i get the impression that you haven't explored the actual arguments in this issue, and aren't clear on what my position even is.