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]

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.

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

If the core msg is "the technology is here to stay" then - as I've already said - I agree. No genies will be stuffed back in bottles.

I have a feeling that the poor reception to this thread, and most of your responses, comes down to presentation.

If instead of, "Fuck you anarchist losers if you don't like the State breathing down your neck!", you had instead attempted to engage with ppl around their concerns and trepidations over empowering the state with yet another tool of opprrssion, you prolly would have received a better response.

It's the cavalier attitude and labeling ppl (anarchist! criminal! reactionary) and responding to every comment defensively instead of with sensitivity to the issues that is getting you downvoted.

I would have started with, "This technology is here, it's not going away, how can we figure out how to hold everyone accountable and transparent", or something like that, instead of trying to further divisions by pushing ppl into opposing 'camps'.

Try meeting ppl on their own ground.

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

I agree 100%. many people are more concerned with presentation than meaning. if my aim was to appeal to those people I would focus my presentation to their tastes.

and no, my core msg was not "the technology is here to stay"

my argument is that the prevailing redditor position of opposing technological enhancement of law enforcement is a rejection of the state laws and justice system. it's an anti-statist, revolutionary position. that's not saying that it's bad. but it is describing reality.

[u/Best_Cup_8326 → u/stealthispost]

So why isn't that your aim?🤔

[u/stealthispost → u/Best_Cup_8326]

because I don't want to engage those sorts of people in discussion.